Item 4-Ord.on Urban Renewal Pln - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Action: An Ordinance Adopting an Amended Urban Renewal Plan for the Central Eugene Project Meeting Date: September 13, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 4 Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Richie Weinman www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5533 ISSUE STATEMENT The council is asked to adopt an ordinance that amends the Central Eugene Project Urban Renewal Plan (Downtown UR Plan). BACKGROUND The council is asked to consider amendments to the Central Eugene Project (Downtown) UR Plan. The Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC) studied the Downtown UR Plan and recommended amendments. The Planning Commission, on June 14, 2004, voted to forward these amendments to the City Council and Urban Renewal Agency (URA). The URA conducted a work session on July 12, 2004. The discussion at the work session resulted in several changes to the draft plan. The council conducted a public hearing on August 9, 2004. Five people testified: four in favor and one opposed to the amendments. At the public hearing, councilors requested responses to the following questions: Councilors Kelly and Bettman asked about the proposed time extension of the district and the justification for a district not coming to a close. There are districts in Oregon and other states that do not have a sunset date. Many communities recognize that the renewal district might be an area that is worthy of long-term assistance, in order to further community goals. Even cities that have successful downtowns, such as Seattle, Portland, or New York, continually provide extra incentives and benefits to counter the market forces, because downtown development is more challenging and expensive than development on the edges of a city or in surrounding communities. The benefits of compact urban growth and downtown development are well-documented. Downtown development, for example, provides the most efficient use of infrastructure and transportation systems. ERAC recommended a 20-year extension of the district. Since the current district is set to end in 2009, ERAC proposed ending the district in 2029, with reviews in 2009 and 2019. Councilor Bettman asked about the proposed language in Section 1200(B) : Type Two Amendments. Paragraph 1 discusses improvements or activities which represent a substantial change in the purpose and objectives of the plan and which cost more than $500,000. Councilor Bettman asked if the $500,000 could be reduced to $250,000 and asked if it was an annual or one-time expenditure. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040913\S0409134.doc