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. Solomon seconded by Ms. Ortiz moved to direct the Agency Director to issue a Request for <br />Qualifications (RFQ) for the redevelopment of West Broadway based on the draft RFQ criteria <br />included in this agenda item with the responses to the RFQ to be brought back to the URA for <br />consideration in early Spring 2007. The RFQ shall permit responses to deal with (a) property <br />included only in a single option agreement for example the Centre Court Building and adjacent <br />hole, (b) property included in more than one but less than all of the option agreements, or (c) <br />property included in all of the option agreements. Include an additional criterion “Consistency <br />with City Policies and Goals” in the RFQ evaluation criteria on council agenda packet pages <br />15 and 16; substitute the word “will” for the word “should” in subparagraphs 1 “Urban <br />Design”, 2 “Active Uses”, and 3 “Sustainable Development” in the RFQ Evaluation criteria <br />on council agenda packet pages15 and 16; add the phrase “and will contribute to an active <br />around the clock 24-hour downtown” at the end of the first sentence in the paragraph under <br />the heading “Active Uses” in the RFQ evaluation criteria on council agenda packet page15; <br />delete the words “and assistance” from subparagraph 2 under the paragraph captioned <br />“Public Benefit” in the RFQ evaluation criteria on page 16 of the council agenda packet; and <br />add the following definition of the term mixed use in the RFQ evaluation criteria “Mixed use <br />development refers to the practice of containing more than one type of use or activity in a <br />building or set of buildings or blocks. The mix of uses can vary widely but typically includes a <br />higher density combination of residential, commercial, industrial, office, institutional, or other <br />activities. The uses are typically in close proximity, pedestrian-friendly and compatible with <br />multi-modal transportation.” Vote: Passed 8:0. <br /> <br /> December 8, 2006: <br />? West Broadway RFQ issued with a submission due date of February 9, <br />2007. <br /> February 2007: <br />? The City received responses from Beam Development, CenterCal <br />Properties, Greg Bryant, KWG Development Partners, and MidTown Development. <br />KWG’s response addressed the entire West Broadway Redevelopment Area, as well as the <br />th <br />10 & Charnelton site, with the understanding that if not selected they would move forward <br />with the initial TK Partners concept. <br /> <br />ERAC – February 23, 2007: <br /> ERAC met to review the West Broadway RFQ responses. ERAC was <br />expanded specifically for review of the RFQ responses to include representation from the arts (Tina <br />Rinaldi), a Broadway tenant (Beth Little, Saturday Market), and a Downtown Vision Committee <br />member (Greg McLauchlan). ERAC concluded that KWG had the strongest response to the <br />objectives and criteria in the RFQ. The committee also expressed interest in the reuse potential of <br />the Washburne and Centre Court buildings proposed by Beam. ERAC unanimously recommended <br />that staff explore further the KWG and Beam responses. <br /> <br />URA – March 12, 2007: <br />URAwork session to review responses to the West Broadway RFQ. URA <br />recognized Beam and KWG as qualified developers. Action was taken to direct staff to work with <br />Beam and KWG to explore project concepts in more detail, with opportunities for community <br />input, and to bring the following supplemental information back to the URA for review and <br />approval: project cost and scale; development footprint; mix of uses; transfer of property; design <br />and sustainability; parking requirements; feasibility of building reuse; preservation of Centre Court <br />and Washburne buildings; preservation of local businesses; and level of financial participation <br />from the URA. <br /> <br />Memo – April 12, 2007: <br /> Staff memo addressed the financial capacity of the Downtown Urban <br />Renewal District and the other tools to support downtown redevelopment. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.