Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Zelenka asked if the development agreement could include a requirement that the project design be <br />similar to what had been included in the proposal. Ms. Laurence said that could be done, but there were <br />also cost issues to be considered. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka said he did not feel the need for additional market analysis for either housing or commercial <br />space. Ms. Laurence noted that the Opus study had only addressed student housing. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka felt that both projects were strong and very similar in terms of design and quality, but preferred <br />the WG proposal because of the mixed use and local involvement. <br /> <br />Mr. Ruiz agreed that both proposals were very good, but still recommended the Opus project because of the <br />certainties regarding financial stability and ability to implement quickly. He said the Beam mixed use <br />project was somewhat similar to the WG project, which raised a concern about adding more of that type of <br />space to downtown. He said staff was willing to work with both developers. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor reiterated that both were great projects and would be a credit to downtown. He would be pleased <br />with whichever project was selected. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the agency director to enter <br />into an exclusive negotiation period not to exceed 90 days with Opus NWR Devel- <br />th <br />opment, LLC, for the sale and development of the 10 and Charnelton development <br />site and return to the City Council, acting as the Urban Renewal Agency, with the <br />proposed terms of the sale and development following the negotiation period. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to amend the motion by substituting <br />WG Development for Opus NWR Development. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz asserted that both were good, viable projects and the community was fortunate to have such a <br />choice. She hoped that the City Manager would continue to pursue working with whichever developer was <br />not selected. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon said that WB’s proposed occupancy date was September 2011 and Opus’s occupancy date <br />was July 2010. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman felt that choosing WG would kill the Opus project because its financial projects were based on <br />moving forward immediately. She wanted additional time to gain better understanding of WG’s financial <br />nuances. She preferred to move forward with the Opus project and negotiate for another site for the WG <br />project while addressing some of the questions regarding the WG proposal. She would not support the <br />amendment to substitute WG Development. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said she was not interested in the City assisting with two projects. She said she was initially <br />inclined to support Opus because of the connection with the University of Oregon, but many people in the <br />community had spoken against siting a dormitory in downtown. She was concerned with taking the land <br />back in the event of a breach of contract and preferred another remedy such as a non-refundable deposit. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka clarified that the occupancy dates for Opus and WG were July 2010 and September 2010 <br />respectively, a difference of only a few months. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 30, 2008 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />