Item B: Selection of Development for 10th and Charnelton

Home Browse Search

EURA UGENE RBAN ENEWAL GENCY AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Work Session: Selection of Development Proposal for 10th and Charnelton Site Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Agenda Item Number: B Department: Planning & Development Staff Contact: Nan Laurence www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5340 ISSUE STATEMENT A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued in March 2008 for the sale and development of the th 10 and Charnelton development site. The Urban Renewal Agency (URA) is asked to review the responses to the RFP and to direct the Agency Director to enter into exclusive negotiations with the preferred RFP respondent. BACKGROUND At a work session on July 14, 2008, staff presented information about the five proposals received th in response to the RFP for the 10 and Charnelton site. In the materials presented, staff focused the analysis on the WG Development and Opus NWR Development proposals. Staff analyzed both proposals in terms of the Development Objectives approved by the Urban Renewal Agency as part of the RFP. Staff also considered the analysis from Johnson Gardner, financial consultant, which provided an assessment of development risks, in addition to comments from the Eugene Redevelopment and West Broadway advisory committees. Based on that analysis, staff determined that both proposals addressed the development objectives in the RFP, and that the proposal from Opus was stronger in terms of market feasibility, financial feasibility, developer capacity and timeliness. The URA discussion at the July 14 work session indicated a preference for the WG Development proposal, based on a number of factors including the mix of uses and the design. In response to questions regarding financial feasibility and possible phasing, the URA directed staff to request supplemental information on the proposal submitted by WG Development, as well as from Opus Development. The requests for supplemental information and the responses provided by the development teams are included as Attachments A and B. Additional information on the materials provided will be included in a staff presentation at the July 30 work session. Staff has evaluated the supplemental information received from WG Development and Opus Development as well as the analysis from Johnson Gardner. Many of the questions identified by the URA regarding the financial feasibility, timeliness, and net financial cost/benefit of the WG proposal were addressed by the supplemental information presented. Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080730\S080730B.doc