10/31/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Councilor Schue said she might interpret the facts as presented by Mr. Obie differently. She stated that a shift in business and retail operations to the north had occurred since the mall was constructed, explaining that the section of Willamette Street between 10th and 11th avenues had been a major retail block. Although she wished to improve the section of Willarnette, she did not think the council discussion had addressed those features still existing within that section. She felt that it would be more appropriate for the City to intensify the present retail operations than to attempt to rebuild the original type of retail in that area, especially considering the issue of the proposed major retail center. She stressed that many unknown factors were involved in the proposed reopening and that spending public funds on such a problematic proposal was inappropriate. Addressing the issue of concerns by LTD, she said that convenience was a major concern of bus patrons. She said the City had a goal to encourage bus transportation and that Springfield employers would not agree to spending additional money to relocate the LTD center. While she acknowledged that the proposal was worthy of study, she did not agree with approving the reopening at this time. Councilor Hansen said he did not view that section of Willamette as a major retail area, stating that he saw the opportunity to develop that section with a broader mixed use. He said opportunities existed to provide reinvestment into that area and to reduce the size of the mall. Councilor Bascom said she supported the motion. While she acknowledged the concerns of bus patrons, she said she questioned the stated need to relocate the L TD Transit Center and the eastern stations at the present time. She fel t e that the reopening would create the beginning of a southern !Jateway to the ma ll. In addition, Ms. Bascom stated that accessibility to the downtown was the major factor involved in the reopening. Councilor Holmer felt that items a. and b. of Option 2 were very clear and explicit but that item c. added additional support to the proposal by providing for further consideration of the timing and financial impacts of the reopening. He said that item c. was helpful in supporting the basis for the motion. Councilor Ball supported Ms. Bascom's comments on LTD regarding the reopening; he said the City should not hamper the ability of LTD to moVE~ its patrons through the community. He said the fact that LTD and LCC were operating in an area of limited traffic did not mean that it was the only arE!a in which they cou 1 d opera te. He stressed that L TD and the LCC Downtown Center were urban functions and could exist in that environment. Councilor Ehrman said she opposed the motion based on the cost of the proposed reopening, stating that the funds could be better utilized. She suggested that the overhead structure on 10th Avenue be removed and that the City evaluate its impact on that section of the street. She stated that she was well aware of the 10th and 11th Avenue section because she maintained an office in the Schaeffer Building. She said the poor condition of the bottom half of the building contributed to the existing loitering problem. She said she supported the deletion of the turnout proposal because she questioned whether the proposed athletic club which it was supposed to benefit would - become a reality. She said the input from the Traffic Engineering Department had also raised some question on the turnout. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 31, 1984 Page 5