12/08/1986 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

B. Proposed Projects e Ms. Stevia. rt reviewed the agenda attachment titled Proposed Projects Relationship in the Renewal Plan Update to the 1968 Renewal Pl an and the Adopted Downtown Plan. She said the Urban Renewal Plan ca 11 ed for consolidation of parking, and the Downtown Plan called for the financial planning necessary to provide new parking structures downtown. She said the Mall Redesign, which included the central plaza, was part of the Urban Renewal Plan and called for pedestrian streetscapes downtown. Responding to Mr. Hansen's question, Ms. Stewart said the business loan program was used to address publicly identified policy issues and to leverage private investment. - Ms. Stewart said the West Park Block Improvements referred to the block at 8th and Oak, containing the fountain with the fish sculpture. Mr. Holmer asked whether the Central Transit Facility included any consideration of future gasoline costs. Ms. Stewart said she did not think gas prices had been considered, but she added that the Public Works Department was leading the study and coul d advise on that. Mr. Gleason said the study assumed substantial growth in transit ridership. Mr. Holmer asked about potential impact on parking facilities. Mr. Gleason said parking projections subsumed greater transit ridership, so any decrease in ridership would increase needs for parking. Mr. Holmer requested background figures on that. Ms. Stewart reminded members that design concepts, like the one for a new public plaza, had not been adopted with the Downtown Plan, but were included as references. e Responding to Mr. Hansen's question, Ms. Stewart said the 1984 Downtown Plan had not addressed the expansion of Urban Renewal boundaries. She added that the plan had addressed linkages to the Fifth Avenue area and to the river. Mr. Byrne said financial assumptions included tax-increment flow on the expanded Urban Renewal area, beginning in about the fifth year. He said no projections currently were available without the expansion. Ms. Schue asked about the process concerning design concepts and the adopted plan. Ms. Decker said the Design Element of the plan had identified five ideas or concepts, which the Downtown Commission and the Planning Commission had deemed worthy of inclusion, but not of actual adoption as policy. She said the concepts were intended to be the subject of future work and study. Ms. Schue noted that the concepts were included in financial analyses, adding that she found the distinction between concepts and adopted policies confusing. Ms. Decker sa i d a similar process was used in neighborhood refinement plans, which could be changed. Mr. Byrne said finances for the concepts were included because the Downtown Commission had done the work for proposed projects to demonstrate feasibility, but it had not yet taken formal action requiring funding. Mr. Gleason said all projects would require council approval, without regard for the plan. Ms. Wooten asked whether the new public plaza assumed that Willamette Street would be opened between 8th and 10th Avenues. Ms. Stewart said the design e MINUTES--City Council Dinner/Work Session December 8, 1986 Page 4