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
Ms. Bettman stated she would vote against the motion as she supported option 2 proposed by staff, which <br />was Beam rehabilitating the Center Court and Washburn buildings and redeveloping the “Aster pit” site, <br />including moving forward with the Kemper 106-unit housing project on the “Sears pit” site. She said that <br />would have allowed citizen input on how best to redevelop the remainder of the downtown footprint. She <br />did not think a range of options had been fully examined. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said the Beam proposal was less expensive and could be done more quickly and then the City <br />could determine if the housing at the Sears site, which could have been completed by now if the City had not <br />halted the project, could stimulate other redevelopment that did not require City subsidies and cause less <br />disruption to existing businesses. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling said he initially favored KWG to be the sole developer of the project as he was not that <br />impressed with the Beam proposal, but in the interests of moving West Broadway redevelopment forward he <br />was willing to agree to both developers for the project. He supported the motion related to Beam and was <br />not willing to scuttle the entire project just because it did not reflect his first choice. He wanted to move <br />forward with redevelopment for the betterment of the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said he would support the motion. He was disappointed at the lack of a unified voice from the <br />council. He said it was important to recognize that when the majority spoke it was the will of the body and <br />that will was to move forward with both developers. He felt that the issues that were being revisited had <br />already been decided. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy expressed her pleasure with the direction the City was moving and was supportive of both <br />development proposals, which provided unique opportunities for a part of the community. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz said that separating the MOUs was not negative and would allow more consideration of an <br />immense commitment of public funds and assure that each step was thoughtfully deliberated. She was in <br />favor of as much public involvement in the process as possible. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka remarked that the number one issue on the recent City Hall survey was revitalization of <br />downtown. He hoped the West Broadway redevelopment would help achieve that and understood and <br />shared community concern about the cost and impact of the project, which was why it was important to <br />proceed cautiously with a transparent process and public involvement. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she felt it was important to speak up when a mistake was being made and she regarded the <br />project as a very large mistake because it had not been determined how the funds, which were intended to <br />benefit low-income people, could be better spent. She felt the funds were being spent unwisely and would <br />oppose it. She hoped the project would fall through and the council could return to option 2. Referring to <br />Table 5 in Chapter 5 of the Urban Renewal Plan report, she said it was supposed to represent project <br />activities and estimated costs. She formally requested that more details be provided for the project activities <br />so she could understand what they meant and how they would be paid for. Ms. Cutsogeorge said the chart <br />was staff's best estimate in March 2007 of the general nature of the development project and as yet no better <br />information on the exact nature of the project was available. She emphasized that it was a plan and not a <br />commitment to those specific activities and estimated costs. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said she also hoped the project failed and thought the council would regret it if it went forward. <br />She said that current businesses could be lost and possibly new ones would not succeed. She was opposed <br />to destroying things that were doing well. She questioned whether public input to the West Broadway <br />Advisory Committee would make a difference. Mr. Braud replied that it would be up to the committee and <br />the urban design consultant to determine how it would receive and consider public input. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 18, 2007 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.