Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

had to meet a basic public/private participation ratio of one-to-five. He said attractive features included bringing in significant retail in a coordinated way while providing for housing and related parking. th Mr. Kelly appreciated the inclusion of a parking analysis to confirm the need but asked why the 10 Avenue and Pearl Street public parking facility was not factored into the office use need. Mr. Papé agreed with Mr. Pryor’s comments and the points raised by Mr. Kelly. He said that the downtown area had been in decline for decades, although some notable efforts were made over the years. He said the City should take advantage of the opportunity to revitalize downtown. He said the council had shown the will to reopen Broadway and the next leap would take significant courage because of the risks and City investment that would be involved. He hoped the council would move forward with direction to staff to work with the developer. He said there was considerable risk involved in using eminent domain to buy property and turn it over to a specific developer, based on a recent Supreme Court case. Ms. Ortiz agreed that the proposal was an opportunity waiting to happen. She said it took her breath away because it would change the face of Eugene and the change would be huge. She said she needed much more information on the implications of the proposal and was not certain she wanted to be a part of that change happening, although she would support the motion for staff continuing to develop an agreement. She was not certain how she would ultimately vote on the proposal as she had been contacted by several small business owners who were very concerned. Mayor Piercy called for a second round of comments and questions. Ms. Bettman asserted that the condition of West Broadway was misrepresented as the 67 percent vacancy rate included property owned by Connor and Woolley and she had heard anecdotally that earlier interest in redevelopment by others had been turned down. She said that Connor and Woolley had the ability to manipulate the vacancy rate on that section of Broadway. Referring to demolition, she asked if the developer envisioned phasing the project and if there was a possibility that buildings would be demolished and the sites left vacant for a number of years. Mr. Sullivan replied that only the housing portion of the project had been mentioned for phasing. He said all of the retail would need to occur at once and that meant the first floor would need to be constructed and tenanted, providing complete coverage for the site. He thought a majority, if not all, of the housing would have to be built at once as well. Ms. Bettman noted that the proposal indicated housing might be built later, depending on the market. Mr. Sullivan said the introduction of condominiums caused staff and others some concern; the proposal indicated that initial housing units would be condos and other housing units would be constructed initially as rentals, then converted to condos over time. Ms. Bettman asked if there was a possibility that no housing would be included in the project. Mr. Sullivan said that would be covered in the development agreement and part of the terms of any City involvement; approval of the agreement would be a council decision. Ms. Bettman expressed concern that buildings would be demolished and replaced with surface area parking lots. With regard to the issue of subsidies and the urban renewal district, she commented that the type of retail proposed would result in low-wage jobs. Mr. Kelly declared that it was very important to tie incentives to specific aspects of the project, such as a housing guarantee as part of the development agreement. He thought there was an appropriate role for the City to provide public parking as it would also allow the City to control the rates and policies. He noted the potential for development of public parking on the east end of downtown and asked how that would impact MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 9, 2006 Page 6 Work Session