Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: Review of West Broadway Request for Qualifications Responses EURA UGENE RBAN ENEWAL GENCY AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Work Session: Review of West Broadway Request for Qualifications Responses Meeting Date: March 12, 2007 Agenda Item Number: B Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Denny Braud www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5536 ISSUE STATEMENT TheUrban Renewal Agency (URA) is asked to review responses to a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the redevelopment of a multi-parcel area along West Broadway between Willamette and Charnelton streets (“redevelopment area”) and to recommend the selection of a qualified developer(s). BACKGROUND On November 27, 2006, the URA provided direction to issue an RFQ for the redevelopment of West Broadway based on the criteria that was reviewed and approved by the URA. An RFQ was issued on December 8, 2006 (see Attachment A), with a submission due date of February 9, 2007. Responses to the RFQ were received from Beam Development, CenterCal Properties, Greg Bryant, KWG Development Partners, and MidTown Development. A summary review of each response is included in Attachment B, and full copies of the responses are included in Attachment C. The stated focus in the RFQ solicitation is on the qualifications of the prospective development team(s). The URA also requested each respondent’s vision for the redevelopment, including the mix of uses and the general configuration and scale of a redevelopment concept. Since the responses were to an RFQ rather than a request for proposals, it is important to recognize the conceptual nature of the development concepts included with each of the responses. The RFQ evaluation criteria that was reviewed and approved by the URA include the following: A. Team Qualifications 1. Experience with successful developments in urban areas 2. Track record of superior architectural and urban design B. Redevelopment Concept 1. Urban design 2. Active uses 3. Sustainable development C. Timeliness and Market Feasibility 1. Projection of a reasonable timeline for development 2. Understanding of market potential for the proposed concept D. Financial Capacity 1. Capacity to prepare a detailed financial analysis and cost estimate for project development and operation L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070312\S070312B.doc 2. Evidence of financial capacity to implement the proposed concept 3. Track record of completion of similar projects within budget (or with modified budgets or financing) E. Public Benefit 1. Cohesive, comprehensive concept with multiple properties, high density and complete block faces 2. Efficient use of public resources 3. New tax increment revenue resulting from the redevelopment 4. If housing is proposed, inclusion of mixed income units 5. Job creation within the redevelopment area F. Consistency with City Policies and Goals The development objectives stated in the RFQ highlight the opportunity for new structures, uses and activities in this vital area of downtown. The overall concept for the redevelopment area focuses on a vision for dense, multi-story, mixed-use, urban development. The mix of uses identified in the RFQ development objectives includes a broad range of downtown urban activities such as retail, residential, office, hotel, theatres and restaurants. The need and demand for high-density housing with a range of ownership, rental and mixed-income options is emphasized in the development objectives. Strong urban design, including multi-story structures with appropriate scale, orientation and design is also desired. The RFQ responses have been evaluated based on the above RFQ evaluation criteria. The responses were reviewed by a Community Development staff team, an inter-departmental staff team, and the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC) department advisory committee. Staff also presented to and received feedback from the Planning Commission, the Downtown Eugene, Inc. board of directors, and other City departments. 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). Minutes from the ERAC meeting are included in Attachment D. ERAC concluded that KWG had the strongest response to the objectives and criteria in the RFQ. The committee also expressed interest in the re-use potential of the Washburne and Centre Court buildings proposed by Beam. ERAC unanimously recommended that staff explore further the KWG and Beam responses. After the ERAC recommendation, staff met with both development teams to discuss the issues raised and provided a memorandum to ERAC summarizing the discussion and findings. The memorandum is included in Attachment E. Additional background information is included in the November 27, 2006, Agenda Item Summary (see Attachment F). 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. L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070312\S070312B.doc 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. 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. Downtown Initiative – This item is also related to one of the new 2007-2008 Council Goals: Facilitate significant revitalization of downtown core. COUNCIL OPTIONS 1.Select a single RFQ response and begin working with the selected developer to consider various approaches for the redevelopment area. 2.Select more than one RFQ response and begin working with selected developers to consider and coordinate approaches for the redevelopment area. 3.Defer selection and choose multiple responses that would be carried forward for additional review. 4.Reject all responses and identify potential next steps. URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY DIRECTOR’S RECOMMENDATION Based on the ERAC recommendation and staff analysis and findings, the Agency Director’s recommendation is that KWG’s response is the most qualified. Evaluating the KWG response with the RFQ criteria, staff found: A.Team Qualifications: The KWG development team’s well-rounded experience in mixed-use, housing, retail and complex development projects is a distinguishing characteristic among the responses. B.Redevelopment Concept: The KWG comprehensive concept for the redevelopment area strongly reflects the goal of transforming Broadway into a Great Street by incorporating a diverse mix of active uses with the potential to bring local and regional visitors to the downtown core, and to create a walkable, livable neighborhood district. The compact residential density proposed in the downtown core, and the inclusion of affordable housing in the concept responds favorably to the City’s sustainable development goals. Additionally, KWG has indicated a desire to re-use the Centre Court building and would support reuse of the Washburne building. L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070312\S070312B.doc C.Timeliness and Market Feasibility: Although more information is needed on the timeliness and market feasibility of the redevelopment concept, their team has excellent housing and retail market experience and the details of the concept are not considered to be the primary evaluation criteria in the RFQ. D.Financial Capacity: Members of the development team also have a demonstrated track record of financing and completing large scale development projects. Of particular note is Tom Kemper’s relationship with ScanlanKemperBard, a major real estate investment banking firm located in Portland and co-founded by Kemper. E.Public Benefit: KWG’s comprehensive approach to the redevelopment area may require significant financial participation from the City. However, the comprehensive concept could also produce significant public benefit, including new tax increment revenue, density, activity, mixed-income housing, and job creation. F.Consistency with City Policies and Goals: Overall, the staff analysis of KWG’s approach concludes that the response is strongly aligned with City policies and goals, including the Vision for Greater Downtown Eugene, the Downtown Plan, the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan, and Growth Management Policies. The Agency Director recommends moving forward under Option 1 above with the selection of KWG Development Partners based on the RFQ criteria that was approved by the URA. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to select KWG Development Partners and direct the Agency Director to work with KWG Development Partners to 1) explore in more detail project concepts, with opportunities for community input, and 2) bring back to the URA for review and approval the more detailed project concepts. The more detailed project concepts shall include the development footprint, feasibility of building reuse, transfer of property, project scale, mix of uses, design, and level of financial participation from the URA. ATTACHMENTS A. West Broadway RFQ B. Summary Review of RFQ Responses C. RFQ Responses D. Meeting Minutes from Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (February 23, 2007) E. Memorandum to Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (March 6, 2007) F. November 27, 2006, Agenda Item Summary FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Denny Braud Telephone: 682-5536 Staff E-Mail: denny.braud@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070312\S070312B.doc ATTACHMENT D M IN UTE S(DRAFT) Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee Saul .Room, Atrium Building 99 West loth Avenue, Eu.gene February 23, 2007 noon .P.RESENT: Alexis Garrett, Chair; Sarah Bennett, Rick Duncan, Daniel Herbert, Greg Brokaw, Hugh Prichard, members; Beth Little, Tina Rinaldi, Greg McLauchlan, invited guests; Denny Braud, Sue Cutsgeorge, Stephanie Jennings, Nan Laurance, Susan Muir, Amanda Nobel, Mike Sullivan, Richie Weinman, staff; Ton1 Kanlis, Russ Brink, Rob Bennett, Ed-Russo, guests. ABSENT: Ginevra Ralph, member. Ms. Garrett conv-rened the meeting. I. INTRODUCTIONS Those present introduced themselves. Mr. Sullivan explained the several people in attendance had been invited to round out the perspective of the committee for the Request for Qu.alifications (RFQ) process: . Beth Little, Manager of The Saturday Market and a tenant on Broadway. . Tina Rinaldi, Sllpporter of the Arts in Eugene and in downtown, .V.niversity of Oregon Arts and .A.dmll1istration Program administrator. . Greg McLaughlan, member of the 2000 Do\vntown Vision Committee. II. ITEMS FROM THE COl\'Il\IlTNITY Tom Kamis said he recently leased a space do\vnto\vn which he intends to open as a restaurant and bar, and was very interested in the RFQ process. III. ITEMS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBE-RS Mr. Prichard displayed inspiration photos of successful redevelopment projects in downtown Corvallis. He explained those projects could not be done. in Eugene under the current codes. IV. ITEMS F-ROM STAFF MINUTES- Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Conlnlittee February 23, 2007 Rage Mr. Sullivan said the WestTown on gthproject was under construction \vith completion anticipated in December 2007.. The project consisted of 111 units, nine of which were live-work units that would face the street, and\vouldbe a 'big step forward in bringing households into the downtown core. He said staff would continue to work with the property owners of the former Whole Foods project site, noting the prope.rtyhad a huge con1mercial value in the downtown. v. REVIEW OF RFQRESPONSE.SFOR BROADWAY PROPERTIES ,. Ms.. Garrett explained the committee would see a PowerPoint presentation on each of the five proposals. She said at the end of the revie\v of all of the proposals, the committee would be asked to rank each of the proposals. Mr. McLauchlan arrived at 12:10 p.m. Mr. Braud offered the staffreport supported. by a PowerPoint presentation. He said a Downtown Visioning process was conducted in 2000, followed 'by the Downtown Plan Update in 2004, which resulted in the idea of Great Streets, including Willamette Street and Broadway, which led to the current RFQ process. Broadway and Willamette Street had been identified in the visioning and planning work as the place where activity, de'nsity and high quality urban design should be focused. He said West Broadway was anchored by Broadway .Place, and the streets bad been reopened. East Broadway was considered one of the most successful retail blocks in downtown. It has been recognized that the gap in realizing the "Great Street" is in the two block stretch, the blocks between Willamette and Chamelton Streets, and was the focus of the RFQ>> tfhe following firms responded to the RFQ: . Beanl Development. . CenterCal Properties . Greg Bryant . KWG Development Partners . MidTown The following Developl1lent Objectives were posted for reference by committee menlbers: · Dense, multi-story mixed-use urban development. . Active uses on. tb.e ground floor. . High density b.ousing. . Job creation.. . High quality urban design. The following RFQEvaluatiol1 Criteria were posted for reference by committee members: . Team qualifications.. . Redevelopment concept. . Timeliness and market feasibility. . Financial capacity. . Public benefit. . Consistency.with City policies and goals. Mr. Braud revie\ved each of the responses to the RFQ. MINu~rES- Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Conlnlittee February 23, 2007 Rage Beam Develooment: · Experience and expertise lies with adaptive reuse of facilities. · Have done historic rehabilitation work in the Portland area. · Would use phased approach, with the Phase One including ground floor retail and upper floor offices in the Centre Court Building; ground floor retail and upper floor offices in theWashbume Building; new construction at the former Woolworth's site consisting of a single story structure with surface parking in back. Phase tWo could consist of new construction at the ClUTent Taco Time to H.orsehead half block. · Renovation of the Centre Court and Washburne Buildings would attempt to preserve the historic character. . Issues with the Beam concepts: o Limited footprint in Phase One. o Purchase options that the City of Eugene holds on Phase Two property would expire before Phase Two started, and would, therefore, require additional action on the part of the City to maintain control of the properties. o Concerns about the structural condition of the Centre Court Building, regarding whether it could be rehabilitated into another use. o Primary approach was that Beam Development would serve as a fee developer for the Urban Renewal Agency (URA), with the URA. purchasing the property, and Beam Development renovating and tenanting the property, after which time, the property would be sold to Beam and the proceeds shared by the City and Beam Development o Secondary approach was that Beam Development would purchase the property and move forward with the development o Possible land use codes, including floor area ratios (FAR) and other issues that had not yet been detailed. o May not require substantial City resources, for example, not asking the City to finance structured parking, which could result in a limited role for the City. Staff responded to comments fron1 the committee. . Concerns about structural and asbestos issues. o Response: Building Official had indicated that a change of use of the building would require substantial structural retrofit to come up to ccurrent code. Moving from business occupancy to residential occupancy presented different risks in the building, thus structural amendments to the building. Significant diligence with the current building conditions would need to occur. -What are the seismic conditions of the Washburne Building? o Response: City did not know specifically; assumed Washburne Building was out of step with the current cod-e. Issue was how much would be required to renovate the building in its current use pattern, i.e., with retail on the ground t100r and office use on the second floor. . Ifpart of proposal "vas for Bean1 to be a fee developer and-the City was to become part owner in the building, the City would want the building to be structurally sound. o Response: Beam proposal was to either do the development as a fee developer or purchase the properties in\vhich case the configuration of the costs \vouldbe different The City disregarded the idea that the City would buy the property and MINUTES- Eugene .Redevelopment Advisory Conmlittee February 23, 2007 Bage co-develop th.e property \viththe developer. Issues were: Was theCitywiHing to do that, and was the C;ity legally able to do that? · If City willing and able to participate in co-developing the property, would it be theURA or the City in general? o Response: .May be slight differences between the City of Eugene and the URA, but functionally, they operate as one. There were le.gal questions about the ability of the URA to become the developer. · Sources of Beam's funds included historic tax credits, new market tax credits, and would require little other debt because the City owned the property. o Response: City could execute its options or assign them to Beam. City could provide support in the math of the acquisition and structure of financing. Beam \vould bring in a long term loan and a short term or mezzanine loan.. The short term loan would be more difficult and expensive to obtain, thus impacting the math of the project. This would move the property from the City's ledger to Beam's ledger, a desirable position for the City. · Short term financing was less attractive to the developer. o Response: All viable financing tools should remain under consideration to keep the project moving forward.. · If Centre Court 'Building was a great opportunity for remodeling/refurbishing, why has it not been done in the last 20 years? If there was great opportunity to fill it up with office space, why has it been vacant for the last 10 years? What does Beam see in the potential of the building that the previous owners did not? eBuilding was 85 percent leased five years ago in office use, and was a successful building, and the owner chose to empty it. . Related to Phase One, previous staff presentation indicated that phasing could not occur due to F ARs. Was there still a FAR issue when looking at 'Phase One, looking at the Centre Court and Washburne Buildings, and Woolworths site as one property? o Response: Two issues, in.eluding 'FARs and surface parking requirement. Initial review indicates that the Centre Court and W oolworths properties could be considered one project for FAR, that could permit consolidating the uses and allowing the development to occur. The Pla.nning Commission would consider a proposed Citizen Involvement Plan to review the FAR code language in early March. Changes. to theF AR code language could happen in time for the development of one of the projects, but the selection of one of the projects to move forward would occur prior to any code changes. Because this was a RFQ rather th.an a Request for Proposals (RFP), staff assumed details for any project selection would be worked about during the negotiation phase. Hopefully, as the project details were worked out, some of the code issues would become easier to understand a.nd perhaps facilitate.conlpletion of the code work. CenterCal Properties . Own Bridgeport Village in Tualatin, a successful retail center, demandin.g high rents and generating strong sales. Involved with tenanting with former owner. Purchased during construction. . CenterCal has relationship with the California Teachers' Retirenlent System, and has access to significant equity through the relationsl1ip, which it used to purchase Bridgeport Village and. other shopping centers. MlNUTES- Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee February 23~ 2007 :Rage · Developing Cascade Station by Portland International Airport with major office and retail components. . Nyberg Woods retail center in Portland area under construction. · One suggested use in Eugene proposal was cinema with dinner theater concept. · A true RFQ response---..~No detail about the scale or which properties would be involved. Submitted qualifications---Indicated mix of uses that would include retail; housing in partnership with qualified housing developer; cinen1a; potentially office uses. . Would assume project would have a strong retail component based on their historic area of focus. . Issues with theCenterCal Properties concepts: o Difficult to identify issues because of lack of detail for the concept: how would parking be treated for retail and potential housing? Staff responded to comments from the committee. . Would CenterCal be at a disadvantage because it followed a traditional RFQ response compared to other responders? o Response: Was truly anRFQ response and could be viewed as any of the other responses. One of the original partners in the Bridgeport deal and bought out other partners. Details of the transaction not known" . Uneasy about relation betweenRFQs and RFPs. Judgments w.ould be made in selecting developer at least in part on redevelopment experience. CenterCal had not said anything substantial about redevelopment concepts. It had equity and good intentions-but no concept. o Response: Need to make decision based on the criteria adopted by the City Council, and the development concepts were one of those six elements. All of the groups that submitted information had strengths in some areas and weaknesses in others. The redevelopment concepts could change through the process. . Not sure ofCenterCal's role in the Bridgeport project. Was the developer good at developing or good at purchasing developments at the end of the projects? o Response: CenterCal's roots were in acquiring shopping centers, has grown into developing projects from the ground up. Gretz Brvant . Localdeveloper..-.-owns Tango Center on .Broadway. . Developer'sTesponse submitted as video for review. . Basic concept was that the City wotlld purchase and retain ownership of the half blocks along the south side of Broad\vay, and Greg .Bryant 'would work to contract out with existing tenants who \votlld organize to fill the spaces with activities, with the theory that if the spaces were fined, they would activate the street. . Issues with the Greg .Bryant con.cepts: o Ability and willingness of the City to become the long term. owner of the properties. 1~hat would require the City to purchase all of the properties that \\tere identified in Greg Bryant'8 proposal. MINUTES- Eugene Redevelopm.ent Advisory Committee February 23, 2007 13age o Although the Beam proposal contained a similar requiren1ent for the City to purchase the properties, the properties would be sold after development was completed. The Greg Bryant proposal had the City as the long term owner of the property with no identified exit strategy. Staff responded to comments from the committee. . The video was very good identifying what made a downtown lively, but offered little else. The developer was asking for a consulting contract. o Response: The developer hoped to provide re..tenanting of the area for a fee. . Although Eugene was looking for a largerproject proposal, it was important to k.eep in mind that whatever proposal was accepted, it should have an authentic Eugene feel, and not be imported from somewhere else, which could generate a negative public reaction. The element of local color and history with this proposal was appealing. . Likes some of the elements of this proposaL Some of the other proposals in this process and in a prior process were too "cookie cutter" and would not fit in Eugene. There may be an opportunity to make a recommendation to ask two or more developers to work together. In one of the bigger pictures, there would be a place for Greg Bryant's ideas. . Recalling the discussion about the Sears property, encouraged by local developer and architect participation in the project, to allow there to be a local flavor. o Response: Project may provide opportunity to include cultural authenticity in the spaces and the physical characteristics. of how the d.evelopment was tenanted and developed. Any new construction needs to carry itself economically, and the tenant mix needed to perform economically. .It could be a challenge for existing users to pay market rate rent in a redeveloped project. . Larger developers have more experience and have been successful in other places. They ,vould do their research about Eugene and try to do a project that appealed to Eugene people, rather than build a "cookie cutter" project . It is in the developers' interest to build something that people want to go to. . A true mix of uses that consisted of residential, retail, commercial, non-profits, and not just boutique chain store operations, but something having more cultural diversity. Some developers who responded specialize more in pure commercial, while others have experience with mixed use. . Need to be sensitive to honor the culture that is here in the absence of developers, and making sure the spaces incorporate diverse uses that reflected the community. . Having developers from out of this area could reflect that a large percentage of the population relocated here from out of the area. Their needs are not being n1et here and their dollars are being spent elsewhere. KWG DeveloDment.Partners fKemJ)er~ Wood. and. Gravl . Proposal was expansion of original proposal submitted by Tom Kemper on the old Sears site atW est lOth A.venue and C.hameltonStreet. . Would like to expand project to include the \vhole block if not selected to develop the larger project. . Most comprehensive approach to the RFQ. Ml.N"UrrE.S- Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Conm1ittee February 23, 2007 Bage · Concept consisted of housing and entertainment district. Conceptually proposed over one million square feet of new development consisting of retail, ownership and rental housing, cinenla, grocery store, 'hotel, and parking. e Strong in the areas of housing, retail, and complex development eDeveloped successfully across the street from Bridgeport Village in. Tualatin~ · Gray did tenanting for Bridgeport Village and Mill Sh.op district in Bend, and has depth in retail market. · Kemper has done a lot of housing. For example, in the Hawthome district in Portland, including mixed income and affordable housing. Kemper also did mixed use, affordable, live...work,. owner-occupied housing in Milwaukie. · Issues with the KWG Development Partners concepts: o May require significant City financial resources including parking. o Housing density highly desired but reality is that market would require some form of structured, attached parking for residential. o May require a plan amendment to increase the maximum indebtedness for the urban renewal district. o The comprehensive approach would require broad community support and there would be a lot of discussion over something of this magnitude. o Structural condition of the Centre Court building for reuse as a hotel would need to be researched.. o Demolition of the WashbumeBuilding. o Initial concept required control of additional properties the City did not currently have under option; may need to renegotiate extensions on. properties currently under option. o Comprehensive approach may have long term, positive financial implications related to tax revenue within the urban renewal district; spin-off a.ctivity may create additional tax increment associated with other investments. Staff responded to comments from the committee. . Likes movie theater concept. What was experience with housing and a n10vle theater in the same development? . .Examples in Portland, San Jose, Chicago cited. . Proposal contains three stories of residential over the WashbumeBuilding. Code may not allow that much residential. Saving the Washburne Building worthwhile. . Envelope of the Washburne Building worth saving; rebuild the inside of the structure. o Response: This initial concept assumes tearing do,vn the building. If public sentiment is different, there would need to be opportunity for input.. Important to adapt something from the past into the future maybe important . Most comprehensive proposal with manydesirable.components--~concemed about proposed 55,000 square foot grocery near other small, local grocery stores. Developer may have done projects th.at were in tune with what Eugene would like. Offers potential for creative problem solving to help find a win-win solution for all of the concerned parties. . Who would be responsible for signing grocer and cinema? o Response: Developer. . This is not unusual~developers have anchor tenants sign.ed before construction began. MINUTES~ Eugene Redeveloplnent Advisory Committee February 23, 2007 Page · Honest proposal~indicated it\vould need a 13 percent return to be successful, whic.h is realistic . Market generally requires return of between 12 and 20 percent. Proposal indicated it needed structured parking and time to pre-sign tenants before construction began. Proposal contained fall back of adding to block already negotiated" Best response to the RFQ. o Response: There is always competition with existing businesses when new facilities are built, and often opposition to those projects. Competition can create a better marketplace for everyone. . Liked o"vner~occupied bousing component. · Parking would require massive subsidy compared to other proposals. What impact would such a large project have on the tax increment financing program? o Response: A project of this magnitude, possibly $100. million plus, takin.g into consideration tax exemptions associated with the housing, the commercial space would enter the tax rolls.. The cost could possibly be recovered in ten to 20 years, which was the concept of the urban renewal district. A variety of funding tools are under consideration. . KWGwas the most solid, comprehensive proposal, but it contained a heavy list of obligations for the City of Eugene. Would selection of this proposal imply that the City would carry through with those obligations? o Response: This, as with all of the proposals, was viewed as an opening request from the developers. Details needed to be discussed, and adjustments made to the developers expectations and the City's expectations. None of the developers are in a position to identify everything they needed, everything they would do, and bow much it would cost. Those details would develop over time. The role of the committee is to look. at-the RFQ tbat went out and the existing plans and policies, and give the best .advise as to which project and which developer was most responsive, and offered a solution that allowed the City to accomplish its vision. City Council will make a decision based on the staffs deliberations and recommendation, an.d.allocate the City's resources. MidTown. Development . .Developer located in Orem, Utah; found Eugene RFQ while researching for future development opportunities. . Currently working on a project in Orem, outside of Salt Lake City, called MidTown Village, consisting of over 300 units of O\\'11er occupied housing, with mixed use of office over retail; some timeshares; includes community theater. . In other projects, have created parks and donated to the City. . Mostly local retail, designed- to serve tbe tenants. . Project planned to be replicated in four locations, including Ogden and Park (;ity. . Concept would include housing, office and ground. floor retail, hotel spac-e in condominium devrelopment, and parking. . Envision using similar concepts on two downtown Eugene half-bloc.ks (north and south sides of West Broadway bet\\<reen Willamette and Oliv'e streets). . Issues with the Mid1'own Development concepts: o Not clear o.nhow parking would be treated for retail and housing. o Concept assumes den1olition of Washburne and Centre Court Buildings~ MIN1JTES~ Eugene .Redevelopment Advisory (~ommittee February 23, 2007 Hage o Concept and design n1ay not be unique to Eugene; developer \vould replicate project used in other cities. o May be potential impact on lOth and Chamelton housing project; there may not be enough demand to support that amount of bousing coming into the market at the same time. Staff concluded powerpoint with information on financial tools: o Taxincrem.ent financing tools could be used; working. under maxImum. indebtedness; may require amending the maximum indebtedness. o Downtown revitalization loans, multi-property tax exemption (MUPTE), federal entitlement grants through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, Brownfield grant through the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and other financial tools could be available to finance the project Staff responded to comments from the committee. - KWG most attractive proposal; MidTown most difficult - MidTown understands ownership housing; important to get a developer that understands ownership housing. · MidTown least favorite; housing component good, but proposal not strong in commercial and community centered development; not much understanding of cultural sensibilities of Eugene. -MidTown's roots in single family housing? . MidTown projects are automobile oriented with a significant need for parking. . KWG achieves goals of making downtown a neighborhood. It satisfies goal of 24 hour activity" Likes bistoric aspect of proposal. . Negotiating options could be costly. o Response: Difficult to ask property owners to give unlimited options until nlore is lmown about the projects. . Time and scope is tbe essence. Likes small scope of Beam because it may be able to be achieved. Everyone will ask the City for quite a bit of financial assistance, and would be related to the scope of the project. The ERAC took a short break. EVALUATION AND RANKING PROCESS OF PROPOSALS Mr. Sullivan explained the role of the ERAe was to make comments about the feasibility of proposals.. However, it was n.ot the committee's role to commit City funds and expressing interest in.a proposal does not commit the City. He stressed the in1portance for continued input from tbe committee throughout the process on scale and feasibility. He said. staff\vould return to the ERAC when a deal was negotiated \vith a developer for review and rec,ommendation before going to the City Council. Ms. Garrett explained the eval.uation process \vould proceed based upon the identified RFQ Evaluation Criteria.. MINUTES- Eugene Redevelopment Advisory COnIDlittee February.23, .2007 Page In response to Ms. Little, Mr. Braud explained that KWG preferred to develop th.e entire project If they were not selected in. this process., K.WG wanted. to have the o'pportun.ity to expand their original lOth and Chamelton concept th.at included only the Sears site to include the entire block. Ms. Garrett opened the flo.or to comments: . KWG proposal only one that rose to City Council's broad vision for downtown. . KWG most upfront about need for public support . Need for significant community process to get political support for financial support . Two developers with proposals that contained most information had submitted proposals on West 10th Avenue and ChameltonStreet site. Was this an indication that they better understand what Eugene is looking for? . KWG up front with information on its requirements for return on investment-the City would have to spend some money to make it happen. . Concern with Beam proposal with Phase One that recreated existing buildings that had struggled at many levels over time. If Phase One vvas not successful, nothing else would happen for many years. . Liked KWG proposal in that if it could not do the whole project, it would still like to expand the Sears project. . Need a critical mass to occur, as with a larger scale project, to be successfuL . May be a way to ask KWG and Beam, or a combination of three developers, to collaborate in ord.er to spread the risk. . CenterCal backed by one of the largest pension funds in the world; financially sound; look at a return over a long time of 20 to 40 years. . Did any of the developers consider Whole Foods as.part of their development? . Was there any opportunity of diverting OTI.e of the developers to consider developing tbe former Whole Foods site? . Most of the developers saw the loss of Whole Foods on East Broad\vay as an opportunity for West Broadway. . None of the developers are unqualified to do the proJect. . Beam and CenterCal proposals contained no owner occupied housing.. . lIotel proposals would support cultural and arts a.ctivities. . Beam good with making things happen; look at achievable scale. . Do multiple party involvement projects make them more feasible or more difficult? . Greg Bryant suggestion of incubation sites could work on the west block. . Downtown above the ground floor with office space stlccessful; street level not successful. . The Shedd ownership had expressed an interest in more hotel space in downtovVll for performers and audiences. . Good things happening all around downtown except in the two block area of West Broadway, including 5th Street Market., MidTown Market, 18th and Pearl, the Courthouse, residential and commercial development in the Ferry Street Bridge area. At least $300 million had been invested around the downtoWn in the last two years, except in this 1\vo block area. . Wants to get things happening and relieve the log jam of development in downtown. Looking for most feasible. . Housing will foHo\v commercial development MINUTES- Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Comnlittee February 23, 2007 lBage · People who own much of the property were in th.e hotel business and chose to allow the building to remain vacant. · More flexibility with the .KWG proposal. . ~Beam attainable, but KWG. preferred · Scale of proposals different;K\\lG will make it happen; Greg .Bryant had something to offer; try to keep several of the developers.interested in the project. · Beam and KWG can do the work; need something to occur to breakthe logjam; KWG well vested; if there was more than one developer selected, they would talk to each other. · KWG in the process for the long run.. Mr.. Herbert, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved to recommend to staff that KWG be selected as the project developer. Discussion on the motion: · Wants to recommend hierarchy of developers for staff to work with top two or three; prefers KWG and Beam.. · Committee never mandated to have a single developer. . Likes KWG, but would not support as a single option.. . Beam has doable project. · Concern that Beam believed could be salvaged; no backup position ifbuilding not salvageable. · Could accept Beam and scaled down KWG proposals; would KWG have same response with smaller footprint? . Up to developers to determine if they could work together. . Important to have a ranking of developers as insurance against withdrawal by a single selection. . Beam's historic restoration proposal should be considered. Mr.. Brokaw offered an amendment to the motion to read: to recommend that staff explore KWG and Bean1 as the project developers. Mr. Prichard seconded the amendment. Mr. Herbert withdrew the motion. Mr.. Duncan withdrew the second to the motion. Mr. Brokaw, seconded by Mr. Prichard, moved to direct staff to explore the KWG and Beam options. The motion passed, unanimously, 8:0.. Mr. Sullivan explained staff would develop a recommendation for the City Council based upon the committee deliberations and follow up conversations staff would have \vith the developers. Th.e meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m. (Recorded by l"inda Henry) m: \200 7 \plall ning and development departmentlcommul1i(r development division \eugene redevelopment adv'lsory committee\eracO 70223. doc MIN1JTES-.~-.... Eugene Redevelopment Advisory C:ommittee February 23, 2007 IJlage ATTACHMENTE Planning & Development Community Development City of Eugene 99 W. 10Ui Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 (541 ) 682-5443 (541) 682-5572 FAX www.eugene-or.gov Date: March 7, 2007 To: Eugene Redevelopn.1ent Ad'visory Committee - expanded From: Denl1yBraud, Senior DevelopmentA.nalyst (682-5536) Subject: West Broad.way Rf'\Q Responses 02.23.07 Meeting -Update i\t the February 23rdERA(; 111eeting, the committee provided direction to staff to further explore the KWG DeveloplTIel.1t Partners (KWG) and Beam Developn1ellt (Bea.m) respot.lses. Follo\\.tin.g the 111eeting, staff intervie\ved both developlnent teams to clarify the subl1litted responses and to gather information regarding the feasibi.lity' of their developm.ent concepts and experience with historic rehabilitatiol1, building reuse, retail development and recruitment. Specifically, staff explored th.e follo\ving 13 itet.ns. BE1\J\tl and K\\'G Items 1. Building cornmunity understanding anti support for the pr(~ject vision Beam and KWG expressed interest in and \villingness..to build relationships and COlllillU1lity support. Both developl11el1t teanlS have been involved with a .number of development projects that included community outreach.. As an exall1ple~ Beam alld Bruce Wood, from.K.WG, are involved in the Burnside Bridgehead project in Portland east of tl1eWillalnette River. The project h.asbeen COlltroversial~ highly publicized, and ilrvolves public participation. 2. Integration o.f~art & cultural con1111unit)-J into the prqject or as a sit.ieproject .Both teams spoke positively about th.e benefits of al1d need for an art and cultural presellce in the redevelop.ment area. Beam's focus is on local office tenants, which could include an a11 and cultural organization. KWG would consider engaging current property o\vners for potelltial integration of existing communit.y VentleS" In the Esther Short COmmOl.1S111ixed income Inixeduse project, Kemper integrated th.e \'an.couver VvTashington F'anl1ers Market The Farmers Market \vas part of 20,000 square feet of retail an.d included glass rollup garage doors to allow tIle Nlarket to expand into the street on the v./eekends~ 3. Working in tandenl vvith another develofJer Wh.en asked about the potetltial for the (~ity to .move forward vvith t\\-'o deve1.opmel1t teams, .KWG. replied that selecting multiple developers \vould be detrinlental to the synergy needed to revitalize tIle entire area and to attract the desired 111ix of uses. Althou.gh KWG would maintain interest in tIle project, the outcome \v(}uld be of a different and less ideal mix than that described in their RFQ response. With the addition of a second d.eveloPluent team to the area, th.c design, construction, al1d tenanting would be more cumbersome al1d ineflicient (take more til11e and cost more 1110ney). Beam indicated that, if llecessary, they could f111d a way to create a conlplil11entary experiellce with allother developer. The .Portland Developll1eIlt (~OlUll1issiol1 attempted to use t\\10 developluent teams on the Bridgehead project. Based on previo'us experiel1ce, both K\VG and Beanl had reservations about tIle effectiveness of InuJtiple developers in a single area. . City of Eugene staff also 1naintains that the coordination of two developIl1errt teanls, especially related to the legal agreements, vvould affect tinleliness and increase COll1plexity. 4. .Response.!f'C'founcil clecicles to (leltl another steJ) (clue lliligence or .R.FP) Neither development teanl is interested in prolonging tIle C.ol11petitiveprocess;both see an 1Jl1tllediate decision as a clean/clear outcol1le. The feedback il1dicates that a second phase of the selection process would not yield a higher quality of detail because the parties are 110t likely to spend additional resources on an ltnkno\Vl1 outcome that is outside of their control. Beam Specific ItenlS 5. Level qfinterest fl-'Centre Court / yJlashburne butltling cannot be salvagetl Beanl expressed confidence that the builditlgs could be renovated. 'Based on BeaIn's previous project fOClIS, staff anticipates that Beam's interest \voltld \vane if the buildings could. not be reused. 6. .Potential.for non-o.Dlce us(es Beam indicated a \viUingness to consider the addition of residential and/or live-work uses to the co'ncept included in their RFQ respOl1se. 7. Project vvithout the.fee-tleveloper scenario BeaIn confirmed that it is their preferred approacll to be a fee-developer but that~ overall, they "vant a mutually' beneficial approach (for BeaIn alld the City). 8. O1vnership~fthe buildings upon cornpletion Typically, Beam reta.ins ownership of their developments especially in instances where historic renovation is involved. Beam has retained all of its six historic rehabilita.t.iol1 properties in Portland. 9. Increased clensity.f'or the hole next to the (:entre Court Building (concept included a one story structure 1vitl1 7tlOO square.feet of'retail andsut:faceparking in back.) Beam Inay consider increasillg thedellsity in accordance with l11arket demand. and with the ain1 of engaging the street appropriately. The new buil.ding wotdd remaitl as a potentiallocatioI1 for all art/cultural connnul1ity ven'ue" KWG Specific Items 10, Reuse o.j"the yJlashburne Building KWG expressed a flexible approach to their submitted concept including a \villin.gness to preserve the Washburne Building, in accordance\vitll commul1ity interest and structural feasibility. 11. Re(.levelopment concept lvith a sll"zaller ",'cope -.,for example, a concept that inclu(les all (?f the proJ}erties in KrVG's response but that e~xcludes the fVashburne ,Buildingt Centre Court .Building, anti the e,x:isting hole K\\lG is interested in contributing to the redevelopment of West Broadway. They noted several drawbacks to limiting the l(WG footprint. A reduced area \\/ould diminish the econonlies of scale that allow for the lllagnitude and diversity of the l11i.X of uses detailed in the KWG response. The construction cost per square foot would increase, \vhich could, for example, increase the COlldo prices, decrease the nu.mber or percelltage of affordable u.nits, or decrease the total amount of housing. KWG also described litllitations froIn having multiple developers (see answer 3 above). 12. Market .potential.fbr a hotel, cinelna, anti grocer)' store KW(] reported that the lack of quality hotel options in downtown Eugene and tIle strong interest they have received from se-veral hoteliers, lead thelll to believe that the hotel concept is Olle of the strongest cOl1lponents.oftheirclevelopment concept. Gray and Associates has strong working relationsllips vlith cinema companies and would like to pursue an art cinema (independent fihn) or a 'dinner and a .movie' te'nan.t. These Citlenla concepts would not compete directly with the stadiunl seating cincl11as at Valley River (;enter or Gate\\ray illaIl. (i-ray and i\ssociates also indicated tllat they haveexisting.,vorking relatiol1Ships\vith grocery tenants. 13. EX!Jerience vvith hi.,..toric renovation/builcling reuse KCWG detailed their experiellce ,vitI.1 historic preservation alId blIilding reuse in Portlalld, Corvallis, and else\vhere in the country. KemperCo's office is located in an hist01ic building that they are curretltly renovating. 011.March 12t\C;ity Council \vill review theR.PQ reS1Jonses, including feedback froln various revic\v com.mittees. Mi1lutes froill the .ERAC 2,/23/'07 111ceting al1d tIlls update memo will be attached to the Cati1leil Agenda Itenl SUlll111aryr. ATTACHMENT F EIJGE.N'E 'URBAN REN'E'VAI,~, AGENC\T AGE.NnDAITEIVI. SU'}\tllVlARY . Work SeSSi01.1: West :Broad\\ray :PtlfCl1ase Options Meeting'Date: November 27, 2006 Department: Planning and Development rVlfJ14l. eugene-ar.gall i\genda Iten1 ',N'umber: B Staff Contact: M,ike Sullivan Contact Telephone Nlul1ber: 682-5448 ISS'UE STArrElVtE.NT The 'Urban Renewal Agency (lJRA) has secllred p'urchase options on se\lera.l dovvntoWJl properties along West 'Broadway betweenWilbunette Street and Charnelton Street. These options provide the opportunity to pursue a cot1:lprehensive redeTveloplnent stratehry~ fbrWestBroadway. The IJR~J\ is asked to consider issuing a Request for Qualifications (R,F(~) for selection of a q~lalified developer(s) as the next step in. in1.plelnenting this redeveloPlnent strategy. BACKGROUND On January 9, 2006, the City Council disGussed thc'{:onnor and Woolley/Opus development proposal, including tools that the C,ity .Jvlanagerand staff might use to facilitate the acquisition of property that may be needed for any conlprehensive redevelopment of the West Broadvvay area. The council passed a motion 7: 1 to "direct the City ~1anager to "\lork ,,\lith Connor and Woolley on developing a more detailed proposal related to West Broadway development to be brought back to the council. This nlotion in no way endorses the concept of the proposal." The City 'Nlanager understood from the discussion and action that everything short of condemnation ShOllld be pursued in order to assist in the redevelopment of the West Broadvvay area. At the end of A.pril 2006, Connor and Woolley/Opus announced that the\tVest ,Broadvvay proposal \vas no longer viable" primarily 'because they \vere u.nable to acquire the property needed for the development env~isioned.'Follovv'ing the announcernent, staffhegan expl()ring,^,~ays the City could assist in asselllbHng land for the potential redevelopment, including the possibility of acq'uiring purchase options on the properties in this tvvo-block area of do\vnto\vn,. \l\lith the intention of bringing tbe purchase options~ once a.cquired, to the URA for direction. The URf\ entered into a contractual agreenlent \vith real estate professional John 'Brown of Evans, Elder & Bro\\~n to begin pursuing purchase options on the properties. ~rhe two-block area on botb sides of Broad'\Nay includes 12difIerent property O\NI1ers. AU of the property ovvners, including C:onnor and Woolley, ha\re received offers fronl the LYRA. ~1ost of these offers have gone through a series of negotiations and counter offers. 'The lJR~A.has acquired options frona six of the pr()perty o\vners located in this tvvo-block redevelopment footprint along \Vest Broadwa.y (including Connor and \Vooney for three oft.he properties they o\vn along \Vest .Broadway), Negotiations with three additional property owners ,should be finaJized in the near future. rrbe 'URA has secllred purchase options on properties that include a bulk of the properties along three full block faces on West Broadway, including the north and south sides of the block betvveen Wil1anlette Street and Olive Street, and the south side of the block bet\veen Olive St.reet and Charnelton Street. L:\Cfv10\2006 Council i\...gendas\~/1061127\8061127B.doc The option ternlS and purchase prices associated with each of the ptlrchase options were negotiated independently based on each property ovvner'g individual circumstances. i\H of the agreements aHa,\! the lJR_A to assign the purchase options to another party. Generally, a 1l1ajority of the purchase options include an initial SiX-Ulonth option period \vith the ability to extend for one additional Six-ll1onth period. To date, the LIRA has paid option Inaney totalil1g $34,000 for the right to purchase propertyvvith a cOlnbined total purchase price of$13,655,OOO. ThelJRA \vould be required to pay additional option money totaling $] 22,000 in order to secure the p-urchase options for the second six-tTIont.h period. The combined total purchase price \Nould increase to $13~825,OOO after the initial six-month option period. A detailed list of the properties and option tertns is included in Attachment A. .l~U of the properties that have received purchase option offers fromtheU-R_A are included in the aerial_map (Attachnlent-B). ThelJRA's property assembly effort Vlas initiated by the original proposal. from Connor and Woolley/Opus. The current focus is on a comprehensive redevelopnleot strategy that has the potential to transform West-Broadway into the "Great Street" envisioned in the DO\i\lntovvo_Plan and Vision for G-reaterDo\vnto'Vvn Eugene. The Do\vntovvn Plan envisions Broad\\lay with ground floor retail, restaurants, and sidewalk activities such as outdoor cafes. Currently, the t\VO blocks of\Vest Broadway are characterized by high-vacancy, low-density, and 10\\1 lease rates. A majority of the properties are one- and t\vo-story structures, many of\vhich are underutilized and not \~lell suit.ed for retail use because of the narrow and deep configurations. Several issues need to be considered in assessing the future redevelopment of\,rest Broa.dway, including design, Inixof uses, density, market conditions, and tinling. The appropriate scale, orientation and design of structures rleed to be carefully! considered. The City has been \vorking with Thomas Hacker Architects to help visualize the redevelopment potential for ~Test Broadwa.y. The City has also been working w'ith The Farkas Group to help develop strategies for redevelopnlent of this area. The assemblage of property that is currently being pursued is an important fIrst step. The lIRA has secured purchase options that have a limited duration; therefore, a limited \vindow of opportunity exists for the URA to proactively pursue redeveloptnent of\\'estBroadway. There are various strategies to consider regarding the purchase options that have been secured on a nlajority of the key properties along West Broadvvay, some include: 1. Issue a_Request for Qualificatiolls (RFQ). LInder this strategy, an RFQ would be issued for selection ofa qualified developer(s)~lith a viable redevelopment concept for "Vest Broadway and the capacity to itnplement a well designed, urban nlixed-use development. RFQ criteria for the West Broadway area have been drafted. The criteria are designed to attract a comprehensive redevelopnlent approach for the area \vhich advances the policies in the Downtown Plan. A copy of draft RFQ criteria is included in Attachment C. There are several advantages to the _RFQ strategy. The scal-e and complexity of the potential redevelopment of this area of West Broadway, together with the linlited duration of the option periods, favor anRFQ.A_u-R_FQ related to the entire West Broadway area footprint provides the best opportunity to att.ract the largest number of qua.lified developer responses and a variety of redevelopment approaches and uses that could be considered. The RFQ strategy provides an OPPol1unity to attract developers who recognize the market potential for the area under a comprehensive redevelopnlent scenario. It is also possible that more than one developer could be selected to carry out different portions of the overall redevelopment project L: \C!vl0\2006 Council Agendas\~1061127\S061127B.doc .~'lark.et conditions \vill also play a major role in determining how this area is redeveloped. Given the cost of construction dovvntovvn and the fa.ct that Eugenels property values and lease rates lag behind more dense dovvntowns-in larger nletro areas, a comprehensive redeveloptnent approach would likely have greater potential to elevate the market values and conditions in the area nIore quicklY;t therefore l11aking rerlevelopnlent along West .Broadvvaynluch lliore feasible. The RFQ stra.teg)r also nlakes effective LIse oftlle linlited option period througb selectionofa qualified developer \vho could act on the purchase options within the option period. Additionally, the.R.FQ strategy wou.ld take advantage of the positive-dovlntovvn monlentum created by the reopenin.g of .Broadway, the new Eugene lJublicLibrary, The Tate Condominiums, WestTovvn on gth, and the potential Kel'11per 10th &Ch.arnelton project. 2. .Purchase some or all of the properties and offer them for sale and rede"relopmellt The council could consider purchasing some of the key properties, or all of the properties, currently under option. Under this strategy, the .LrRA could take advantage-of the linlited opportunity to acquire key properties during the option periods. .Following the purchase of tbe property(s), the lJRA could seek proposals for devrelopnlent of individual properties or groups of properties. This strategy would require the identification of financial resources necessary to execute the purchase of properties. City staff is analyzing both .Downtown Urban .R.eneVvral resources and the recently approved CDBG-HU-D 108 loan and Bro,:vntield Economic Development Initiative (B.E,DI) grant as potential sources of financing for acquisition. Ihis analysis is still in progress. 3. Reopen disCllssions with Connor and \Voolley/Opus. The council previously provided direction to work with Connor and Woolley/Opus on developing a more detailed proposal. Although it is not clear that Connor and Woolley/Opus would choose to move forward \vith their previously discussed redevelopment project, the City could first consider \vhether Connor and Woolley/Opus have an interest in properties that are currently l.1nder option. Prior disc.ussionswith Connor and Woolley/Opus revealed plans for retail, housing, entertainment, and hotel uses. l'he overall concept appeared to be very responsive to the goals of the .Downtown .Plan. If there is interest in resurrecting their project, the .U..RA could reopen discussions w'ith Connor and W ooUey/Opus, ""\lith the goal of obtaining additional details and con1111itlnents regarding their developnlent concept during the linlited option periods, and prior to conveying the options. R__E.LArr:E.D (~lTYPO.LIC.[ES Future redevelopment of the \VestBroadway area is consistent ,,\lith the policies and implenlentation strategies included in the Downtown Plan, including: .Downto\vn developnlent shall support the urban qualities of density, vitality, livability and diversity to create a downtovvu, urban environment. Actively pursue public/private development opportunities to achieve the vision for an active, vital, growing downto.\Nn. tJse downtown development tools and incentives to encourage developtnent that provides c.haracter and density doxvntown. .p ro mote multi-story, mixed-use structures downtoVvrn through financial incentives arcade amendments, Stimulate multi-unit housing in the dow'ntown core and on the edges of downtown for a variety of income levels and ownership opportunities. L:\C~1()\2006 Council Agendas\tvI061127\S061127B.doc In addition, the fl.1ture developnlent of the W est.Broad\vay area is responsive to the following Gro\vth Management policies: Policy 1: Support the existing Eugene Urban Gro\Vth Boundary by taking actions to increase density and use existingvacallt and under-used land within the boundary.m.oreefficiently. .Policy 2: .Encollrage in-fill, flllxed-use, redevelopment, and higher density developnlent .Policy 3: .Encourage a mix of business and residential uses downtown using incentives and zoning. .Policy 10: Encourage the creation oftransportation...efficient land use patterns and itnplementation of nodal developtnent concepts. "Policy 14: Development shall be required to pay tbe full cost of extending infrastructure and services, except that the City will examine ways to subsidize th.e costs of providing infrastructure or offer other incen.tives that s-uPP011 higher-density infill, tl:lixed-use, and redevelopnlent CO.UUNClLO.PTIONS l. . Issue an.RFQ for selection of a qualified developer(s) with viable redevelopment concepts for \\lest .Broadway and the capacity to inlplemel1t a well designed, urban mixed-use development. 2. Identify! a funding SOllrce for the URA' s purchase of sonle or all of the properties under option. 3. Reopen discussions with Connor and Woolley/Opus regarding their proposed development, including the possibility of assigning purchase options to them for their project. 4. Do not act on the purchase options at this time, and let them expire. CITY MAN>AG~E.R'S R.ECOl\l1\:I.END.A TION The City Manager recommends that the URA direct the Agency Director to issue anRFQ for the redevelopment of West Broad\vay based on the draft RFQ criteria included in this agenda item, "vith the responses to the RFQ to be brought back to the D.RA. for consideration in early Spring 2007. S-lTGGESTED l\'IOTION .Move to direct the Agency Director to issue an.R.FQ for the redevelopment of\VestBroadway based on the draft RFQ criteria included in this agenda item, with the responses to the RFQ to be brought back to the URJ-\ for consideration in early Spring 2007. A TTAC.H~[E,NTS A. 'List of Purchase Option Properties .B. W.estBroadway .Redevelopment Area Aerialiv1ap C. Draft RFQ Criteria FOR MORE INFOR1\IA TION Staff Contact: 'Mike Sullivan Telephone: 682-5448 Staff E-Mail: 111ike.G.suJlivan@ci.eugene.or.us L:\C~10\2006 Council Agendas\~.1061127\S(J61127B.doc c 8~ ~s "0 ~. e N c o i.E 04> "Ol- e N c i~ otS ~:: c o ;:Ie 0.... o 4> ..,1- $! tn C o +i Q. o CD f/J co oJ: (.) '- :s 0.. >. <U ~ "'C CO o a.- m ... t/J (l.) ~ '+- o ~ cu E E ::s en In I>> Q z ct> (,) ;t I;\) o cu .c e ::J Q.. ... (l) c: ~ o th o e "0 " <( ER- .(A> &9- tI) L: C o E co (/j :6 c: o E N ~ (/) .J:: C o E N ~ (/j s c: o E (0 o o o (Yj' o o o ("') o o o ri o o o (f"J- ~ ~ ~ m .c: C o E 1:0 (j) ..c:. C o E N 'l'" m ..c:. C o E N 'l'" m .$:;:. c o E (0 o o o l,() N (0 o o o o ('I') co o o o d o \\1_ o o o ci \0 'V_ V)- E:I) ~ o -l .....J Ji:. 'it m u.. (/j 'S;: m o c ro o w ~ ~ ~ c: .t::;: o ~ >- en ~ "'0 ro 2 to w E {U :S ('Q -J -2 (l) E ~ >- m: ~ "0 ~ Oi -a ~ '5 .0 (\) ~ o {.) ~ Q) l5 E ~ ~ o o to ~ >. m 3 "'0 ~ CO 1::" <n (\) N (\) CO ~(/) $... (tl N <n ~ >. ~ "0 (0 o CO ~ w m .J:: C o E <0 o o o rD ~ tt) .:C C o E <0 o o o o o t-":.. c C ::I CO tf) e a> ""? ~ '~ (1) Q t::: m () f:2. {l) ~ Q) E ~ ~ <<> a) ro 06 to to no o o o ci N w (j) .J:: C o E <0 o o <:) -.::t- ~ w ..c C o E <0 o o o ci o 0>_ Vi !J) ~s: '5 lY ~8 <(~ Co<1S ~o me lo.. c Q) 0 >0 w........." Oi ,~ ~ ':5 CO E ~ -C) .x::: (/) ~ >> ~ "'0 n) 2 CO ~ ~ .9 N <0 o o o ci (f"J ~ (j) .r::.. C o E <D o o o <P w f/) .c C o E <.0 o o o 0- o <<> N w -> ~ ~g ~~ ~oa 0.,0 o C "Oc e8 0..._ Q) '0 :t ~ en :s ~ CO 5 8 $... .m ~ Q) ~ jg 4} E ~ ~ o l,() 0) 06 >> ro 3 "0 t'O o ro ~ ~ v Attachment A o o o o' 'V <:) (:) <:> N ~ ffl- rn .r::.. C o E co o o o o <:> <:) (:) -tti M ~ VI- (/j .c C o E to o o o ci l.() ri o o o t6' 10 ~ M T"' V). ~ <f} (1) ro~ '0 .m ~g <($ c~ ~ b d)C: s... C (l) 0 >0 lJj '-" s (l) ~ (tj t5 -2 ~ ~ >> ro ~ "'0 m o m ~ ro 0) .8 o :a o I- ~ ~ J. ~ +-'l C M V ~V E }'H <U "'t""l 0 su c: SO 0 {\j >~ t: 0... 0 0 '';; a.> C4 rJ1 0 ~ V ~ 00. () Cd ~ ,..!:, ;,...i 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ q) ~ -- ;;> "0 00 .v ~ ~ Q C ~ a.> cfJ ~ (;3 0 ~ ATTACHl\1ENT C West Broadway Redelleloplnent Area DRAFT Request for Qualifications Criteria November 27, 2006 OVERVIEW The Urba.n 'Renevval Agen.cy of the C,ity of Eugel1e seeks sta.tell1€.nts of qualifications fronl developers for the redevelopme'nt of anlulti-parcel downtov\ln area alon.g\'Vest Broad\-\ray, betvveen \Villamette anti (J1arnelton Streets (the IJRedeveloplne.nt ,Area"). ~rhrough the Requ.est for QU.alificatiofls (RFQ), the Urban. Re:ne'vval Agency seeks to select a qualified.llevelo'per(s) vvitIl a viable redevelo'pn1ent co:ncept an<.t the capacity to inl.plemellt a well designed., u.rban nlixed use develop'u1e.nt Altllough the focus of the soHcitatio11 is on. tIle quali.fications of 'prospective developll1ent teall1s1 the U'rban Renewal Agency also re<.luests ea.ch lieveloper's vision-Jin.clutlulg a d.escription of the proposed ,nlix of uses and the general config'uratio.n an.d scale of the concept. Responses to the RFQshould. 1.n.clud.e a developnlent tealn with the experien.ce, ex'pertise, visio:n,r talent, and fulancial caF)ability to successfully co.mljlete a mixed-use redevelopn1ent project, 'based. O.n.: . Experience vvith successful developnlents in urban areas; . Track recorli of s'u.perior architeculral illl(l urban design; . -l.t\ccess to financial resources consistent \vit:h ~project requiren1ents.; and . 'Experience vvith publ1c/:private developlnent. The Ur'ban Renewal agency expects that the redevelopnlent concept will enhance and rein.force tile City of Eugene's vision for tiowntown a'nd "vill: Incorporate h.igh-qttalityurban design al1(1 architecture; In.elude tle.ns.ity o.f develo'pmeIlt\vith active groU11d-floor uses; COll1ple.n1ent the existing a:nd."plan.ned.11ublic and private lnVestl11ents in the area; Serve as a catalyst in revitalizing the dovvntovvn area including job creation; a.nd . Contribute to the activity and vitality along BroadwaYI 011e of (lownto\tvn Euge.ne's Great Streets. The total Redevelopment Area foo,tt1rint is approxinlately 168,575 sq'uare feet and includ.es three fu.llbl.oc:k faces along Broad.vvay. Respo'nses to the RFQ that ad,dress a nlajority or aU of t11epropert.ies a.repreferred. HoV\'everj responses that inclulie developnlent concepts fo.rportio'ns of the Redevel.op,mentArea, or -respo'nses that in.volvTe apartne.rship approach wit:hm'ultipl.e lievelopers for djfferen,t portio.ns of the .Red.evelopment Area are also encouraged. Red.evelopnlent of 'vVest Broadway is a key step i.n the in:1ple.mentation of th.e 'Down.tow.n IJlal1 and the lOllg-ternl 'vision for do.,vn.town Eugene. The fonvarti-thinking vision seeks to c3.pitalize on develol1ment opportu.nities; st.ren.gthell <.lovvntovvllf s role as a regional cen.ter; ex.pa.lld :housillg, cu.lturatand recreational opportunities; reinforce our Great Streets and s'pecialplaces; anti strengthen tIle connection betvveen dovvnto'wn and the river" DEVEL()PMENT ()BJECTI\TES Thered.eveloplne.nt of VVestBroall\vay presents a significant opportunityfornevv strttctllreSf uses anti activities in an increasingly vital area ofcto\vntown. The Redevelo.pll1ent Area is stl.rrotlnd.ed 'by Cl\vide variety of uses, includil1g civic, cultural, res.identiat retail, anti office. There is an existing strong pattern. of ped.estrian. activity on Broadwray, \Villanlette Street, Olive Street, Charnelton Street, dllti 8th Aven'ue "vith acti,re first floor uses o~n su.rro'u~nding blocks. The overall cOllce.pt for the Red.evelopJnen.t Area is a d.ense, 'nlult.i-story/ .nlixeduse/ u.rban lievel.opmen.t. TIle .nlix of uses desired. include a broad ratlge of dow.ntow.11 urball acti\rities/ such as office, retail, residential (rental or o'wnership, for a range of inconles), hotet theatres and restaurants. Active uses are particularly' tlesired on tile ground floor to encourage an inviting, lively pedestrian reaml. Job creation is also strongly desired as a tiirect outcome for the Relievelop.ll.lent Area. 'Do\tvntovvn 11ous.ing.is esse.ntial for creating a critical In ass to support retail and to concentrate populations vvhere transit, amenities and services are easily and efficiently available. Redevelopnlent concepts for the area should recog'nize the opportunity to add.ress th.e significant ~need a.nd llemalld for housing units. Preferred concepts will include 111gh density' housing,V\1ith a range of re~ntall ovvtlership and nTixed income optiOllS. The appropriate scale, orientation an.d design. of structures are of critical im:r>ortance to the success of the I{edevelopment .Area. The standards of the 'Broadvvay O'verlay Zone a.nd the Transit Oriented 'District Overlay ZO.ne describe the desired architectural and urban form of the b'uildings. :t.vlultiple stories are strongly encouragell. Bl;.tiltiitlgS shoul<.i be brought out to tIle sid.ewalk/ with e.ntrances facing the street. The tiesigtl of t:he first floor is also critical; use of q'ual.ity ill.a.terials and architectural details that "provide elenlents of scale and 'l.ls'ual interest is essential. If parking is inclutied,.preferred. solutio.ns are underground or el11betilieli spaces. The 'Urban Renewal Age.ncy e.ncourages creativity in project desig.n a.n.d inte~nd.s to alIo,\! flexibility provided. t.hat the proposal is consistent 'with the Eugene Dovvnto'\,vn Plan, the Eugene Lan.d Use Code" and the objectives provid.ed in the R.FQ. EV l\LUA TIONOF RESPONSES TO THE RFQ The Urban Renewal Agency V\rill e\raluate the respon.ses to the RFQbased 011 five criteria: .A. Tea.nl llualificatio.ns .B.Red.e'velo:pnle-nt (o.ncept C. 1'imeliness atltl nlarket feasibility D. Finan.ciaJ capability E.Public Be.nefit The evaluation criteria are tiescribed belo.w. A. Team Qtlalifications. The Urban Renevval Agency seeks responses fr0111 develop11tent teams viho are ca.pable of cOf)1.pletin.g a liynalnic .project within t11e Redevelopll1ent Area. Relevant tean1 q.ualificatio.ns include eXl?erience vvith sin1ilar dOv\Tntovvn redevelopnlent projects an.d the capacity to initiate and conlplete a via.ble concept for the Reclevelopment l\rea. ~t\p.plicallts mu.st den:10J1strate the abilities anti q.ualifications listed belo.vv. 1. Experience with successful developm.ents inurba-n areas; and 2. Track record of s.u.perior architectural antI urban design. B.Redellelopment Concept. The f{edevelopn1ent ..Area has the potential to become an. in.vitingurbal1 environnlent and. to stre.ngt11en. the overall tiesirability of downtown in. the regional marketplace. Tile Ur.ban Re.newal Agency is looking for a concel,t that addresses the potential of the Redevelopnlellt Area and contributes to a well desiglled, vibrant urban eo.vironment Conceptual architectural ilnages are ellcouraged but not required; howeverl the nan"ative description s:houldbe of su.fficient tietail to den10nstrate atl understan(:lu1g and. an 81111roach to the factors listed below. 1. Urban Design The retievelo.p.ment co.ncept should incorporate elen1ents that contribute to em invitin.g peliestriall ellvironnlent. Tllese in.clude but are 110t lill1ited to characteristics such as prominent entries facing pu.bHc streets" buildings with minimal or n.o setbacks front the sltiewalk, and appropriate treatmel1t of parkin.~ such as enlbetld.ed or adequ.ately screenecl structures.. 2. Active Uses Tl1e redevelopment concept should incorporate a tliverse .mix of uses that bring local and regional visitors dow.ntow.n. day an.d evening. The n1ix of .uses shoculd inclutie active groulld floors, stIch as retail and entertainment, em:ploy.m.ent ce.nter for jobsl and residential opportunities (re.ntal and ow.ne-rship). 3. Sustainable Developnlent Eugene seeks to Ineet its present environ.m.erltal, econol111c, anti social needs \tVithout con111ron1isu1g the alJilit)r of future generations to H1eet their ovv.n .neecls. Incol'l')oration of sustainable tlevelopll1ent conlponents S.hOl.lldbe cOJlsiderect including: a.Nlttlti--story, efficient use of tIle developnlent areal green build..ing .features such as LeaclerslTip in Energy anciEnviron.nlental Design (L,EED) stan.dards; b. If housing is prollosed, inclusion of In.ixeti inconlcu.nits; anti c. If job creation is a likelyoutcolne, availability of jobs to 10\<\7 inCOH1€ individuals. c. Timeliness and Market Feasibility. TlleUrball Rene\val Agency is seeking a feasible red.evelopment con.cept. Preferretl co.ncepts will inclulie: 1. Projectio.n of a reasonable tin.1€ lUlefor lieveloptuent; anti 2. Understanding of fllarket potential for the proposed cOl1.cept. D. Financial Capal1ility. TIle Urban Ren.elval.Agen.cy will consider tIle financial capability of the developnlent tealTl(s) as it relates to project feasibility. 'Preferreti respondents to theRFQ will denlonstrate: 1. Capacity to 'prepare a d.etailed f.i.na.ncial analysis and cost estinlate for project tievelopm.e.-nt an.d operation; 2. Evi.dence of financial capacity to ill1pletl1ent the:proposed concept; and 3. Track .record of co'nlpletion of similar projects within bud.get (or with nlotiifie(l budgets or financing). E. Public Bellefit The Ur'ban Renevval Agellcy,,\rill COllsider the overallllublic berlefit provided 'by the rede,\re'lopment concept, including the financial impact that the project will have in the Downtown 'Urban Re.n.e'wal District. 'Preferred concepts 'will in.clud.e: 1. Cohesive, comprehensive concept witll multiple .properties, high density and cOffi111ete block faces; 2. Ef.fici.ent use of pu'blic resources an.d assistallce; 3. New tax mcrenlent revenue resltlting from tIle redeveloptnent,; 4~ If housing is proposedl inclusion of mixed inconle units; and 5. Job creatiO'fl \v.ithin the Redevelopnlent Area. SUBMISSION REQUIREMEN1~S A. T earn Qualifications 1. Provide -the llall1e, address/ telephone nUlllbers/ and e-lTI.ail ad.dresses of the developlnent tea.m. I<Jentify the principal individual(s) vvithil1 the tle'veloplnellt team authorized to serve as the spokesperson for the tear}1. 2. Identify and describe any relatio'nshipthe developlllent teanlnlayhil'Vevvith S uDsl<.tiaries, joint venture partners, or others w.ho are signific a.nt to the project. 3. Provitiedocunlentation delTIOnstrating that the tlevelopll1el1.t teanl is qllalifietl to Ul1dertake the proposed project/ including: a. Resunles of key developnlent teall1 mernbersf incluliing architectural teanl nl€111bers; b. Experience completin.g l).fojects similar to the redevelo.pn:le.nt co.neept; al1(1 c. Experience vvith publici private.develollm.ent. 4.Provi(1eeXanlples of prior projects con1.'.petedby.men1.bers of the dev'elo.pment team that deulo'nstrate hig:h-qual.ity architectural a.n,! urball ttesign relevant to the Redevelopment Area. Inclu.de as nluch of the follo'",vin.g information as possible: site pla.ns, lInages of cOlupletedpro.jects, total developnlent cost, total build.tng area by use, role in project, financing SITu.cture anddev'elo:p.ment partners. B. Redevelopment Concept 1. Provide adescrip-tioll of the redevelopnlent co'nce-.pt including identification of the .properties involv'ed, propose<.l scale anti nlix of uses. Describe hevV' the concept meets the urban design, active uses/ and Sllstaina'ble develop'ment o'bjectives for the Redeveloplnent Area. c. Timeliness and Market Feasibility 1. Describe the preferred p.ropert)t a.cquisition strategy. Be specific abou.t vvhich Urbal1 I~e:newal .Agency co'ntrolled properties are lobe 'purch.ased, the timing of su.c:h'purchasel anti the necessity of other p.ropert:y acquisition 0.1' agreem.ents with other property OVV11ers or d.evelopnlent partners. 2. Provide a preliminary sc:h.edu.le for in1.plenlentation of tile con.cept, includin.g a11}r id.entified, 11hases. The schedu.le should provide for d.eveloptnent in a logical and, expeditious manner. D. Financial Capability 1. Provid.e a prelin1.in.ary financing strategy for the redev'el.opment concept includi.ng p.reltn1inary identification of eq.uity and. debt sources (such as develo:per equity I lellt"ler letters of interest.r etc). 2" De.mo.nstrate previous eXl-leriel1.ce vvith financing sin1ilar de"velopnlents in u.rban areas. 3. ;Provitie a staten1ent indicatin.g \villingn.ess to SUb!11it corporate fin.ancial statel11ellts or otllerd.ocunlel1.ts presellting the firIan.cial con.clitioll of tIle development team. E. Public Benefit 1. Describe how the redevelopnlent co:ncept will integrate .with and. en.han.ce clovvn tOvvn. 2. .Describe the level of pllblic assistance reqtleste<.l for the .proposed project 3. Describe .benefits in. terms..of financial retur.n to the city,.n.u.m.ber of hOUSlllg units with range of in.conles, and potential jobs created..