Laserfiche WebLink
lived in Broadway Place and traveled from downtown to reach the UO. She liked the interface with the <br />street created by the Opus NWR Development proposal. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy asked about the timing of the WG Development project. Ms. Laurence said staff would have <br />to work that out in negotiations. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy observed that Pivet, a local firm, was part of the Opus NWR Development project, giving it a <br />local flavor. She asked staff the time line for a council decision. Mr. Sullivan asked what type of <br />information the council wanted to see, as that could help him determine the amount of time needed to provide <br />it. Mayor Piercy acknowledged that the issue could not drag on and a decision was needed, but given the <br />two strong proposals the City had received, she thought more time was needed. City Manager Ruiz thought <br />a decision before the council’s summer recess would be preferable. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman preferred the Opus NWR Development proposal. She thought that Engineering Data Services <br />Manager Fred McVey could project the SDCs that would be assessed to the project and believed the council <br />needed that information. She said appearance was an issue for her. Ms. Bettman said that Opus called for <br />less of a subsidy and she thought that was always preferable. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman pointed out that mixed use did not have to occur within a single building; mixed uses could <br />occur in an area through a concentration of housing in one place served by commercial nearby. She agreed <br />with the manager about the proximity of the site to the transit system and noted the pressure for student <br />housing, which would otherwise be built elsewhere in the community and not downtown where more people <br />were needed and where they could easily use transit rather than a car. She acknowledged that the WG <br />Development proposal included some housing, but it would also include office space and commercial space <br />that would be competing with other such uses downtown. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman was concerned about the WG Development proposal for phasing and suggested the City <br />maintain ownership of the quarter block not being developed. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman liked the educational component of the WG Development project. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark did not think he needed more time to reach a decision. He had hoped to get to Mr. Zelenka’s <br />proposed motion as he thought it was a good one. He had intended to offer an amendment to that motion <br />directing staff to negotiate with whichever developer the council did not select about the potential of <br />negotiating a similar project on another suitable downtown site. If the council decided to put off a decision <br />to get more answers to its questions, he suggested that one of the questions be whether either developer <br />would be interested in developing on another site if the City could assist them in some way. Mr. Clark <br />wanted to capitalize on the success and momentum created by the Beam proposal, and did not want to lose <br />an opportunity to do that. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark noted his tentative support for the mix of uses and design in the WG Development proposal, <br />which he considered better in the location across from the library. He considered that location a special <br />place downtown. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark determined from Ms. Laurence that staff had no indication that the residential units in the WG <br />Development proposal were to be designed for ownership. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark suggested that a mix of students and other residents was preferable to a student-only complex <br />because he thought it would create greater ownership of the space through more tenant continuity. He <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2008 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />