Item B: Review of West Broadway Request for Qualifications Responses

Home Browse Search

co-develop th.e property \viththe developer. Issues were: Was theCitywiHing to do that, and was the C;ity legally able to do that? · If City willing and able to participate in co-developing the property, would it be theURA or the City in general? o Response: .May be slight differences between the City of Eugene and the URA, but functionally, they operate as one. There were le.gal questions about the ability of the URA to become the developer. · Sources of Beam's funds included historic tax credits, new market tax credits, and would require little other debt because the City owned the property. o Response: City could execute its options or assign them to Beam. City could provide support in the math of the acquisition and structure of financing. Beam \vould bring in a long term loan and a short term or mezzanine loan.. The short term loan would be more difficult and expensive to obtain, thus impacting the math of the project. This would move the property from the City's ledger to Beam's ledger, a desirable position for the City. · Short term financing was less attractive to the developer. o Response: All viable financing tools should remain under consideration to keep the project moving forward.. · If Centre Court 'Building was a great opportunity for remodeling/refurbishing, why has it not been done in the last 20 years? If there was great opportunity to fill it up with office space, why has it been vacant for the last 10 years? What does Beam see in the potential of the building that the previous owners did not? eBuilding was 85 percent leased five years ago in office use, and was a successful building, and the owner chose to empty it. . Related to Phase One, previous staff presentation indicated that phasing could not occur due to F ARs. Was there still a FAR issue when looking at 'Phase One, looking at the Centre Court and Washburne Buildings, and Woolworths site as one property? o Response: Two issues, in.eluding 'FARs and surface parking requirement. Initial review indicates that the Centre Court and W oolworths properties could be considered one project for FAR, that could permit consolidating the uses and allowing the development to occur. The Pla.nning Commission would consider a proposed Citizen Involvement Plan to review the FAR code language in early March. Changes. to theF AR code language could happen in time for the development of one of the projects, but the selection of one of the projects to move forward would occur prior to any code changes. Because this was a RFQ rather th.an a Request for Proposals (RFP), staff assumed details for any project selection would be worked about during the negotiation phase. Hopefully, as the project details were worked out, some of the code issues would become easier to understand a.nd perhaps facilitate.conlpletion of the code work. CenterCal Properties . Own Bridgeport Village in Tualatin, a successful retail center, demandin.g high rents and generating strong sales. Involved with tenanting with former owner. Purchased during construction. . CenterCal has relationship with the California Teachers' Retirenlent System, and has access to significant equity through the relationsl1ip, which it used to purchase Bridgeport Village and. other shopping centers. MlNUTES- Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee February 23~ 2007 :Rage