04/28/1986 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e . 2. Some testimony at the hearing will question the relationship between the process followed by the City of Eugene and the process followed by the University of Oregon when it developed the North Campus Plan. This plan designated a portion of the area in question for open space and a portion for research. The University is in the process now of amending the North Campus Plan. Ms. Decker told the council that there may be testimony on broader issues about the Riverfront Park project as well as on the issues identified here. She introduced Mr. Sercombe, in order to explain the process by which testimony may be heard. Ms. Ehrman asked if the City Council adopted the North Campus Plan, and Ms. Decker said no: some city staff participated in the development of the plan, but dealt with it in terms of the University's needs, not the needs of the City of Eugene. Ms. Bascom asked about the update of the North Campus Plan, and Ms. Decker replied that a Riverfront Subcommittee has been identified for updating the plan but need information from the developers of the Riverfront Park before decisions can be made. Mr. Sercombe clarified the legal ramifications of Goal Five, which requires the City Council to look at the entire jurisdiction during the comprehensive planning process, and to identify a list of resources which are significant or valuable. This process safeguards areas which need protection by providing an inventory or list which meets certain criteria. If development is planned for any of the sites on this inventory, a type of environmental impact statement is required. Mr. Sercombe explained that Mr. Urquhart will provide testimony that the riverfront site is significant and needs to be put on the Goal Five inventory. He also said that LUBA will ask why the site was not put on the list in the past. The City staff will not recommend that it be put on the list because the study did not find the site meritorious. Mr. Sercombe advised the City Council that they may adopt the findings of the staff, or decide that it does need to be open space and direct staff to do the environmental analysis in order to present more findings; the council could fail to enact the plan, regardless of the consequences. Mayor Obie referred to materials distributed to the council members and Ms. Decker replied that the report readopts the initial findings about the Riverfront Park Study. Ms. Ehrman asked if testimony in general opposition to the plan would be accepted at the hearing and Mr. Sercombe replied that the Mayor can explain to the citizens that this type of general testimony will be disregarded, but accepted. Ms. Ehrman asked how long it would take to expedite the plan once a decision is made. Mr. Sercombe replied that if tonight's decision is appealed, it will go first to LUBA and then to the L-COG Board of Directors, probably taking four or five months. At the same time, the City is appealing the previous decision of the court of appeals; a decision on that appeal is due in July 1986. Ms. Ehrman asked for a status report on the Riverfront Park. Ms. Brody MINUTES--City Council Dinner/Work Session April 28, 1986 Page 2