Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Bill 4949, an ordinance concerning public improvements. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman determined that Councilor Ortiz and Councilor Pryor accepted the following as a <br />friendly amendment to Section 7.410(b): Insert the following language in (b) between the word “study to” <br />and the word “substantiate”: (i) weigh additional conflicts and congestion for pedestrian, bicycle, and <br />vehicular traffic; and (ii). <br /> <br /> Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br /> <br />4. ACTION: <br />An Ordinance Adopting an Amended Urban Renewal Plan for the Downtown Urban Renewal <br />District, Formerly the Central Eugene Project <br /> <br />Richie Weinman, Community Development Director, introduced the item. He provided a brief history of the <br />item and its connection to the Downtown Plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Weinman reviewed the public involvement that had occurred in conjunction with the ordinance. He said <br />few comments opposed the amendments and there was much enthusiasm about redeveloping downtown. He <br />briefly noted the amendments, to increase the indebtedness, extend the life of the district, and rename the <br />district. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy called for comments and questions. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman asked City Attorney Klein questions about the legal language in the ordinance and <br />findings, clarifying that citizens would be able to challenge projects in the plan in the future, but not whether <br />the provision in the plan that purported to authorize the expenditure was consistent with State law, or the <br />process used to adopt the plan. If a citizen chose to refer the ordinance, they would be referring the plan <br />amendments. Councilor Bettman further clarified with Mr. Klein that the mention of the West Broadway <br />Plan in the findings was to provide background and meet State statutory requirements. The findings <br />expressed the council’s intent but did not preclude it from spending the funding on something other than the <br />plan. <br /> <br />Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to adopt an ordinance adopting an <br />amended urban renewal plan for the Downtown Urban Renewal District, formerly the Cen- <br />tral Eugene Project. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman objected to claims of public involvement given the complexity of what was presented to <br />the public. She also objected to the scheduling of the process, through which the council authorized the <br />expenditure of the BEDI/HUD money without a project so that the time elapsed on citizens’ ability to refer <br />that decision to the ballot. People in the community had little understanding of the complexity of the issue <br />and the financing. She said everyone wanted a successful downtown. The council had never explicitly <br />offered the public a conceptual plan and asked what it was worth, or how the money could be spent to <br />maximize the public benefit. Unless that question was asked, public input was constrained by the lack of <br />understanding. The council also did not ask the public if it wanted to demolish two historic buildings. She <br />said the BEDI brownfield grant was introduced to the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations as <br />a grant for use on vacant properties, not to displace existing businesses or demolish existing buildings. She <br />did not support subsidizing commercial retail in competition with existing local retailers. She opposed the <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2007 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />