Item 4A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Clark said that the neighborhood group suggested that Lidar was a more advanced way to understand the geology of the area, and if that was the case, it seemed like a good idea. However, he wanted to know more about the science involved. Mr. Klein repeated that the City was relying on the experts it had retained. Mr. Clark asked if the City’s experts recommended such research. Mr. Klein did not know. He said that staff could provide that information to the council. Mr. Clark said if what the City was being told was true about the instability of the soils, he was concerned about what other undeveloped residential lands in the south hills might exist with unsafe slopes. Mayor Piercy said if the council was to separate the two issues, she questioned the best time to do that. Mr. Klein said it would be useful to have that direction prior to December 10. Ms. Bettman suggested the council make the decision about separating the items at the executive session that would occur before December 10. C. WORK SESSION: MULTI-UNIT PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION The council was joined for the item by Urban Services Manager Richie Weinman. Mr. Weinman provided the staff report, reporting that the program was established to encourage housing in the core area and was enabled by State statute. It impacted feasibility, location, and quality by providing incentives for financing, setting a boundary for eligibility, and by requiring applicants to address quality standards. Sixteen applications had been approved since 1978. The statutes had changed over time and had been expanded to include condominiums and transit corridors. He invited questions. Mayor Piercy solicited comments from the council. Ms. Bettman said she learned there were two other expansions the council had processed, one an expansion th in anticipation of a co-housing project and one that encompassed the Tate project at 13 and Olive. She had not meant to exclude those from the boundaries she would propose. She clarified the number of units that received the tax exemption with Mr. Weinman. Mr. Weinman called attention to the listing of projects. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about the council’s receipt of information about the characteris- tics of MUPTE applicants, Mr. Weinman said that the information was included at the request of Mr. Zelenka. Ms. Bettman questioned whether the information was relevant to the decision given the application criteria did not address the characteristics. Mr. Clark said he had done some research into the issue and had learned that there were two different kinds of housing being built in the area in concern, and the type that was supported by the MUFTE were more traditional type of apartment complexes that could serve both students and low-income residents. Those without MUPTE support were generally market-rate housing and were profitable. The City was experienc- ing a surge of construction of apartment units that were five and six bedroom units aimed at students because the City’s parking requirements stipulated only one space per unit, which made them more affordable and profitable. It was becoming less affordable to build standard one- and two-bedroom units, which needed MUPTE support. Mr. Weinman indicated the City was also receiving MUPTE applications for units with more bedrooms. He could not say there was any consistency in bedroom numbers. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 22, 2007 Page 7 Work Session