CC Minutes - 11/27/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Papé, moved to amend the motion by adding to the end of the first section of the main motion after the phrase “Spring 2007” the following sentence: “The RFQ shall permit responses to deal with (a) property included only in a single option agreement (for example the Center Court Building and adjacent hole); (b) property included in more than one but less than all of the option agreements; or (c) property included in all of the option agreements.” Mr. Kelly explained that his motivation was to expand RFQ options to encourage responses from developers with a great idea for one or two parcels instead of most or all of the footprint to respond. Ms. Ortiz thanked staff for its efforts and bringing the project to the council. She hoped that discussions would continue respectfully with owners who were not willing to sell at this time. She was excited about the prospects for downtown revitalization. Ms. Solomon thought Mr. Kelly’s amendment was reasonable but she was somewhat concerned that there could be “cherry picking” of the most desirable properties. City Manager Taylor said the amendment and the council’s discussion during the meeting clarified the intent to encourage anyone with the opportunity and vision to respond as well as explain what the City was seeking from respondents. Ms. Taylor said she liked part of the amendment, but not the part of the main motion about selling the whole thing and would probably vote against it. The motion to amend passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman asked if staff had calculated what the available square footage would be if the entire footprint was developed with three- or four-story coverage. Mr. Braud said it would be 175,000 square feet times however many stories were built. Ms. Bettman shared Mr. Kelly’s concerns about lack of data and research that would disclose the percentages of commercial and residential space needed within the footprint to be economically viable in downtown and in the context of the City at large. She said there was a tendency to over-commercialize because it seemingly was more valuable. She said Broadway Place was an example of that with ground floor space dedicated to commercial uses being difficult to rent whereas housing may have been more of an anchor. She cautioned that requiring the ground floor of buildings to be entirely commercial or office space was a mistake. She hoped that the RFQ responses would include a determination and substantiation of the economic viability of the proposals. Ms. Taylor pointed out several businesses that had not received help from the City and were doing well such as Ambrosia, Xenon, Adam’s Place, and J. Michael’s Books. Mr. Braud responded that some of those businesses had received assistance with financing through the City’s loan programs. Ms. Taylor said a large part of the problem with West Broadway was the fact that two people owned much of the property and were not willing to lease for what people could afford to pay. She liked Ms. Bettman’s suggestion to purchase only the Connor and Woolley properties. Mr. Papé joined in Mr. Kelly’s thanks to willing property owners. He asked why one of Ms. Bettman’s friendly amendments to the motion removed the word “assistance” from the Public Benefit section of the RFQ on council agenda packet page 16. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 7 Work Session