CC Minutes - 11/27/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

combination of approaches with some options being assigned and the City purchasing one or two of the properties to help facilitate whatever proposal was selected. Mr. Papé said it was unfortunate that the council had not done a better job of revitalizing Broadway and downtown during his tenure. He congratulated staff on a bold move to stimulate activity. He said that redevelopment would not happen because of public buildings; the private sector was needed to redevelop the area. He was ready to move forward to do things that the council had approved in the Eugene Downtown Plan. He asked if Thomas Kemper had expressed an interest in expanding his site to include the entire th block. Mr. Braud said that he had indicated an interest in the entire 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street block, including the properties along Broadway. He thought that interest was spurred by the potential for redevelopment on adjacent properties but was not certain that Mr. Kemper would act unilaterally, preferring to partner with another developer. Mr. Papé asked if staff was pursuing options on properties along Olive Street. Mr. Braud said there were active discussions on other properties, including those along Olive Street. Mr. Poling commented that he was pleased the URA director had taken steps to begin the process with a minimal amount of investment considering the potential. He thought the City needed to take aggressive step to redevelop the downtown area. He opined that part of the reason commercial space in Broadway Place was not filled was lack of other development activity in the area. He said a plan that addressed a majority of the properties owned by willing sellers would be preferable to development of sections over a period of time. He appreciated the work of staff and the visual conceptions of possible redevelopment that were included in the presentation. Mr. Kelly thanked property owners for being willing to enter into discussions with the City as it clarified a number of issues regarding the project. He said that no one project would be the “magic bullet” for downtown but agreed with Mr. Hacker’s remarks that it was a necessary piece for a revitalized downtown. He appreciated the work of staff and consultant John Brown to gather together the purchase options. He asked for a spreadsheet that would assess the feasibility of redeveloping the properties based on the purchase prices, projected square footage, and higher prevailing rates. Mr. Braud said staff discussed that issue with Will Dan early in the process. Mr. Dan said there had been a discussion of conducting market and feasibility studies. He said research indicated that the best market study would come from a willing developer with a clear, compelling vision of the project. He said the key was attracting developers with local knowledge of Eugene and Oregon and they would be the best judge of what mix of uses was best suited to local conditions. Mr. Kelly expressed frustration with not having even an order of magnitude to examine because the RFQ would take considerable time and effort by staff and development teams. He was disturbed about proceeding without that base knowledge. He asked if there had been any serious interest by qualified developers, given the publicity the project had received. Mr. Braud said there had been interest from th developers and a number of valuable connections were made during the 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street Request for Proposal (RFP), with developers interested in a larger footprint than that site. Ms. Bettman said she had some concern about the process but acknowledged that under the City’s urban renewal district plan it was obvious that staff had the latitude to pursue the options. She was glad to see staff take an assertive posture on downtown redevelopment, but it highlighted the tragedy and failure of the organization to do the same thing to acquire property for a hospital downtown. She supported the staff- MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 5 Work Session