Laserfiche WebLink
and he did not think incremental, local, and organic worked to accomplish that climb. He thought that Mr. <br />Zelenka’s proposal reflected the need that existed in the downtown and created a framework that he thought <br />provided the council with considerable latitude to do positive things downtown. Mr. Pryor agreed with Mr. <br />Poling as to the importance of acting now. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka said the process had been a difficult one. He stressed that there were no specific proposals on <br />the table and the council had only seen broad-brush concepts. Both developers believed the scoping process <br />could be accomplished in three months and that would include a market analysis. He pointed out that <br />combining the proposals only added one block, but it was a crucial block because it was the heart of the <br />downtown. He said the advisory committee he proposed included an independent planner/facilitator and he <br />thought it needed to have a time certain to have its work done, such as by the end of August. <br /> <br />Speaking to Ms. Bettman’s remarks, Mr. Zelenka thought the housing project on the Sears site needed to be <br />integrated with a project that included housing on the north side because they would be better projects. He <br />thought the neighborhood needed to change fundamentally to be successful. He emphasized that the result <br />of his motion would be nonbinding MOUs. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that nonbinding MOUs meant that the City was not moving forward and would be <br />committed to KWG without having a proposal on the table. The council would be passing up an approved <br />proposal on the Sears site and if it fell through, the council would lose that opportunity. She termed Mr. <br />Zelenka’s proposal “KWG Light.” Mr. Zelenka had “carved out” the Centre Court and Washburn buildings <br />from the footprint and “thrown that bone” to Beam. He did not even give Beam the Aster property, which <br />could leave the city with two pits in downtown for at least another year. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that once the City signed with KWG, it would wait a year. Her proposal, which was <br />Option 2 in the Agenda Items Summary, had been endorsed as a viable if not preferred option by City staff <br />and Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC). She said it would be a mischaracterization to <br />say that Mr. Zelenka’s proposal had something for everyone. She was opposed to it. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman believed that the KWG proposal would entail at least $35 million in public subsidies. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor reminded the council about the Pankow and Van Dyn project proposals, which were never <br />realized. She thought the City should move forward with its current agreement for redevelopment of the <br />Sears site and adopt Ms. Bettman’s motion. If the council adopted the Beam proposal, work would start <br />sooner and the two holes downtown would be filled. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said that KWG might have indicated an interest in protecting local businesses but the firm also <br />indicated its interest in an upscale development that those businesses could occupy if they could afford it. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark determined from Mr. Braud that the developer thought it would take 12 months to secure anchor <br />tenants for the project. He said if the council valued public participation and meant what it said in that <br />regard, he thought it the decision was clear. The public wanted the council to act now, so he would support <br />Mr. Zelenka’s motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling disagreed with Ms. Bettman’s characterization of Mr. Zelenka’s proposal as “KWG Light.” He <br />perceived the proposal as a compromise. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 9, 2007 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />