Laserfiche WebLink
retail and a downtown cinema. He said he understood that before more time and money were spent on the <br />proposal staff and the developer wanted to know if it was generally perceived as positive. He said the <br />motion offered no guarantee to the developer about the exact nature of the agreement and proposal, or the <br />council’s reaction to it. He stated that the motion in no way endorsed the proposal; it simply allowed staff to <br />spend further resources developing a more detailed agreement. City Manager Taylor agreed with Mr. <br />Kelly’s understanding of the motion and said the details could also entail revisiting the urban renewal district <br />if that was one of the financing tools. He said that in order for the proposal to be reviewed by the council it <br />had to meet a basic public/private participation ratio of one-to-five. He said attractive features included <br />bringing in significant retail in a coordinated way while providing for housing and related parking. <br /> <br />th <br />Mr. Kelly appreciated the inclusion of a parking analysis to confirm the need but asked why the 10 Avenue <br />and Pearl Street public parking facility was not factored into the office use need. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé agreed with Mr. Pryor’s comments and the points raised by Mr. Kelly. He said that the downtown <br />area had been in decline for decades, although some notable efforts were made over the years. He said the <br />City should take advantage of the opportunity to revitalize downtown. He said the council had shown the <br />will to reopen Broadway and the next leap would take significant courage because of the risks and City <br />investment that would be involved. He hoped the council would move forward with direction to staff to <br />work with the developer. He said there was considerable risk involved in using eminent domain to buy <br />property and turn it over to a specific developer, based on a recent Supreme Court case. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz agreed that the proposal was an opportunity waiting to happen. She said it took her breath away <br />because it would change the face of Eugene and the change would be huge. She said she needed much more <br />information on the implications of the proposal and was not certain she wanted to be a part of that change <br />happening, although she would support the motion for staff continuing to develop an agreement. She was <br />not certain how she would ultimately vote on the proposal as she had been contacted by several small <br />business owners who were very concerned. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy called for a second round of comments and questions. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asserted that the condition of West Broadway was misrepresented as the 67 percent vacancy <br />rate included property owned by Connor and Woolley and she had heard anecdotally that earlier interest in <br />redevelopment by others had been turned down. She said that Connor and Woolley had the ability to <br />manipulate the vacancy rate on that section of Broadway. Referring to demolition, she asked if the <br />developer envisioned phasing the project and if there was a possibility that buildings would be demolished <br />and the sites left vacant for a number of years. Mr. Sullivan replied that only the housing portion of the <br />project had been mentioned for phasing. He said all of the retail would need to occur at once and that meant <br />the first floor would need to be constructed and tenanted, providing complete coverage for the site. He <br />thought a majority, if not all, of the housing would have to be built at once as well. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman noted that the proposal indicated housing might be built later, depending on the market. Mr. <br />Sullivan said the introduction of condominiums caused staff and others some concern; the proposal indicated <br />that initial housing units would be condos and other housing units would be constructed initially as rentals, <br />then converted to condos over time. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if there was a possibility that no housing would be included in the project. Mr. Sullivan <br />said that would be covered in the development agreement and part of the terms of any City involvement; <br />approval of the agreement would be a council decision. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 9, 2006 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br />