Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Taylor opined that part of the 24-hour activity of a revitalized downtown would be “destroyed by the <br />threat of this project.” Her first choice for the proposal would have been Greg Bryant’s proposal, as he was <br />a local person. Her second choice was the Beam Development proposal, excluding a second phase. She felt <br />the private market could take care of the rest. She stressed that her first principle would be to not destroy <br />what was already working and she listed several of the existing businesses in the area that were thriving. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman was excited by some of the components of the proposals. She expressed concern that the City <br />had done an RFQ, which in her opinion meant the City should be evaluating the developers based on their <br />qualifications with regard to this type of development. It seemed to her that the recommendation relied <br />heavily on the components of the proposals, which she did not consider to be fair, given that the City had <br />purportedly not asked for proposals. She felt the process had resulted in proposals from three very qualified <br />developers. She was reluctant to limit the decision to one developer at this point. She was also opposed to <br />consolidating that much of downtown under one owner. She said pursuing proposals from three developers <br />would allow the City to maximize Beam Development’s experience with historical restoration, to maximize <br />Midtown Development’s experience with housing, and to maximize KWG Development Partners’ <br />experience with mixed-use projects. <br /> <br />th <br />Ms. Bettman asked what the net gain would be in housing units at 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street with <br />the KWG Development proposal. Mr. Braud replied that the proposal included 106 market rate condomin- <br />ium ownership units. He said the net gain would be in the neighborhood of 300 housing units. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling said in looking at what KWG had done elsewhere it seemed to him that the ERAC and staff had <br />made the right recommendation. He averred that KWG Development was proposing exactly what the City <br />wanted done downtown and they had the track record to support it. While he appreciated the interest shown <br />by the other developers, he considered the KWG proposal to be the best. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark observed that the downtown was not working at present. He felt the City was standing on the <br />“cusp” of something that would work. He said he would support the staff and ERAC recommendation. He <br />noted that he had some thoughts of working Beam Development into the project in some way, but he had <br />ascertained from the City Manager that while some of the developers might be willing to work together, they <br />did not want to do so. <br /> <br />Mr. Braud reported that staff had engaged in detailed conversations about the possibility of moving forward <br />with two developers. He said it was a combination of economics, as one would lose the economies of scale a <br />larger project would provide and the developers would be forced to compete for tenants in two different <br />projects. He also noted that staging construction would present logistical issues. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said the Beam Development proposal caused him some concern as it included a desire to do the <br />development on a fee basis; he preferred, when entering into a public/private partnership, there be some <br />means of shared risk. He stated that another concern for him was that was the potential increases in cost for <br />the project the City faced with any kind of delay. Also, he said the Beam Development proposal limiting the <br />Washburn Building to two floors ran counter to the development goal of significantly increasing density and <br />height downtown. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka thanked all of the developers for their responses. He considered them all to be well-thought <br />out. He thought the “devil was in the details” of the proposals. He envisioned the downtown as first a <br />neighborhood that had mixed uses, residential and commercial. He averred that housing was what would <br />“make it all work.” While he did support the public/private investment in the downtown, he was a little <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />