Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

with the City’s goals for livability, compatibility, and prosperity. Staff believed the City needed some development incentive to attract quality development and encourage it in the most appropriate locations. Mr. Zelenka considered MUPTE to be a blunt tool that was not good at achieving the City’s land use goals. While he acknowledged the economics of each project was different, Mr. Zelenka believed the determining factor in project profitability was the developer’s equity rather than the MUPTE. If a project had sufficient equity, MUPTE was unnecessary. The circumstance of each builder was important, and he did not think it was the City’s business to ensure that all builders could build what they wanted where they wanted. He suggested that rather than focus on the amount of taxes collected after the exemption ended, the council focus on whether the development would have happened anyway. He believed that it would have happened in the West and South University neighborhoods, particularly give the amount of non-incentivized construction that had been built. Mr. Zelenka distinguished between neighborhood input that was heard and neighborhood input that was acted upon. He did not think the mere fact of being heard increased compatibility. He believed the City should consider a “cadre” of tools that included neighborhood consultation modeled on the City’s requirements for planned unit developments. Mr. Farr suggested to Mr. Zelenka that no one was saying that consultation equated to compatibility, but that it was a mechanism to increase compatibility. He asked when the proposed forum would occur. Ms. Laurence hoped it occurred later in the fall. Mr. Farr asked if the City tracked the transitory nature of neighborhood. Ms. Laurence said the City would soon release a neighborhood analysis that included the percentage breakdown of renters and homeowners. Mr. Farr asked if staff asked forum participants if they were home owners or renters. Ms. Laurence said the question could be asked. Mr. Farr encouraged that. Mr. Farr suggested that the program could be considered successful if increasing taxes was a measure of success. He believed there was a conflict between the City’s goals for more affordable housing and compact urban development because the regulations to increase compact growth slowed the development process down. He believed the community was leaving single-family dwellings in place in locations that were best for multi-family housing and that was also contrary to what it wanted in regard to compact growth. Speaking to the application of MUPTE in the WUN, Mr. Farr suggested that if the City delayed for-profit development in that area the University of Oregon would step in and provide its own tax- exempt development in the area. Mr. Clark emphasized the lack of affordable housing in Eugene. He supported the staff recommendation because MUPTE supported the goals of Envision Eugene, created development along transportation corridors in accordance with Envision Eugene, and because more multi-family housing development could reduce local unemployment. Mr. Clark endorsed the proposed forum. Mr. Clark expressed interest in more information about comparative land costs and the time value of land costs to inform the council’s discussion about the question of whether construction would have happened in the absence of MUPTE. He questioned what percentage of land purchased at a lower price still existed, or if the community had exhausted the supply of land that could support more affordable housing. Ms. Ortiz reiterated her opposition to any additional MUPTE applications in the West University area, and for that reason opposed any further work in that neighborhood. She encouraged that action be taken thth soon on the remaining MUPTE application. She advocated for Trainsong/6 and 7 as the first area for consideration of MUPTE because of the planning that was already occurring in adjacent areas. She MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2011 Page 3 Work Session