My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2007
>
CC Agenda - 09/10/07 Meeting
>
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:25:19 PM
Creation date
9/6/2007 11:00:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
9/10/2007
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
<br />Ms. Taylor asked what would happen if a business did not want to relocate. Mr. Braud said the City’s <br />commitment was to assist all of the businesses that were affected as part of the project. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said he assumed that tenants would address with their landlords what could be done legally. He <br />understood that the MOUs were non-binding and represented the URA’s expectations of the other parties. <br />He said the MOU expected the developers to participate in good faith with the URA and the committee in <br />the creation of a relocation plan but did not require the developers to assume any specific responsibility for <br />relocation of businesses. Mr. Braud agreed with that statement. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka observed that the MOUs were virtually the same with the exception of project elements related <br />to properties and established the relationship between developers and the URA. He said that the recommen- <br />dations from the committee would be incorporated into more detailed plans by the developers and those <br />plans would form the basis of the development agreements, which would come before the council for <br />approval. He listed the items the committee had been charged with addressing, including a reloca- <br />tion/transition plan for existing businesses, and stated he did not recall a commitment by the council to hold <br />harmless any businesses. He said that property owners would be fairly compensated, but renters were in a <br />more precarious position; however, there had not been any discussion of an agreement with tenants and it <br />was outside the purview of government to tell renters what to do once owners sold buildings. He said that <br />was the reason the committee was asked to develop a transition plan. He asked what the next steps in the <br />process were. <br /> <br />Mr. Braud said the committee would continue to work on the items charged to it and was scheduled to finish <br />that effort in August. He said other processes, such as the HUD Section 108 loan application and urban <br />renewal plan amendment process, were underway. He said the council would review the committee <br />recommendations in mid-September and provide direction to staff on negotiations and deal points for the <br />final development agreements. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy asked if MOUs were binding unless specifically designated as non-binding. Mr. Klein stated <br />it was not the title of the document, but rather the provisions of the document itself that determined whether <br />it was binding. He said that agreement by all parties that the MOUs were non-binding should be explicitly <br />stated in the provisions to ensure that interpretation by the courts. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman noted the MOU reference to affordable housing and asserted that affordable housing was very <br />different than low-income housing and because it was explicitly stated as affordable housing that would <br />appear to preclude low-income housing. Mr. Braud said it was a matter of terminology and the intent was to <br />be clear that the project would include a low-income housing component consistent with the developers’ <br />proposals. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked that the MOUs be amended to include both affordable and low-income housing. She <br />would offer that as a friendly amendment when there was a motion on the table. She reviewed project <br />activity to-date and the council’s action at various points in the process. She asked if any more public <br />hearings were planned. Mr. Braud said there were additional opportunities for public involvement through <br />the committee’s public workshops. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman hoped there would be additional public hearings as all of the previous hearings had transpired <br />before there were specific development projects before the council. She acknowledged that the council had <br />not specifically addressed relocation issues or plans, but did not think that holding businesses harmless <br />should be taken off the table; the advisory committee should examine that issue and she hoped it would be a <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 18, 2007 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.