CC Minutes - 05/09/07 Work Session

Home Browse Search

and analysis will inform the Urban Renewal Agency and the ad hoc committee’s delibera- tions. The resulting recommendations will be used by the Urban Renewal Agency as the basis for criteria to include in a formal Request for Proposals on the remaining balance of the West Broadway development site footprint. Ms. Bettman thought Mr. Zelenka’s proposal, as reflected in the motion, was vague. If she had not seen his proposal, it might appear to be a compromise. She believed that basically it was an endorsement of the KGW proposal while leaving Beam to redevelop just the buildings. It incorporated an existing approved housing project into the larger footprint. KGW stated it must do feasibility studies that could take a year, and she thought that was tantamount to doing nothing. Her motion moved the City forward and provided for housing, historic preservation, and redevelopment of the Aster site while giving the City time to plan for the remainder of downtown. Otherwise, everything was put off until KWG decided what was profitable. When the council saw what the company was willing to build, it would be a year away and no ground would have been broken on projects. She thought doing nothing was not an option. Ms. Bettman said another downside of the KWG proposal was that the company said it would accommodate the existing businesses but the company’s response to the Request for Qualifications suggested that it was “every man for himself” while KGW did due diligence and construction. If those businesses could afford the rent, they could relocate to their original sites. Her motion moved the community forward with two viable proposals with considerable community support. Mr. Zelenka’s proposal included three public hearings, and each would be a “divisive meltdown.” Mr. Clark thanked Mr. Zelenka, Mayor Piercy, and the staff. He was happy to see the council work with this much integrity toward an answer that worked for everyone. He said the public expressed support for the development proposals before the council, and he thought the proposal put forth by Mr. Zelenka was a way to reach common ground. Mr. Clark thought the public input the council received suggested that it was time to act and breathe new life into downtown. His only concern was that he would not want to see disagreement as a hindrance to final action, and asked that action be taken by the time of the last council meeting on August 15. He asked that be accepted as a friendly amendment. Speaking to the Ms. Bettman’s concern about the potential that disagreement would be expressed in the public hearings, Mr. Clark suggested that was a good thing. He thought the council would find a way to accommodate everyone and take action. Ms. Taylor thought it was good that people were aware of what was going on. She stressed the importance of an incremental, organic, local approach. It was a higher priority to Ms. Taylor that the existing businesses downtown be protected, and she did not think Mr. Zelenka’s motion accomplished that. She thought the City should proceed with the Beam proposal, which would renovate two existing buildings without disturbing anyone. She suggested the City could negotiate with Beam about the Aster site. Ms. Taylor said the council decided on the Sears site but without council direction, the manager had failed to proceed. She wanted to proceed with that project as quickly as possible. Mr. Poling did not support Ms. Bettman’s motion as it was too limited in scope and it lacked deadlines. He termed it essentially a rehash of what the council had been doing. He said the City had been processing the issue of downtown redevelopment for 20 years and it was time to act. He had favored the KGW proposal because he repeatedly heard the City wanted a range of housing options as well as retail and commercial in the downtown area, and that was what KGW proposed to do. He emphasized the word “proposed.” He said MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 9, 2007 Page 5 Work Session