CC Minutes - 03/17/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Nathanson reviewed the council's options: 1) a study review restricted to the park only with a restricted set of people; or, 2) a review study of the entire district, which includes the research park. She said if Option 1 was chosen, there was nothing to preclude the council from approving a companion study to include the area outside the research park. She said this was not an ideal solution but it integrated both interests. Mr. Farmer described staf?s concept for the companion study, adding that the broader study might take longer to complete. Mr. Dyke said the UO wished to do a study that fleshed out the recommendations of the Riverfront Research Park Faculty Review Committee concerning University land. The University would cooperate with the wider study, but believed it did not have the resources and would not be a primary participant. Mr. Johnson noted that Option 3 seemed to do both: "undertake the effort described in Option 2 and undertake a companion study." Addressing a question from Mr. Meisner on Option 2, Mr. Farmer said "joint" was intended to refer to staffs. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Dyke agreed with the interpretation. Mr. Lee said it was appropriate to undertake planning, but at some point there is a need to discuss the broader issue. He said he would support the motion but hoped to continue the broader discussion. Ms. Taylor said the University, as used in the discussion, referred to very few people. With regards to the tracks, she said that was a good place to start, adding that in some places land further back from the tracks should be preserved. Mr. Pap~ asked if the motion was legally consistent with the Intergovernmental Agreement. Mr. Klein said the agreement speaks of a joint project and assigns responsibility to each of the partners and there is nothing in the agreement that speaks to the specific action in the motion. Mr. Kelly reiterated his opposition to Option 2, adding that he would offer a motion increasing the number of people involved in the study. Mr. Meisner agreed and ascertained that the agreement provided for termination by either party to it. The motion failed, 3:5; with councilors Farr, Pap6, and Nathanson voting in favor. Mr. Lee expressed disappointment that the UO did not allow for flexibility in the language. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Farr, that the City undertake a joint effort with the University of Oregon involving the Riverfront Advisory Committee, the Riverfront Commission, City staff, and at least two citizen members with a demonstrated commitment to maximum feasible preservation of the area north of the railroad tracks; these groups will jointly analyze the Riverfront Review Committee's recommendations and make refinement recommendations to the University and the City on appropriate density, setbacks, open space, (for example, preservation of Riverview and Gateway sectors), timing and design. Minutes--Eugene City Council March 17, 1999 Page 6 11:30 a.m.