Eugene Weekly : 12.07.06

Water Fight

Should EWEB riverfront be more parks or concrete?

BY ALAN PITTMAN

Through Eugene flows one of its greatest assets — a burbling, coursing river that osprey, salmon and blue heron still find wild enough and that citizens are also wild about. The bikeway and green parks along its banks are the best things anyone has built here, judging by their popularity. But there are rough waters ahead. EWEB moving its industrial yards from the riverbank downtown represents a historic opportunity. Should the riverfront flow with more parks or concrete?

City officials and developers have long pushed for intense urban redevelopment of the 27-acre EWEB land. Some past city planning documents for the area have shown tall buildings, roads and parking built up to the edge of the riverbank, leaving only the narrow existing bike path.

The arguments for urbanizing the riverfront at EWEB include: reducing urban sprawl; it's better than developing greener sites; easier access; development with riverfront views; and providing money for riparian restoration.

At the Eugene City Club last year, a group calling themselves the "Riparianistas" advocated for riverfront development. Group convenor Phillip Carroll, now a Eugene planning commissioner, described the group's principals as to "seek to improve the river through urban development that is appropriately sited and that encourages urban interaction with the river."

But park advocates dispute many of the pro-development arguments. They contend that the city should preserve and enhance the central river park system that is one of Eugene's greatest assets.

"We're so fortunate," said Mary O'Brien, a leading local environmentalist. "We've got one of the rarest rivers in the country and then we talk about just building city up to its edge?" she asked. "That is an erasure of a major natural resource."

The city has been trying to promote redevelopment of the central city to prevent urban sprawl and the expensive and unlivable traffic, pollution and ugliness problems it creates. The EWEB site is within a short walk of downtown, and development supporters argue that it's ripe for infill.

But few people may want to live and work downtown if it's all paved and lacks parks. Park advocates argue that, like Central Park in New York City, a park along the river would promote and allow higher density development downtown by making the area more livable and desirable.

At a recent City Council meeting on the need for more parks downtown, Doug Macy, a landscape architecture consultant, told officials to look to the river. "There's opportunities on the EWEB site, especially in the floodplain, to have a really beautiful waterfront park ... a very green and natural sort of a park."

Such a park is "a really exciting vision that will contribute to densification farther back from the river," said Kevin Matthews, president of Friends of Eugene.

Councilor Betty Taylor agreed and argued that building at the EWEB site could provide development competition and make it harder for the city to redevelop the many other vacant areas in the central city. "I don't see that we need more commercial [zoning] when we have so much empty commercial" downtown, she said.

Development supporters argue that the EWEB industrial site is already heavily impacted by buildings and asphalt and would be a better site for development than the park-like area upriver that the UO wants to develop as a research park.

Park advocates don't dispute that, but there's no indication that the UO and/or City Council would agree to preserve the research park area north of the tracks if the EWEB site is developed.

In fact, the UO's riverfront project director, Diana Wiley, said at City Club that she agreed with the Riparianistas' development goals at EWEB but wanted them applied to the UO property as well.

Development of the EWEB site could promote development of the UO site, as often happens with adjacent parcels. Some city plans have described continuing a wide road from the research park along the river to provide more access to the EWEB site.

A better place for riverfront development that's already zoned commercial and privately owned would be the vast empty parking lots in back of Valley River Center, park advocates argue.

"It's just tarmac right up to the river," O'Brien said. "It's astounding."

At EWEB, buildings and roads along the river would provide easier access to the river by a wider section of the community, development proponents argue.

"It's a shame to have downtown isolated from the river," said Riparianista member Art Farley, a former planning commissioner. "The real potential of the river hasn't been realized." With more people enjoying the river, more will value it and want to protect it, he said. "Getting people down to the river would be a good thing to preserve the river," he said. "A whole other sub-population of the city would fall in love with it."

But downtown is already just a short walk away from riverfront parks, Councilor Taylor pointed out. "I never understand why people say we can't get to the river."

Deanna Spooner of the Pacific Rivers Council said natural restoration of the riverbank at EWEB would be more expensive than a rural site, but she said the project would have greater educational value. "You're going to get a lot more people going through that area," she said of the possibility to "get people really excited" about river system restoration.

Park advocates argue that keeping the land as public property rather than selling it as private development will guarantee greater access.

If the riverfront is put in private hands, "it's very few people that have this nice view. Everyone else has all this concrete," O'Brien said.

Taylor agreed. "When people talk about going back to the river, it should be for everybody to see, not for just people that have the money."

Development advocates argue the current park system isn't used by the broader cross section of the community that would use a developed area. But there's little evidence of that. City surveys have shown that the riverfront parks are among the most popular amenities in Eugene. Many already offer parking just a few steps from the water.

Park advocates argue that if people want to dine with a view of the river, they can just bring a picnic to a public park.

Riverfront development would provide the money necessary to restore some of the riparian area from its current rip rap and would have less public cost than a park, development advocates argue.

But that's not the city's financial experience with most downtown development. Most projects have demanded huge taxpayer subsidies from parking garages, roads, fee waivers, etc. The city's many tax break programs generally mean that such new downtown development pays little or nothing in taxes to support urban renewal or other city services.

In the past, EWEB has wanted about $13 million for its surplus riverfront land. That's a lot for a park, but could easily be cheaper than building expensive new parking garages, roads and railway underpasses to serve intense new development on the site. For a park, a reasonable bond measure combined with urban renewal funds could be used to buy the land and restore the riverfront to a more natural setting. That same bond and urban renewal approach was used to fund the new downtown library.

EWEB might also be convinced to donate some of the land, but that could be an uphill fight.

EWEB officials have balked at investing in required city master planning for the site and appear determined to maximize the sale value. "We have a lot of financial challenges," said EWEB Manager Randy Berggren. "We don't go out and buy parks."

In recent years EWEB has appeared more hostile to park and environmental concerns, refusing to install a fish ladder at one of its dams and threatening to close public access to the popular College Hill Reservoir park.

But such a mercurial approach may not go over well with the taxpayers who are also EWEB's ratepayers and who may be asked to approve a big bond for EWEB's new industrial facilities in northwest Eugene. The City Council could also threaten to veto the bond measure.

"I'm kind of miffed at EWEB," Farley said. "They don't seem to think they're part of the city."

As an alternative to some or all of a tax increase for a bond, the City Council could also negotiate with EWEB to reduce the 6 percent cut the city takes of its revenues (in lieu of taxes) in exchange for some or all of the property. Or the city could simply dedicate some of the EWEB revenues to paying off the acquisition bonds. Federal or utility watershed restoration money and private contributions may also be available.

Park advocates argue that future generations will be thankful the money was spent for a park. Councilor Bonny Bettman said adding to the green ribbon of parks through the city would be "visionary in a lot of ways."

"That's riverfront property, it's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity," Bettman told the council. "We should really maximize that as open space and not just a little narrow strip along the edge, but as much of it as we can put into public use would be good."

But with most of the city staff, elected official and developer establishment against them, park advocates face an uphill battle.

"If I had my way, it would all be park along the river, but I don't think there's a chance of that," Councilor Taylor said.

The most likely outcome appears to be that the EWEB riverfront may become neither all concrete nor all park, but a mix of the two.

But how much of a mix? What percentage of the area will be developed? How much of a setback will there be from the river?

Springfield officials recently proposed a 75 ft. setback from the top of the bank for redevelopment in Glenwood with 25 to 35 percent of the area dedicated to roads, drainage and open space. PeaceHealth's RiverBend hospital is planned with a 100 ft. average riparian buffer and with the main hospital building built 425 ft. back from the McKenzie River.

In Portland the massive south waterfront redevelopment includes an average setback of 100 ft. from the top of the riverbank with a lineal park, including a bike and walking path, as the buffer.

In Corvallis the city backs up commercial development, roads and parking lots right up to a narrow riverfront park strip and path atop a rip rap wall.

"It's pathetic," said O'Brien of Corvallis. "It's totally non-functioning ecologically. It's only minimally effective as a public amenity."

Some park advocates have called for a 200 ft. or greater setback.

At EWEB the administration building, which will stay, now comes to within about 20 feet of the river. The historic Steam Plant — which many would like to restore for use as a brewpub, museum or other public use — comes within about 60 feet.

A 200 ft. setback would create a less lineal, more park-like setting and push development back from the river by about the width of the EWEB administration building. The rear triangle of the EWEB site is relatively distant from the river and already impacted by freeway and train noise.

UO landscape architecture professor Jerry Diethelm has long pushed for restoring the historic millrace through the EWEB property to an outfall in the river. He envisions a mix of development and park land for the river including a large green triangle where the millrace would flow out to the Willamette. "It could be really quite beautiful," he said.

The millrace idea has won the endorsement of the Eugene City Council and enjoys widespread support. Jon Kvistad, who spearheaded the adjacent silvery new federal courthouse project, said "having the millrace daylighted would be absolutely phenomenal."

Farley sounds skeptical of the millrace idea, pointing out that the current stagnant water body contains polluted runoff and duck poop. But he acknowledges that the millrace now drains to the river anyway through a pipe and that fountain aeration, increased flow and/or natural swales in the waterway could reduce the problem.

Farley argues that mixed development close to the river could be done in an environmentally sensitive way with filtered stormwater runoff, lower buildings closer to the river, and design standards to prevent things like McDonald's drive throughs.

"I don't think we need a park and a 500 ft. setback to maintain the environment," Farley said.

But Eugene has little history of such responsible riverside development. The Valley River Inn was built so close to the river that the city had to dump rip rap in the water to build a bike path. At night, the McMenamins North Bank pub shines blinding floodlights at the river and south bank park to provide views for its customers. City residents have been pushing for years for infill standards that would make density more livable, with little to show for it.

To reach a compromise on the EWEB riverfront, park and development advocates will have to do a lot of talking. But both sides agree that the talking should be done in public through a community-involved planning process. That would be something new for Eugene. Last year downtown city staff worked behind closed doors with developers Tom Connor and Don Woolley to spring a massive redevelopment plan on the city without citizen input.

"That's exactly what I don't want," said Farley. He said he plans to meet with the mayor to urge a more citizen-involved planning process.

O'Brien said the city should request detailed proposals for park and commercial development of the EWEB site so citizens can weigh all the options. That would make the riverfront decision flow easier.