My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC MInutes - 07/16/07 Public Hearing
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2007
>
CC MInutes - 07/16/07 Public Hearing
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 10:29:57 AM
Creation date
7/15/2008 11:11:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
7/16/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
money was allowed to be spent on street repair it would be something he could appreciate, but he acknowl- <br />edged that urban renewal moneys borrow against the potential future increase in the value of the properties <br />that the City was “dealing with.” He said without the project, the values were not there and there was no <br />actual money. He underscored that it was not as though General Fund dollars were being spent that might <br />be spent on something else instead. <br /> <br />Councilor Taylor said she attended the City Club at which Mr. Kemper had spoken. She shared that she <br />had been alarmed to hear him say the development would be “up-scale” and that existing businesses would <br />have to relocate. She asserted that he referred to “the right kind of tenants.” She felt this did not mean <br />every kind of tenant. <br /> <br />Councilor Taylor said the situation had gotten scary as the council had moved past a point at which it had <br />become too late. She opined that it now seemed the City could not get out of the situation, that it was a <br />“done deal.” She recalled that she had initially hoped that the City would only work with Beam Develop- <br />th <br />ment for the larger development and with KWG Partners to develop the Charnelton/10 Avenue site. She <br />asserted that the City could have had housing units built at the latter site by now had the larger development <br />not “waylaid” it. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka said he had made the motion to form the WBAC in order to garner more public <br />involvement. He reiterated that all of the activities related to the urban renewal plan amendments were at the <br />direction of the City Council. He stressed that the council asked staff to bring back all of the pieces that <br />would put the council in the position where it could “say yes.” He urged anyone who wanted to get involved <br />in the process to attend a WBAC meeting. He added that it was contradictory to criticize the project for <br />being a done deal and simultaneously criticize it for not having enough detail. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy averred that the council was putting into place things that “create possibilities for usage” <br />rather than the inevitability of that use. She also felt that they were working toward a “win-win” situation <br />and trying to find a way to build something “together.” <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman opined that there was a very big difference between a public process that said “We have <br />over $50 million in public money to invest in this community, How should it be invested for the greatest <br />possible good?” and the public process that was on the table, which she felt to be a constrained project <br />concept by “1.2 developers.” She asserted that they were saying this is what we are going to do, how do we <br />“put lipstick on this pig.” She felt staff had it both ways. She alleged that when staff wants to say <br />something could change, that it was “still in formation,” staff would say there were no details and it was not <br />a “done deal.” She thought the advisory committee had a “very constrained scope” and it was being asked <br />how it wanted to design the project and there was no legal requirement that its recommendations were <br />reflected in the final project. <br /> <br /> <br />4. PUBLIC HEARING and POSSIBLE ACTION: <br /> <br />An Ordinance Amending Section 2.090 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Declaring an Immediate <br />Effective Date <br /> <br />City Attorney Glenn Klein explained that the purpose of the proposed ordinance was to make the Eugene <br />Code consistent with a recent change to State law. He said that following the passage of Ballot Measure 37 <br />the City Council adopted an ordinance beginning a process to implement it. He stated that if a claim is filed <br />and the regulation remained in place 180 days later, then under Measure 37, the property owner could go to <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2007 Page 11 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.