CC Minutes - 01/16/08 Work Session and Meeting of URA

Home Browse Search

Denny Braud of the Planning and Development Department reported that the draft RFP had been presented to the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC), which unanimously recommended deferring the RFP until a binding agreement with Beam was established, the future of purchase options on downtown properties was resolved, and possibly the site became more marketable because of downtown code revisions. He said there was still strong interest in issuing the RFP and there was also some interest in the site; if serious interest in the site did materialize staff would return to the council for release of the RFP. Ms. Taylor agreed with the proposal to defer the RFP because it was important to move forward with the Beam project before beginning something else. She hoped for consideration of using a portion of the 10th and Charnelton site for a park and suggested that the pit could be filled with dirt and used temporarily as a community garden, which would improve the appearance for the Olympic Trials. In response to a question from Mr. Poling, Mr. Braud said the options on the Centre Court and Washburne properties expired on March 24, 2008, and he expected to make significant progress and have cost estimates on the Beam project before that date. Mr. Poling questioned delaying the RFP when there would shortly be some resolution of the Beam project and there was interest in the 10th and Charnelton site. He preferred to issue the RFP instead of waiting. Ms. Solomon asked if current downtown code issues would affect the Beam project and when the downtown zoning review project would be implemented. Mr. Braud replied that the downtown code review process was currently under way. He said the Beam project would be primarily rehabilitation of an existing building and was not likely to face code issues. Ms. Solomon asked when the code revision process would be completed. Nan Laurence, of the Planning and Development Department, said that staff anticipated presenting three of the seven items to the council in mid-June 2008. She said that the items would need to go through a community involvement process and Planning Commission review before they went to the council. Ms. Bettman asked for confirmation that the council had the ability to create a variance or modify an existing code if there was a specific obstacle to a project. City Attorney Glenn Klein, replied that the council had the ability to change the code but was required to follow a process that included public hearings and Planning Commission review and recommendations. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the ERAC had steered the council wrong in the past and was a self-selected group of developers and vested interests. She suggested modifying the RFP by including a list of nearby parking structures and available capacity under Site Context and deleting references to positive financial return to the district that assumed participation of the Urban Renewal District. She agreed with Mr. Poling that there was no reason to delay issuing the RFP, which made no promise of urban renewal money for the project. Mr. Zelenka felt the recent election indicated that downtown was not a priority for many people and redevelopment should progress incrementally. He said there were many remaining downtown issues to address, such as purchase options and the zoning review, which could affect projects. He felt it was likely that the Beam proposal would require considerable subsidy by the Urban Renewal District and the limited funds that were available could be exhausted, leaving nothing for other projects. He supported the recommendation to delay the RFP. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 6 Work Session