CC Minutes - 05/09/07 Work Session

Home Browse Search

a public process would occur. He said that Ms. Bettman complained about the public involvement involved in Mr. Zelenka’s proposal but her proposal would also include a public process or the community would be unhappy. He believed that no matter what the council did with regard to downtown, it would make somebody unhappy. Mr. Poling called on the council to show leadership. Ms. Ortiz commended Mr. Zelenka and Ms. Bettman for their proposals. She believed the council should have as much public process as possible, although she acknowledged that the public had been processing the issue for some time. Ms. Ortiz said she was challenged by the “whole thing” and would not speak to either motion because she did not know what to do. Ms. Solomon asked about the timeline required for both motions, and the experience of the two developers in working in a public process. Ms. Muir said both developers were used to working in a public environment and were willing to do so in Eugene. Mr. Braud said that staff would prepare timelines for the proposal selected. Mr. Braud said the important component of the timeline was to have a MOU in place with both teams, and staff thought that could be accomplished in a reasonable time frame. The MOU would lay out the timeline and associated steps. The council would review and adopt the MOUs. Following the adoption of the MOU, staff would work on development agreements with both developers. Ms. Solomon asked if the Beam proposal would be accomplished more quickly. Mr. Braud said yes. Ms. Solomon saw that as a plus as it eliminated the idea there would be “too many cooks in the kitchen.” If the Beam project moved forward, by the time KWG was ready to move, it would be halfway accomplished. Ms. Solomon said her preference was for KWG alone but she discussed the issue with Mr. Zelenka and appreciated the work he had put into the motion. She thought the project defined in Alan’s motion captured what everyone wanted and supported the date certain for action proposed by Mr. Clark. Mayor Piercy expressed support for Mr. Zelenka’s motion. She had recently lived in downtown for three months at Broadway Place and found the West Broadway area to be not as bad as some said but not as good as it could be. Everyone she talked to wanted to see something done now. Mayor Piercy thought both developers had specialties the City could take advantage of. Beam had creative and innovative renovations with a commitment to green building and the arts. KGW had expertise in residential over retail with an emphasis on affordable housing and green building. She thought together they could do much for Eugene. Mayor Piercy also supported moving forward with the Sears housing development. Mayor Piercy said the City received an outpouring of support for both proposals and she thought Mr. Zelenka’s proposal was a rational response to that input. It would provide for the public participation desired. She said the developers expressed willingness to work with an independent facilitator and both had experience doing so. Mayor Piercy asked Mr. Braud to speak to the developers’ willingness to work together. Mr. Braud said both expressed concern about the complexity of the approach but expressed willingness to meet and determine if an agreement that worked for all parties could be developed. Mayor Piercy said both developers expressed a willingness to work with local businesses. Mr. Pryor agreed that public participation would be an important consideration and it could be built into the process in a positive and productive way. He suggested the kind of development that needed to occur downtown depended on “the slope;” if the slope was fairly easy, then incremental, local, and organic worked just fine. However, there were aspects to downtown development that were better likened to a heavy climb MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 9, 2007 Page 6 Work Session