CC Minutes - 10/22/07 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Speaking to the glossary and the definition for low-income housing, Ms. Bettman objected that the definition for low-income housing was 80 percent of the median income of families or persons in Lane County, when the definition for affordable housing was 60 percent of the median income, which she believed was $38,000 in Lane County directly after the census. She speculated it had increased to $42,000 and maintained that the City had redefined low-income housing for the purpose of the ordinance. She asked staff to provide a definition of low-income housing consistent with the State definition . Mr. Weinman said that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defined “low-income” as 80 percent of median and very low-income as 50 percent of median; usually, “affordable” referred to median-income housing. Ms. Bettman requested that information. Mr. Clark requested information comparing property tax revenue yields if the projects supported by MUPTE had not been built. Mr. Pryor determined from Mr. Weinman that the boundary was expanded in 2004 after about a year of council discussion. Mr. Weinman said the boundaries were expanded because when the area had been shrunk in size previously, no multi-family development occurred at all. The council later discussed the tool as part of the tools available to help downtown and decided to expand the boundary. There had been some more limited development employing the MUPTE since that time. Responding to a question from Mr. Pryor about the impact of the MUPTE in terms of enabling development, Mr. Weinman said the appraiser he had spoken to felt the MUPTE was pretty important to fostering development, and that the City would not see much development without it. That which did occur could be of poorer quality. Mr. Pryor suggested that the activity seemed to follow the boundary. Mr. Weinman agreed. Mr. Zelenka pointed out to Mr. Pryor said the vast majority of multi-family developments were in the West University Neighborhood, and 11 of 14 developments had not received the MUPTE but had still been built since 2004. When he drove around the neighborhood he saw a lot of development underway that was occurring without the MUPTE. He said “one of them was big.” For that reason, he would support the motion. Mayor Piercy suggested that the question might be whether there was a net gain for the community in terms of the quality of buildings constructed in the urban core. Ms. Bettman said if the City wanted higher quality building, it would want it all over the community. She said that was a code issue and required design standards. It made no sense to pay people to build “prettier projects” or forgive them their taxes for that reason. Ms. Bettman asked for information about the standards the City had in place for quality. What were the demonstrable differences between the qualities that the City received with the public benefits listed and how were those benefits weighed? Mr. Weinman was unsure that staff would be able to do so but indicated it would try. Ms. Bettman suggested that staff examine the last three applications. Mr. Weinman pointed out that staff did not weigh that information but provided it to the council for evaluation. Ms. Bettman said the characteristics she saw looked similar to those she saw being built in her neighborhood, and she questioned why they necessarily were considered higher quality. Mr. Clark was also concerned that the City had appropriate development and that it did not create a burden on public safety or rental housing enforcement. He wanted to motivate quality development and minimize conflicts with neighbors. He thought that it would be useful to have information about UO enrollment MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 22, 2007 Page 11 Work Session