Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Meisner wanted to look at other options for the laboratory. He concurred with Mr. Kelly <br />regarding redevelopment at Roosevelt and the need to use the property more efficiently. He <br />suggested there might be some space at 2nd and Chambers for the property office. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor noted that he briefly toured the Public Works Maintenance facility and the adjacent <br />neighborhoods the previous day. He said the location was great and centrally sited. It was his <br />perception the facility was crowded. Mr. Rayor supported the continued acquisition of property but <br />thought an active strategy was needed to address the housing nearby. He was unsure the timing <br />was right to co-locate police functions at the site. Mr. Rayor suggested the City consider using <br />empty warehouses to house the police functions to be moved from the basement. He supported <br />a study and noted he had shared some ideas with staff the previous day via e-mail. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson liked the idea of the site at 2nd Avenue and Chambers Street because of its central <br />location and potential for service collocation. She said that while she only wanted to see <br />collocation in situations that benefitted the City of Eugene, she could envision a scenario through <br />which Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) could be persuaded to move some of its <br />operations to a joint development site to free up its valuable river front property. She observed <br />that public investment was often followed by private development, such as happened at 2nd <br />Avenue and Chambers Street. When an area was ripe for redevelopment, such as in the case of <br />a "brownfield" redevelopment, often a public agency needed to help, or develop the site itself. <br />She considered much of central Eugene industrial area ripe for redevelopment. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson suggested that the potential of expansion at 2nd Avenue and Chambers <br />Streetmight result in some degree of gentrification but could also improve safety conditions in the <br />area by improving its appearance. She said that for each site, the question to whether the City <br />was helping or hurting the community would be different. She wanted to study the staff proposals <br />more with an eye toward implementing them. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ endorsed Ms. Nathanson's remarks regarding the EWEB property. He favored <br />purchasing additional properties at the 2nd Avenue and Chambers Street area and expanding at <br />the site. He appreciated the comments of Mr. Meisner and Mr. Fart regarding the loss of Iow- <br />income housing, but suggested that to maintain Iow-cost housing in the area the council might <br />consider buying and aggregating sites along Garfield Street and Roosevelt Boulevard. He <br />appreciated the recommendation that the City put excess properties up for sale, and suggested <br />that the entire list of surplus City properties be reexamined and a policy developed for disposing of <br />all of them. Mr. Pap~ said that the council needed to be cognizant it was spending public money. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr agreed with Mr. Pap~ regarding the need to examine all City-owned surplus property. He <br />said that EWEB also had properties throughout the community and suggested that those <br />properties be examined as well and a dialogue entered into with EWEB on the sharing of <br />resources. The same people that EWEB served were also served by the City, and the council <br />should be looking out for the good of both entities. <br />Ms. Bettman thought the motion related to the proposed master plan was a long-term strategy, out <br />of context with the rest of the strategies it was to consider later. She thought there was a <br />potential the City could invest in a site closer to downtown for some of the uses not suitable in <br />downtown and some of the services provided in leased space now. She thought it should be a <br />City objective to keep uses near or in downtown, for the purpose of providing access to the public <br />and having them close together for easier administration. If the money was taken out of the <br />Facilities Fund and dedicated to a new development, it would not be available for other uses. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 25, 2001 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />