07/08/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . Mr. Haws asked for clarification as to the staff's recommendation. Mr. Smith e stated that the Civic Center Commission would present alternatives to the council regarding both ways, open and closed; then the council could decide. Mr. Gleason noted that area was shown in the master plan as a pedestrian way, but the council requested a re-examination of this area. The design issue would be restricted to a 35-foot width, but he feels the council should decide what the right-of-way will be used for and what it is to achieve. It is up to the council to make a decision. There should be a thorough examination of this issue because it is important for transportation and access. It will take some time to finance the final development proposal decision. Mr. Haws stated he felt this was decided this way originally so the view of Skinner Butte would not be impaired. Mr. Smith stated this was taken into consideration. The master plan shows this street as closed. Mr. Haws stated he has always assumed that the street would be closed. Ms. Smith indicated that she had taken a tour of the area yesterday. The decision today should be how to use the 35-foot width, not whether there should be a 50-foot wide street. Concentrating on only the 35-foot width would allow the street to be open or remain closed. Staff could explore the alternatives, but she would not like to see construction delayed. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the concept of the 35-foot street width and requested a report be brought back within 90 days from a committee composed of Les Anderson, two Civic Center commissioners, two Planning commissioners, and two City councilors appointed by the Mayor. e Ms. Schue supported the motion. Ms. Wooten asked if the 90-day time period is realistic so as not to curtail construction. She does not wish to create problems. Mr. Gleason stated that if vehicular traffic is regulated, due to the 35-foot width, it will not impede activities. A decision, however, must be reached within 90 days. Mr. Smith added that in November the next phase of construction will be occurring and this really should be decided by then so as not to cause problems. Mr. Haws indicated that he would vote "no." Roll call vote; motion carried 6:1 with Councilor Haws voting no. VI!. INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDING (memo and additional information distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Susan Smernoff, Planning. Ms. Smernoff stated that the Eugene Economic Development Committee passed a motion at the May 19, 1981, meeting to recommend to the City Council that the council request the City Attorney's Office to begin preparations for seeking a declaratory judgment on the City's authority to issue industrial revenue bonds. The reason for this decision was: a concern that the State Legislature will modify the existing statute concerning the issuance of IRBs by the State Department of Economic Development to make it more difficult for and/or prohibit Eugene firms from applying for IRBs. Such changes would make it advantageous for the City to coordinate its own bonding program rather than having the use of only the State program. The other point is a belief that the authority e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 1981 Page 11