My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
S071127B-attB
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
S071127B-attB
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 11:19:03 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 9:37:18 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
~ Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the Development Objectives to include <br />“As a publicly solicited project with the potential for public subsidies and incentives this <br />development addresses the needs of the community. More housing units and varied housing <br />options are needed to accommodate projected population demographics. Central housing is a <br />key element in the Growth Management Policies and the Downtown Plan. Downtown housing <br />is essential for creating the critical mass of residents to support retail and to concentrate <br />populations where services already exist within walking distance and where transit and <br />pedestrian amenities are easily and efficiently available. Housing downtown requires public <br />sector support in order to be competitive. Preferred proposals for the site will recognize this <br />development site as a rare opportunity to address the significant need for downtown housing <br />units by providing for multi-storied, very high density housing, preferably accommodating <br />ownership options as well as affordable units. Vote: Passed 7:0 (Pape not yet arrived) <br />~ Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to change the third point on page 390 of the AIS <br />under “Active Uses” to read as follows: “3. Major employment center for very high quality <br />jobs and extended hours of occupancy.” Vote: Passed 5:4 (Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, Ms. <br />Taylor, Ms. Ortiz, and the Mayor voting in favor and Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, Mr. Pape and <br />Mr. Pryor voting in opposition.) <br />~ Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the Development Objectives to delete <br />the third point regarding a strong relationship with key tenants. Vote: Passed 8:0. <br /> <br />th <br /> June 2, 2006 <br />?: 10 & Charnelton RFP issued with a submission due date of August 15, <br />2006. The due date was subsequently extended to September 15, 2006. The City received <br />responses from Beam Development, TK Partners, and Sockeye Development. <br /> <br />th <br />Memo – July 26, 2006: <br /> Staff memo addressed the 10 & Charnelton RFP extension. The 30-day <br />extension was intended to be responsive to development interest in the site and maximize the <br />opportunity to attract quality proposals. <br /> <br />th <br />ERAC – September 28, 2006: <br />ERAC reviewed the 10 & Charnelton RFP responses. ERAC was <br />expanded specifically for review of the RFP responses to include expertise in the areas of <br />sustainability (Josh Proudfoot, Good Company), financing (Erik Riechers, Pacific Continental <br />Bank), and housing development (Jim McCoy, Housing and Community Services Agency). <br />ERAC recommended that staff move forward with the selection of the TK Partners proposal. <br /> <br />th <br />URA – October 11, 2006: <br /> URA considered the 10 & Charnelton RFP proposals. Voting on a <br />motion to select a proposal was postponed until October 16, 2006. <br /> <br />th <br />URA – October 16, 2006: <br /> URA selected the TK Partners proposal for the 10& Charnelton site: <br />Moved to direct the Agency Director to enter into a 90-day exclusive negotiation period with <br />TK Partners for the sale and development of the 10th and Charnelton development site based <br />upon the proposal submitted and to return to the City Council, acting as the Urban Renewal <br />Agency, with the proposed terms of the sale and development following the negotiation period. <br />Vote: Passed 8:0. <br /> <br />ERAC – November 21, 2006: <br /> ERAC reviewed the draft West Broadway RFQ. Committee members <br />provided comments on criteria and timing of the RFQ. <br /> <br />URA – November 27, 2006: <br /> URA provided direction to issue an RFQ for the redevelopment of West <br />Broadway with approved criteria, with the following motion: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.