Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ms. Bettman expressed concern that buildings would be demolished and replaced with surface area parking <br />lots. With regard to the issue of subsidies and the urban renewal district, she commented that the type of <br />retail proposed would result in low-wage jobs. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly declared that it was very important to tie incentives to specific aspects of the project, such as a <br />housing guarantee as part of the development agreement. He thought there was an appropriate role for the <br />City to provide public parking as it would also allow the City to control the rates and policies. He noted the <br />potential for development of public parking on the east end of downtown and asked how that would impact <br />the urban renewal dollars. Mr. Sullivan replied that there were two urban renewal districts and the projects <br />would be in different districts. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he was a long way from using eminent domain to support the project and wanted to see the <br />City act as a facilitator and work with the current owners and developer to achieve a “win-win” situation <br />without the need for eminent domain. He wanted to see that arrangement addressed in writing. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asserted that 25 years ago the downtown area was thriving. She asked how much of the <br />Broadway Place retail space was empty. Mr. Sullivan replied that historically the retail space on Lincoln <br />Street experienced difficulty but the other spaces were filled, although there was some attrition. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked what made staff think that the new space would be filled, considering the difficulty in <br />filling Broadway Place space. Mr. Sullivan replied that the Opus Development business plan was to create <br />a critical mass of retail that had a magnetic character and was a destination. He said the critical mass of <br />development would create a destination that did not currently exist in downtown and draw people who might <br />otherwise go to a suburban mall. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said she had heard the development described as a “theme park.” Mr. Sullivan said that <br />developer would need to work with Eugene’s existing historic street grid and the City would need to see a <br />building type that would endure, not a building type that would go out of fashion. He said the City was <br />looking for an urban form, not a Disneyland. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked what changes to the urban renewal district would be needed. Mr. Sullivan responded that <br />the district’s boundaries, plan and policies would not need to be changed, but the total indebtedness would <br />be revised. He said the issue was very complex and required a separate work session to address in detail. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked to what extent the public would be involved in the City’s adoption of a development <br />proposal. Mr. Sullivan said that any changes to the urban renewal plan provided an opportunity for public <br />involvement. City Manager Taylor stated that a substantial project such as the proposed development <br />deserved a community conversation and the developers would be encouraged to find useful ways to obtain <br />public input beyond whatever was required as part of an urban renewal plan change. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to direct the city manager to work <br />with Connor and Woolley on developing a more detailed proposal related to West <br />Broadway development to be brought back to the council. <br /> <br />Speaking to the motion, Mr. Poling said he agreed with many of Mr. Pryor’s comments and Ms. Ortiz’s <br />observation that the project would change the face of downtown Eugene. He commended Connor and <br />Woolley/Opus for having a vision and felt that the project was appropriate for the downtown area. He noted <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 9, 2006 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br />