Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS071127B-attBATTACHMENT B Council and URA Action History: West BroadwayRedevelopment Project, BEDI, Section 108, Downtown Urban Renewal District & City Policies 1. West Broadway Redevelopment Project th URA – 1999: The first Request for Proposals (RFP) for the sale and development of the 10 & Charnelton site was issued. Responses were limited, and the Urban Renewal Agency (URA) deferred review of the responses due to pending discussion on potential sites for the new Federal Courthouse and City Hall. th URA – December, 2002: URA approved the issuance of a second 10 & Charnelton RFP. In May 2003, the URA received four responses and selected the Oregon Research Institute (ORI) project. ORI later decided to forgo the purchase and development of the site. CC –January 9, 2006: City Council (CC) discussed the Connor and Woolley/Opus development proposal for West Broadway, including tools that the City Manager and staff might use to facilitate the acquisition of property that may be needed for any comprehensive redevelopment of the West Broadway area. The council passed a motion 7:1 to “direct the City Manager to work with Connor and Woolley on developing a more detailed proposal related to West Broadway development to be brought back to the council. This motion in no way endorses the concept of the proposal.” The City Manager understood from the discussion and action that everything short of condemnation should be pursued in order to assist in the redevelopment of the West Broadway area. th ERAC – April 20, 2006: Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC) discussed the 10 and Charnelton RFP and encouraged a comprehensive review of how each project proposal advances the Downtown Plan and contributes to this area of downtown. th PC – April 24, 2006: Planning Commission (PC) reviewed the 1999 and 2002 versions of the 10 & Charnelton RFP and provided input regarding the issuance of a new RFP for the site. Generally, PC encouraged use of the policies and strategies in the Downtown Plan as the primary source for gauging desirable projects for the site. It also favored a less prescriptive RFP approach in comparison to the 1999 criteria to attract a broad mix of possible uses, encourage creativity in the development of the site and inspire investor confidence. April 2006: ? Connor and Woolley/Opus announced that the West Broadway project was no longer viable, primarily because of an inability to acquire the property needed for the development envisioned. Following the announcement, staff began exploring ways the City could assist in assembling land for the potential redevelopment, including the possibility of acquiring purchase options on the properties, with the intention of bringing the purchase options, once acquired, to the URA for direction. th URA – May 24, 2006: URA approved the issuance of the third 10 & Charnelton RFP: Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve the RFP for the sale and development th of the 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street development site and direct the City Manager to issue a request for proposals consistent with the preliminary schedule included in the draft RFP with final review of the RFP responses and approval of a project for the site provided by the Urban Renewal Agency. Vote: Passed 8:0. ~ Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the Development Objectives to include “As a publicly solicited project with the potential for public subsidies and incentives this development addresses the needs of the community. More housing units and varied housing options are needed to accommodate projected population demographics. Central housing is a key element in the Growth Management Policies and the Downtown Plan. Downtown housing is essential for creating the critical mass of residents to support retail and to concentrate populations where services already exist within walking distance and where transit and pedestrian amenities are easily and efficiently available. Housing downtown requires public sector support in order to be competitive. Preferred proposals for the site will recognize this development site as a rare opportunity to address the significant need for downtown housing units by providing for multi-storied, very high density housing, preferably accommodating ownership options as well as affordable units. Vote: Passed 7:0 (Pape not yet arrived) ~ Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to change the third point on page 390 of the AIS under “Active Uses” to read as follows: “3. Major employment center for very high quality jobs and extended hours of occupancy.” Vote: Passed 5:4 (Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, Ms. Ortiz, and the Mayor voting in favor and Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, Mr. Pape and Mr. Pryor voting in opposition.) ~ Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the Development Objectives to delete the third point regarding a strong relationship with key tenants. Vote: Passed 8:0. th June 2, 2006 ?: 10 & Charnelton RFP issued with a submission due date of August 15, 2006. The due date was subsequently extended to September 15, 2006. The City received responses from Beam Development, TK Partners, and Sockeye Development. th Memo – July 26, 2006: Staff memo addressed the 10 & Charnelton RFP extension. The 30-day extension was intended to be responsive to development interest in the site and maximize the opportunity to attract quality proposals. th ERAC – September 28, 2006: ERAC reviewed the 10 & Charnelton RFP responses. ERAC was expanded specifically for review of the RFP responses to include expertise in the areas of sustainability (Josh Proudfoot, Good Company), financing (Erik Riechers, Pacific Continental Bank), and housing development (Jim McCoy, Housing and Community Services Agency). ERAC recommended that staff move forward with the selection of the TK Partners proposal. th URA – October 11, 2006: URA considered the 10 & Charnelton RFP proposals. Voting on a motion to select a proposal was postponed until October 16, 2006. th URA – October 16, 2006: URA selected the TK Partners proposal for the 10& Charnelton site: Moved to direct the Agency Director to enter into a 90-day exclusive negotiation period with TK Partners for the sale and development of the 10th and Charnelton development site based upon the proposal submitted and to return to the City Council, acting as the Urban Renewal Agency, with the proposed terms of the sale and development following the negotiation period. Vote: Passed 8:0. ERAC – November 21, 2006: ERAC reviewed the draft West Broadway RFQ. Committee members provided comments on criteria and timing of the RFQ. URA – November 27, 2006: URA provided direction to issue an RFQ for the redevelopment of West Broadway with approved criteria, with the following motion: Ms. Solomon seconded by Ms. Ortiz moved to direct the Agency Director to issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the redevelopment of West Broadway based on the draft RFQ criteria included in this agenda item with the responses to the RFQ to be brought back to the URA for consideration in early Spring 2007. The RFQ shall permit responses to deal with (a) property included only in a single option agreement for example the Centre Court Building and adjacent hole, (b) property included in more than one but less than all of the option agreements, or (c) property included in all of the option agreements. Include an additional criterion “Consistency with City Policies and Goals” in the RFQ evaluation criteria on council agenda packet pages 15 and 16; substitute the word “will” for the word “should” in subparagraphs 1 “Urban Design”, 2 “Active Uses”, and 3 “Sustainable Development” in the RFQ Evaluation criteria on council agenda packet pages15 and 16; add the phrase “and will contribute to an active around the clock 24-hour downtown” at the end of the first sentence in the paragraph under the heading “Active Uses” in the RFQ evaluation criteria on council agenda packet page15; delete the words “and assistance” from subparagraph 2 under the paragraph captioned “Public Benefit” in the RFQ evaluation criteria on page 16 of the council agenda packet; and add the following definition of the term mixed use in the RFQ evaluation criteria “Mixed use development refers to the practice of containing more than one type of use or activity in a building or set of buildings or blocks. The mix of uses can vary widely but typically includes a higher density combination of residential, commercial, industrial, office, institutional, or other activities. The uses are typically in close proximity, pedestrian-friendly and compatible with multi-modal transportation.” Vote: Passed 8:0. December 8, 2006: ? West Broadway RFQ issued with a submission due date of February 9, 2007. February 2007: ? The City received responses from Beam Development, CenterCal Properties, Greg Bryant, KWG Development Partners, and MidTown Development. KWG’s response addressed the entire West Broadway Redevelopment Area, as well as the th 10 & Charnelton site, with the understanding that if not selected they would move forward with the initial TK Partners concept. ERAC – February 23, 2007: ERAC met to review the West Broadway RFQ responses. ERAC was expanded specifically for review of the RFQ responses to include representation from the arts (Tina Rinaldi), a Broadway tenant (Beth Little, Saturday Market), and a Downtown Vision Committee member (Greg McLauchlan). ERAC concluded that KWG had the strongest response to the objectives and criteria in the RFQ. The committee also expressed interest in the reuse potential of the Washburne and Centre Court buildings proposed by Beam. ERAC unanimously recommended that staff explore further the KWG and Beam responses. URA – March 12, 2007: URAwork session to review responses to the West Broadway RFQ. URA recognized Beam and KWG as qualified developers. Action was taken to direct staff to work with Beam and KWG to explore project concepts in more detail, with opportunities for community input, and to bring the following supplemental information back to the URA for review and approval: project cost and scale; development footprint; mix of uses; transfer of property; design and sustainability; parking requirements; feasibility of building reuse; preservation of Centre Court and Washburne buildings; preservation of local businesses; and level of financial participation from the URA. Memo – April 12, 2007: Staff memo addressed the financial capacity of the Downtown Urban Renewal District and the other tools to support downtown redevelopment. CC –April 16, 2007: Council workshop on downtown development issues. The council heard presentations from a mix of local developers and interested parties who described development opportunities, challenges, and policy alternatives. ERAC – April 19, 2007: ERAC reviewed the supplemental information submitted by Beam and KWG. ERAC unanimously voted in favor of moving forward in a positive manner with downtown development and concluded that the qualifications of both Beam and KWG were acceptable, with a primary preference for awarding the project to KWG and a secondary preference for awarding the project to Beam. CC & URA – April 25, 2007: Council work session on the financial tools available to support downtown redevelopment. URA work session reviewed the supplemental information submitted by Beam and KWG. URA deferred a decision on developer selection until after the scheduled April 30, 2007 public workshop. However, the URA did provide direction to the Agency Director to renew the purchase options on the Centre Court building and adjacent parcel (the hole), the Washburne Building, and the properties under option on the south side of Broadway between Olive and Charnelton streets (Diva to Shawmed property). Public Workshop – April 30, 2007 : A public workshop was held to gather input on the Beam and KWG concepts and the selection options being considered by the URA. The workshop was co- sponsored by ERAC, Citizens for Public Accountability (CPA), and the Eugene Area Chamber of th Commerce. Results of the workshop were included in the council packet for the May 9 meeting. Project Tour – May 5, 2007: The Mayor and Councilor Zalenka, along with City staff and representatives from CPA and the Chamber, toured projects completed by Beam and KWG. URA – May 9, 2007: URA considered input received at the April 30, 2007 public workshop and considered the Beam and KWG responses. Voting on a motion selected a developer was postponed until the March 14, 2007 work session. URA – May 14, 2007: The Agency selected Beam and KWG, with the following motion: Move to select Beam and KWG as the developers for the West Broadway project, and to direct the Agency Director to initiate actions related to agreements with the developers; public process that includes a citizen advisory committee with an independent urban planner/ facilitator whose work shall be completed by the end of August and presented to the Agency in September; option agreements; financial tools; and a relocation/transition plan, all consistent th with the Agency’s May 9 discussion, with all proposed actions, other than option agreement renewals and extensions, brought back to the Agency for final authorization. This motion further directs the Agency Director to secure the services of a qualified urban planner/ facilitator to oversee the public process for the West Broadway development site footprint, and to establish a West Broadway Development Advisory Committee to work with a qualified urban planner/facilitator, and the developers, to identify preferred design elements, mix of uses, public open spaces, options for parking, as well as a transition plan for existing businesses. The Agency and the Advisory Committee would also seek additional public input. The Advisory Committee shall be composed of 11 members, appointed by the Mayor after consulting with the City Council. In addition, the Agency Director shall secure the services of a qualified consultant to perform market analysis and economic feasibility studies. This research and analysis will inform the Agency and the Advisory Committee’s deliberations. Vote:Passed 6:2 (Bettman, Taylor opposed). June 27, 2007: ?First meeting of the West Broadway Advisory Committee (WBAC), attended by all 11 members appointed by the Mayor. July 2, 2007: ? HDR Town Planning, an urban planner/facilitator, was selected from the pool of four respondents to a Request for Qualifications. st August 4, 2007: ?WBAC sponsored 1 public workshop facilitated by HDR Town Planning with more than 130 members of the community in attendance. URA – May 29, 2007: URA work session to review a preliminary West Broadway Financing Plan. The URA also began the process for making a substantial amendment to the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan. The Agency passed the following motion: Move to forward to the Planning Commission and overlapping taxing districts the proposed amendments to the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan, consistent with the draft plan and report included in Attachments D and E, except that the amendments shall include an increased maximum indebtedness of $40 million, for a total of $73 million and an extension of the termination date from June 30, 2024 to June 30, 2030. Vote: Passed 6:2 (Bettman, Taylor opposed). URA – July 18, 2007: Agency approved Memorandums of Understanding with the developers. Vote on Beam MOU: Passed 8-0; Vote on KWG MOU: Passed 6-2 (Bettman, Taylor opposed). Public Information – August 3, 2007: Staff provided information on a West Broadway redevelop- ment project in the Broadway Plaza during the First Friday Art Walk. Written and verbal com- ments were collected and handouts on the August 4 workshop were distributed. It is estimated that about 400 citizens stopped by the information tent to provide their ideas and find out more about the project. Memo – September 12, 2007: Staff memo regarding “COUNCIL ASSIGNMENT RESPONSE: FINANCIAL IMPACT OF WEST BROADWAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS.” CC – September 19, 2007: WBAC recommendations at noon. Community forum at 5:30. URA – September 24, 2007: Agency approved WBAC recommendations as amended by Councilor Zalenka and considered the next steps for the West Broadway redevelopment project. The Agency passed the following motion: Move to accept the recommendations presented in the WBAC final report, and to direct the Agency Director to work with Beam and KWG to develop project proposals as consistent as possible with the WBAC recommendation, as amended by the changes presented by Councilor Zelenka at the September 24th council work session. The Agency Director shall bring the project proposals to the URA for review, including financial details. If a proposal is not completely consistent with the recommendations, then the Agency Director, when presenting the proposal for URA review, shall identify which recommendations are not met, why not, and what the cost or development implications would be to change the proposal to make it consistent. Prior to the URA's approval of project proposals and financial details that would be included in agreements with Beam and KWG, the Agency Director shall create opportunities for the public to provide input on the project proposals and financial details, including a public hearing before the URA. Following input from the public, the Agency Director shall bring terms to be included in agreements with Beam and KWG for approval. Vote: Passed 6:2 (Bettman, Taylor opposed). Memo – October 3, 2007: Staff memo regarding “COUNCIL ASSIGNMENT RESPONSE: WEST BROADWAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND OPTION RENEWAL EXPENDITURES.” Memo – October 24, 2007: Staff memo regarding“WEST BROADWAY PURCHASE OPTIONS UPDATE.” Election – November 6, 2007: Urban renewal plan amendment ballot measure 20-134 was defeated by a vote of 36% yes to 64% no. Memo – November 13, 2007: Memo from City Manager Pro Tem providing an update on West Broadway project and Beam and KWG in light of the failed ballot measure. 2. Brownfield Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) Grant IGR – May 16, 2005: Memo to Intergovernmental Relations Committee (IGR) explaining the Brownfield Economic Development (BEDI) grant and intended use for downtown development projects within the two urban renewal districts. IGR – May 26, 2005: IGR considered the BEDI Grant application submission, and it was unani- mously approved. Anticipated projects for the grant could include the Sears Site for ORI, redevelopment of vacant properties along West Broadway, and targeted redevelopment in the federal courthouse area. June 2005: ?Application submitted. January 2006: ? City received award notice for a $2 million BEDI Grant to assist redevelopment projects within the City's Downtown and Riverfront urban renewal districts. BEDI funds must be used in conjunction with, and for projects financed by, a HUD Section 108 guaranteed loan commitment. Memo – February 1, 2006: Staff memo regarding “Council Assignment Response: Recently-Award- ed Brownfield Grant.” Memo – August 2, 2007: Staff memo regarding “Clarification – Brownfield Economic Development Initiative Grant” in response to questions raised at the July 23 council meeting. 3. HUD Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program (Section 108) CDBG-AC – February 1 & March 1, 2006: In accordance with application requirements, the City’s Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee (CDBG-AC) held two public hearings regarding the Section 108 loan proposal. Opportunity for public comment was also made available during a 30-day written public comment period. On March 1, 2006, the CDBG-AC unanimously recommended submittal of the proposed $7,895,000 Section 108 application to HUD, with funding of future projects to be reviewed by the CDBG Advisory Committee and the City Council. CC – March 13, 2006: Council approved Resolution No. 4860 “A resolution authorizing submission of an application to United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for loan guarantee assistance and related matters.” Vote: Passed 7:0 (Absent: Taylor). July, 2006: ? HUD selected the City’s Section 108 application for funding to create a $9,895,000 loan pool, together with BEDI grant funds, for redevelopment projects within the Downtown and Riverfront urban renewal districts. Memo – December 28, 2006: Staff memo regarding “HUD Section 108 Loan Authorization” described the public hearing and ordinance process. CC – February 20, 2007: Council held a public hearing on the ordinance authorizing the use of Section 108 as a financing tool. CC – February 26, 2007: Council approved the ordinance authorizing the use of the Section 108 as a financing tool. The non-emergency ordinance established the City’s general ability to borrow for Section 108 projects with the stipulation that individual projects be approved by council resolution following a public hearing. Ordinance Number 20376, Council Bill Number 4938 “An ordinance authorizing Section 108 Revenue Bonds.” Vote: Passed 7:1 (Opposed: Taylor). Memo – April 9, 2007: Sue Cutsogeorge informed council that the issue of a debt policy amendment th would be brought to council as a consent calendar item on May 14. CC – May 14, 2007: Council approved, on consent calendar, an amendment to the City’s debt policies regarding conduit financing. th Public Comment – June 20 to July 20, 2007: The 30-day public comment period started on June 20 th with an advertisement in the Register Guard. No public comments received as of July 17. CDBG-AC – July 10, 2007: The CDBG-AC met to review the individual project #1. They recommended “submittal of the individual project application to HUD subject to completion of public hearing and City Council approval of a project specific resolution.” Vote: Passed 8:0 CC – July 16, 2007: Public hearing on the project to be funded from BEDI/HUD 108 funds. Two individuals spoke at the hearing. CC – July 23, 2007: Council approval of a resolution authorizing the City to enter into a Section 108 loan with HUD. Vote: Passed 5-3 (Opposed: Bettman, Ortiz, Taylor). The Agency approved issuance of a bond to the City with the same terms and for equal payments as the HUD Section 108 loan. Vote: Passed 6-2 (Opposed: Bettman, Taylor). Staff – July 30, 2007: Staff submitted individual project application to HUD for Section108 loan. August 9, 2007: ? HUD approved individual project application September 27, 2007: ? HUD provided review clearance for West Broadway Environmental Review. Memos – August 16, 2007 : Staff memo regarding HUD approval of individual project application. Under separate cover, staff also provided notice of the location of a paper copy and web location of the individual project application. 4. Downtown Urban Renewal District July 1968: District originally created. The district plan has been amended four times: December 1968, November 1989, June 1998, and most recently in September 2004. Memo – April 12, 2007: Staff memo addressed the financial capacity of the Downtown Urban Renewal District and other tools to support downtown redevelopment. The necessity of a plan amendment was raised in connection with undertaking a large-scale redevelopment project. ERAC – April 19, 2007: ERAC viewed a presentation on the Downtown Urban Renewal District. ERAC unanimously recommended that the Downtown District Urban Renewal Plan be amended to increase the district’s financial capacity. CC & URA – April 25, 2007: Work session on the financial tools available to support downtown redevelopment. Staff alerted council to the necessity of amending the district plan to increase financial capacity. Public Workshop – April 30, 2007 : A public workshop was held to gather citizen input on the Beam and KWG concepts and the selection options being considered by the URA. The necessity of increasing the “maximum indebtedness” in the district was presented to the workshop attendees. th The results of the workshop were included in the council packet for the May 9 meeting. URA – May 29, 2007: The URA also began the process for making a substantial amendment to the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan. The Agency passed the following motion: Move to forward to the Planning Commission and overlapping taxing districts the proposed amendments to the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan, consistent with the draft plan and report included in Attachments D and E, except that the amendments shall include an increased maximum indebtedness of $40 million, for a total of $73 million and an extension of the termination date from June 30, 2024 to June 30, 2030. Vote: Passed 6:2 (Bettman, Taylor opposed). Taxing Districts Notice – June 11, 2007: The governing bodies of taxing districts impacted by the plan received notification. PC – June 18, 2007: Planning Commission met and reviewed the proposed amendments. They moved to: “Acknowledge receipt of the plan by the Planning Commission and given the relative completeness of the citizen involvement process, had no comments to offer.” Vote: Passed 6:0 Memo – June 21, 2007: Staff memo provided an update on the Plan Amendment process. Public Notice – Week of June 25, 2007: A postcard notice was mailed to approximately 52,000 property owners in Eugene with information on accessing proposed plan amendments and the July th 16 public hearing. LC – June 28, 2007: City staff met with the Lane County Finance and Audit Committee (LC) to review the proposed plan amendments. The County sent a letter with suggested plan changes to the City Council for deliberation when the plan amendments are considered. CC – July 16, 2007: Public hearing on the proposed urban renewal plan amendments. Twelve individuals spoke at the public hearing. Public Information – August 3, 2007: Staff provided information on urban renewal in relation to a West Broadway redevelopment project in the Broadway Plaza during the First Friday Art Walk. Written and verbal comments were collected. CC – August 13, 2007: Council approved Ordinance 20389. Vote: Passed 6:2 (Bettman, Taylor opposed). CC – August 15, 2007: Council placed the urban renewal amendments on the November ballot. a)Moved to reconsider Ordinance No. 20389 adopted by the council on August 13, 2007. Vote: Passed 8:0 b)Moved to amend Ordinance No. 20389 to add: “Section 3. The provisions of Sections 1 and 2 of this ordinance shall not become effective unless approved by the electors of the City of Eugene at the city election to be held concurrently with the statewide election on November 6, 2007. Vote: Passed 8:0 c)Vote to adopt Ordinance 20389 as amended: Passed 6:2 (Bettman, Taylor opposed) d)Moved to adopt Resolution 4916 calling a city election on November 6, 2007, for the purpose of referring to the legal electors of the city of Eugene, Ordinance No. 20389 adopting an amended Urban Renewal Plan for the Downtown Urban Renewal District. Vote: Passed 8:0 e)Moved to direct the City Manager to include the Urban Renewal Plan measure as part of the Voters’ Pamphlet and to appoint councilors Ortiz, Clark, and Poling to the Voters’ Pamphlet proponent committee. Vote: Passed 8:0 Memo – October 3, 2007: Staff memo provided council assignment response on Maximum Indebtedness Questions. Election – November 6, 2007: Urban renewal plan amendment ballot measure 20-134 was defeated by a vote of 36% yes to 64% no. 5. Related City Policies Future redevelopment of the West Broadway Redevelopment Area is consistent with the policies and implementation strategies included in the Downtown Plan, including: ? Downtown development shall support the urban qualities of density, vitality, livability and diversity to create a downtown, urban environment. ? Actively pursue public/private development opportunities to achieve the vision for an active, vital, growing downtown. ? Use downtown development tools and incentives to encourage development that provides character and density downtown. ? Promote multi-story, mixed-use structures downtown through financial incentives or code amendments. ? Stimulate multi-unit housing in the downtown core and on the edges of downtown for a variety of income levels and ownership opportunities. ? Provide and promote development and community events that reinforce downtown’s role as the cultural center for the city and region. ? Reinforce the creative, distinctive culture of downtown as the arts and entertainment center of the city. In addition, the future development of the West Broadway Redevelopment Area is responsive to the following Growth Management policies: Policy 1: Support the existing Eugene Urban Growth Boundary by taking actions to increase density and use existing vacant and under-used land within the boundary more efficiently. Policy 2: Encourage in-fill, mixed-use, redevelopment, and higher density development. Policy 3: Encourage a mix of business and residential uses downtown using incentives and zoning. Policy 10: Encourage the creation of transportation-efficient land use patterns and implementation of nodal development concepts. Policy 14: Development shall be required to pay the full cost of extending infrastructure and services, except that the City will examine ways to subsidize the costs of providing infrastructure or offer other incentives that support higher-density infill, mixed use, and redevelopment. – This item is also related to one of the 2007-2008 Council Goals: Downtown InitiativeFacilitate significant revitalization of downtown core.