CC MInutes - 07/16/07 Public Hearing

Home Browse Search

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