My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2011
>
CC Agenda - 06/13/11 Meeting
>
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/10/2011 3:02:39 PM
Creation date
6/10/2011 2:23:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
6/13/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
supported the LEED certification. He said the goal for the developer was a gold LEED rating. He <br />anticipated the building would be 26 percent more energy-efficient than it would be had it been built to <br />code. <br /> <br />Dan Neal <br />, 3555 Agate Street, spoke in support of the MUPTE application for the Paradigm on Pearl. He <br />shared a large-scale rendering of the project and said it was designed to embody community goals for <br />compact urban growth and sustainable development. Mr. Neal said the developer decided to attain LEED <br />certification at the gold or platinum level and to include a private underground parking facility. The <br />developer had earned 440 MUPTE points, which was three times the all-time previous high. He <br />emphasized the importance of MUPTE to the project design as it enabled the developer to include many <br />of the features that supported the LEED certification. Mr. Neal noted that in spite of the MUPTE, the <br />City would begin to collect taxes immediately on the commercial part of the project. He believed the <br />project would enhance the character of the area and strengthen the connections between mid-town and <br />downtown. He asked the council to support the application. <br /> <br />Zachary Vishanoff <br />, no address given, opposed the MUPTE. He pointed out the City was using it to <br />increase densities in the densest neighborhood in the city. He suggested there was a connection between <br />such increased densities and what he termed the “micro-riots” that took place in the neighborhood, which <br />were costly to address. <br /> <br />Mr. Vishanoff found the procession for Officer Kilcullen to be valid, but opposed the Champions Parade <br />as unsustainable and unjustified. He said such events should occur only in extraordinary circumstances. <br /> <br />Returning to the MUPTE, Mr. Vishanoff believed that it contributed to the decline of the neighborhood. <br />He said the City could do infill or “instead-of-fill.” It was doing “instead-of-fill” when it removed part of <br />the neighborhood. Mr. Vishanoff believed the developer in question was a good one with good projects <br />in the neighborhood. However, Mr. Vishanoff did not support the project in question. He did not think <br />the tax break was justified in light of other City funding priorities. He believed that smart growth was <br />very divisive. He asked the council to set the MUPTE aside for a deeper conversation about its impact on <br />the West University neighborhood. <br /> <br />Gary Heldt <br />, 3477 Onyx Street, expressed frustration about the City’s May 2 administrative order <br />increasing fees in the Stormwater Program. He said the program was already one of the most expensive <br />per capita in the state. The proposed increase of 11 percent would take effect on May 13 without council <br />intervention. Mr. Heldt said that the Public Work Department estimated $1 million was needed to <br />decommission dry walls, but the actual work would be accomplished by property owners. He asked if <br />any councilors had reviewed the basis for the increase. Mr. Heldt pointed out that there was $2.6 million <br />in surplus in the program. <br /> <br />Mr. Heldt said the City’s Stormwater Program was one of the worst in terms of expense versus <br />meaningful results. The department wrongly assumed that runoff from roofs contributed to pollution but <br />had no testing to demonstrate that. The Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) tested 500 rooftop <br />samples and found no measurable pollution levels. However, Public Works was uncooperative in regard <br />to rooftop testing. He believed the department was spending millions to manage imaginary levels of <br />pollution. Mr. Heldt said that School District 4J was the City’s largest customer as about half of its total <br />impervious surface was roof. He suggested that one could conclude that there was no justification for <br />$1.3 million of the $3 million the City had assessed property owners since the program’s inception. <br /> <br />Kevin Matthews <br />, PO Box 1588, Eugene, advocated for high-quality dense development in the downtown <br />area as key to the implementation of Envision Eugene and other City goals. He believed residents <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 9, 2011 Page 3 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.