Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

amendment to Section 7.410(b): Insert the following language in (b) between the word “study to” and the word “substantiate”: (i) weigh additional conflicts and congestion for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic; and (ii). Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 4. ACTION: An Ordinance Adopting an Amended Urban Renewal Plan for the Downtown Urban Renewal Dis- trict, Formerly the Central Eugene Project Richie Weinman, Community Development Director, introduced the item. He provided a brief history of the item and its connection to the Downtown Plan. Mr. Weinman reviewed the public involvement that had occurred in conjunction with the ordinance. He said few comments opposed the amendments and there was much enthusiasm about redeveloping downtown. He briefly noted the amendments, to increase the indebtedness, extend the life of the district, and rename the district. Mayor Piercy called for comments and questions. Councilor Bettman asked City Attorney Klein questions about the legal language in the ordinance and findings, clarifying that citizens would be able to challenge projects in the plan in the future, but not whether the provision in the plan that purported to authorize the expenditure was consistent with State law, or the process used to adopt the plan. If a citizen chose to refer the ordinance, they would be referring the plan amendments. Councilor Bettman further clarified with Mr. Klein that the mention of the West Broadway Plan in the findings was to provide background and meet State statutory requirements. The findings expressed the council’s intent but did not preclude it from spending the funding on something other than the plan. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to adopt an ordinance adopting an amended urban renewal plan for the Downtown Urban Renewal District, formerly the Central Eugene Project. Councilor Bettman objected to claims of public involvement given the complexity of what was presented to the public. She also objected to the scheduling of the process, through which the council authorized the expenditure of the BEDI/HUD money without a project so that the time elapsed on citizens’ ability to refer that decision to the ballot. People in the community had little understanding of the complexity of the issue and the financing. She said everyone wanted a successful downtown. The council had never explicitly offered the public a conceptual plan and asked what it was worth, or how the money could be spent to maximize the public benefit. Unless that question was asked, public input was constrained by the lack of understanding. The council also did not ask the public if it wanted to demolish two historic buildings. She said the BEDI brownfield grant was introduced to the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations as a grant for use on vacant properties, not to displace existing or demolish existing buildings. She did not support subsidizing commercial retail in competition with existing local retailers. She opposed the motion. Councilor Zelenka agreed that the development tools under discussion were complex, which was why he had pressed for a transparent and clear public outreach process. He suggested the question was not whether the City should subsidize the developers, but rather should it invest in downtown to revitalize it without raising anyone’s taxes. Councilor Zelenka asked if the ordinance obligated the City to any particular action. Mr. Weinman said no. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2007 Page 6 Work Session