CC Minutes - 04/13/98 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

be built and so supported Option B. He agreed with those who called for the termination of the riverfront district, Option E, and said that the greenway was a valuable asset that had persuaded him Eugene was an environmentally friendly city when he first moved here. Mr. Prensky said that the research park was a good idea gone wrong, and as implemented, it would result in pollution reaching the Willamette River. Diane Wiley, 451 Brookside Drive, identified herself as the manager of the Riverfront Research Park and said she was representing the University of Oregon. Ms. Wiley said that the Riverfront Research Park Commission had recommended the adoption of Option F, a recommendation that was endorsed by University President David Frohnmeyer. She said that the commission evaluated the district's urban renewal plan and each goal and objective and how the project was achieving those goals, and found that in all cases the district was positively addressing each one. Ms. Wiley reminded the council that the planning process had not envisioned a six-year appeal process to the Land Use Board of Appeals and Court of Appeals. It was not until 1992 that the appeal process was exhausted and the development begun. She described progress in the park since that time and said the University was very proud of the park, its tenants, and the connections they had to research activities and faculties on campus. Ms. Wiley invited those in the audience to take a tour of the park. She asked the council to maintain the working relationship that had been established between the University and City. John Hibbird, 888 West 8th Avenue, Neighborhood Economic Development Corporation, asserted that the public trust had been completely lost over the riverfront district and it should be terminated. He endorsed Option B for the downtown district. He said that the projects included in the district should have a direct connection with people's lives and address a public benefit. Mr. Hibbird said that urban renewal should address social issues, such as affordable housing and social service agencies that were continually short of funds. He said that it was unacceptable that people should be sleeping under bridges in Eugene. He said that the disparity between that type of experience and the use of public funds for projects where there was no direct connection to people's lives and they cannot identify a benefit should be examined. Mr. Hibbird cited parking for Iow-income housing as an example of a project he believed had a direct connection to people's lives. He said that the library should be the first priority and other projects should be prioritized in terms of how they facilitated progress on social problems; otherwise, the district should be terminated. Howie Bonnett, 1835 East 28th Avenue, asserted that the Budget Committee had decision- making authority over the urban renewal district and it was premature for the council to take action on the districts. He suggested that the action was "prejudging" the role of the committee. He asked the council to delay its action until the committee had time to make a recommendation given what he perceived as the General Fund implications of the action. He noted his own personal interest in using the money freed by dissolution of the riverfront district to restore library services to seven days weekly, restore pre-Ballot Measure 50 support to the Citizen Involvement Committee, restore the urban forestry budget to levels sufficient to administer the tree preservation ordinance, restore specialized neighborhood traffic enforcement, restore maintenance to the City's walking and jogging trails, and restore many recreation cuts, including those to Westmoreland and Amazon community centers and Kaufman and Campbell senior centers. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 13, 1998 Page 11 7:30 p.m.