05/30/1990 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e III. DOWNTOWN REDESIGN PROCESS In March, the council reviewed the draft of a process for redesign of downtown public space and directed staff to return with some revisions. Jan Bohman, Planning and Development Department, briefly reviewed two possible time lines created by staff for council's consideration and provided the council with an analysis of the potential benefits and drawbacks of each. Ms. Bohman said that Time line A attempts to respond to the council's direction ~ith respect to shortening the entire downtown redesign process and allows the public to make a decision on a specific downtown design at a November election. She noted that a drawback of Time line A, however, is that it does restrict the public participation process to two months and requires that the draft Design Principles component be pulled out of the Retail Task Force's final report before the complete report has been approved. As differentiated from Time line A, Ms. Bohman stated that Time line B requires council action by the end of the year in preparation for a March election. Although Time line B prolongs the entire decision process, it does allow for a more extended public participation process. Ms. Bohman noted that one potential pitfall of Time line B is that it requires the expenditure of moneys on design development prior to the election raising the possibility of public criticism. Another issue of concern with Time line B is that construction of Phase I would take place through the summer which has been a concern of affected businesses in similar projects in the past. e Ms. Bohman said that upon consideration of both time lines, the Retail Task Force, the Downtown Commission, and the Citizen Involvement Committee have all recommended Time line B, particularly because it allows more time for public involvement. Staff also recommends the approval of Time line B. Ms. Bascom noted that in the past the council discussed the possibility of getting feedback on this project during the Eugene Celebration. In response, Ms. Bohman said that having a design review during the Eugene Celebration is still being considered as a component of this. In addition, this design review element would be easier to accommodate under Time Line B. Mr. Rutan noted that while he is disappointed with the idea of extending the . time required to make a decision on this project, he is supportive of the staff recommendation for Time line B because it allows for greater public participation. Mr. Green concurred. Mr. Holmer expressed concern that under Time line B, design development, construction, and bidding are all scheduled to begin before the' election. He added that he felt this would be in direct opposition to the concept of citizen-involved decision making. Acknowledging the possible tensions that this time line might create in the community, Mr. Boles explained that the intent of the phased-option process is to allow for minimal financial expenditure before the final decision is made. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 30, 1990 Page 3