Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 05/09/07 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall May 9, 2007 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: CITY COUNCIL GOAL--NEIGHBORHOOD EMPOWERMENT ACTION PLAN Acting City Manager Angel Jones introduced the item, noting it was the remaining council goal to be approved. Acting Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Director Renee Grube and Parks Planner Carolyn Weiss were present for the item. Ms. Grube reminded the council that it had delayed adopting the action plan until after the Neighborhood Summit. She reported that the first Neighborhood Summit held in February had been a great success and all the neighborhood organizations were represented. In addition, members of the council and representatives from the Budget Committee, Planning Commission, Police Commission, and staff attended. The City received input on the 20 action items, and the action plan was included in the packet as Attachment A. Three additional actions were added as a result of neighborhood feedback sessions conducted by Police Chief Bob Lehner, Planning and Development Director Susan Muir, and Public Works Director Kurt Corey. Ms. Grube said the top three priorities identified by those present at the summit were: 1) involve neighbor- hood associations earlier in land use proposals; 2) increase density in existing neighborhoods thoughtfully; and 3) increase ongoing support for neighborhood associations. Ms. Grube said the City formed a new staff team to work with the neighborhood associations and the Neighborhood Leaders Council (NLC) to continue the implementation of the action plan. Ms. Weiss referred the council to Attachment D, a comprehensive list of progress made to date on each action item, emphasizing the top three priorities. Ms. Grube acknowledged the contributions of Mr. Corey and City staff Beth Bridges and Roland Hoskins, who did much of the work involving the summit. She also acknowledged the work of Ms. Weiss, Sarah Medary, Lisa Gardner, Issac Markehe, Carolyn McDermed, Kathy Madison, Doug Perry, Randy Kolb, Larry Hill, and Maureen Robeson. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 9, 2007 Page 1 Work Session Mayor Piercy asked if staff had thought about how often such summits should occur. Ms. Grube recommended they be held once annually but emphasized the effort involved. She invited input on that. Mayor Piercy questioned if the NLC should be an official advisory body to the City Council given staff’s involvement. Ms. Grube said the question had come up and the clarification of roles and a change in structure was identified as an issue by the neighborhood associations. Mayor Piercy appreciated the freedom the group had in the past but thought it was hard to treat it as an advisory body if it was not in a formal structure. Mr. Clark cautioned the council, in considering formalizing the structure of the NLC, not to create a problem for the current representatives from neighborhood organizations who do not live in the city. Ms. Ortiz expressed appreciation for the work done by all and also questioned the weight the NLC’s recommendations could carry in the absence of a formal structure. She supported having additional structure around the role of the NLC. She did not think that a resident’s status was an issue because she did not think the City precluded nonresidents from sitting on City committees. Ms. Jones clarified that all committees had a residency requirement but the council could waive that requirement. After clarifying with Ms. Grube what was being proposed for adoption and her interpretation that site review and downzoning were incorporated into items 11, 12, and 13, Ms. Bettman indicated she would amend the motion to include those items as higher priorities. Mr. Zelenka said he liked the way the goal had developed as he thought it would give the neighborhood associations the tools they needed. He noted his own involvement in neighborhood organizations and thought the goal helped them to address their concerns about land use issues and protecting environments and livability. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct staff to proceed with implementation of the initiative with the following actions: ? Approve the Neighborhood Empowerment draft goal language. ? Approve the addition of three additional actions item to the Neighborhood Initiative Plan. ? Approve the priority order of action items based on the Neighborhood Summit results. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to amend the priority order to place as the highest priority in the first phase action items 11, 12, and 13. The amendment to the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman clarified with Mr. Sullivan the number of City employees who worked in the Neighborhood section now and then recommended to staff that rather than use the career development approach to filling the new proposed position, staff seek outside expertise to realize the goal. Acting City Manager Jones said staff would bring whatever resources necessary to bear to achieve the council goals and make an assessment of how best the goals could be achieved. Ms. Bettman noted the $90,000 left from the past fiscal year and suggested that if even if the position was filled in-house, some outside expertise might be necessary. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 9, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the City Council and opened the meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 9, 2007 Page 3 Work Session B. COUNCIL WORK SESSION: West Broadway Project Update Senior Management Analyst Denny Braud joined the council for the item. He noted the responses to council questions included in the meeting packet, and further noted the recent tour of Beam and KWG project sites in Portland taken by Mayor Piercy and Mr. Zelenka. He also called attention to the comments of the citizens who went on the tour. Mr. Braud said staff had some conversation with the developers in the past two days about possible next steps if one or both was selected. He said staff continued to recommend KWG. Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. Mr. Zelenka said he had attempted to craft something that blended the three options that had been discussed. He emphasized that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) would include a public process and the council was not making a decision on a final product at this time. The process that lay ahead would get the council to the final product. He expressed appreciation for the considerable public input he received. Mr. Zelenka said that not all would agree on the proposal he offered, but he hoped those who disagreed would accept it, which would result in more housing and more commercial space without the downtown looking “like Disneyland.” He was unsure if the council actually needed to take action that day on the motion he proposed to put forward. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved 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, a public process that includes a citizen advisory committee with an independent planner/facilitator whose work will be completed in August, option agreements, financial tools, and a relocation transition plan consistent with the agency’s May 9 discussion, with all proposed actions and other options and agreements other than the option agreements and renewals to be brought back to the agency for final authorization. Mr. Zelenka envisioned that the City would sign MOUs with both developers and that the Beam group would work on the Centre Court and Washburn buildings and the KWG group would have the remainder of the footprint, including the site of the former Sears store. A public process would occur and an advisory committee would be formed to work with the developers on a proposal to be brought back to the council in September 2007. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to select the Beam Development Option 2, and to direct the Urban Renewal Agency director to move forward immediately with the TK th Partners project as previously selected in the 10 and Charnelton Request for Proposals process. As pertains to the remaining portion of the West Broadway development site foot- print this motion further directs the agency director to secure the services of a qualified ur- ban planner to oversee the public process for the remainder of West Broadway development site footprint and to establish a West Broadway Development Advisory Committee to work with a qualified urban designer to identify preferred design elements and mix of uses for the remaining footprint of the West Broadway development site, as well as a transition plan for existing businesses. The ad hoc committee shall be composed of approximately 12 mem- bers nominated by the mayor and approved by the Urban Renewal Agency. In addition, the agency director shall secure the services of a qualified consultant to perform a market analysis and economic feasibility studies for the remaining portion of the site. This research MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 9, 2007 Page 4 Work Session and analysis will inform the Urban Renewal Agency and the ad hoc committee’s delibera- tions. The resulting recommendations will be used by the Urban Renewal Agency as the basis for criteria to include in a formal Request for Proposals on the remaining balance of the West Broadway development site footprint. Ms. Bettman thought Mr. Zelenka’s proposal, as reflected in the motion, was vague. If she had not seen his proposal, it might appear to be a compromise. She believed that basically it was an endorsement of the KGW proposal while leaving Beam to redevelop just the buildings. It incorporated an existing approved housing project into the larger footprint. KGW stated it must do feasibility studies that could take a year, and she thought that was tantamount to doing nothing. Her motion moved the City forward and provided for housing, historic preservation, and redevelopment of the Aster site while giving the City time to plan for the remainder of downtown. Otherwise, everything was put off until KWG decided what was profitable. When the council saw what the company was willing to build, it would be a year away and no ground would have been broken on projects. She thought doing nothing was not an option. Ms. Bettman said another downside of the KWG proposal was that the company said it would accommodate the existing businesses but the company’s response to the Request for Qualifications suggested that it was “every man for himself” while KGW did due diligence and construction. If those businesses could afford the rent, they could relocate to their original sites. Her motion moved the community forward with two viable proposals with considerable community support. Mr. Zelenka’s proposal included three public hearings, and each would be a “divisive meltdown.” Mr. Clark thanked Mr. Zelenka, Mayor Piercy, and the staff. He was happy to see the council work with this much integrity toward an answer that worked for everyone. He said the public expressed support for the development proposals before the council, and he thought the proposal put forth by Mr. Zelenka was a way to reach common ground. Mr. Clark thought the public input the council received suggested that it was time to act and breathe new life into downtown. His only concern was that he would not want to see disagreement as a hindrance to final action, and asked that action be taken by the time of the last council meeting on August 15. He asked that be accepted as a friendly amendment. Speaking to the Ms. Bettman’s concern about the potential that disagreement would be expressed in the public hearings, Mr. Clark suggested that was a good thing. He thought the council would find a way to accommodate everyone and take action. Ms. Taylor thought it was good that people were aware of what was going on. She stressed the importance of an incremental, organic, local approach. It was a higher priority to Ms. Taylor that the existing businesses downtown be protected, and she did not think Mr. Zelenka’s motion accomplished that. She thought the City should proceed with the Beam proposal, which would renovate two existing buildings without disturbing anyone. She suggested the City could negotiate with Beam about the Aster site. Ms. Taylor said the council decided on the Sears site but without council direction, the manager had failed to proceed. She wanted to proceed with that project as quickly as possible. Mr. Poling did not support Ms. Bettman’s motion as it was too limited in scope and it lacked deadlines. He termed it essentially a rehash of what the council had been doing. He said the City had been processing the issue of downtown redevelopment for 20 years and it was time to act. He had favored the KGW proposal because he repeatedly heard the City wanted a range of housing options as well as retail and commercial in the downtown area, and that was what KGW proposed to do. He emphasized the word “proposed.” He said MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 9, 2007 Page 5 Work Session a public process would occur. He said that Ms. Bettman complained about the public involvement involved in Mr. Zelenka’s proposal but her proposal would also include a public process or the community would be unhappy. He believed that no matter what the council did with regard to downtown, it would make somebody unhappy. Mr. Poling called on the council to show leadership. Ms. Ortiz commended Mr. Zelenka and Ms. Bettman for their proposals. She believed the council should have as much public process as possible, although she acknowledged that the public had been processing the issue for some time. Ms. Ortiz said she was challenged by the “whole thing” and would not speak to either motion because she did not know what to do. Ms. Solomon asked about the timeline required for both motions, and the experience of the two developers in working in a public process. Ms. Muir said both developers were used to working in a public environment and were willing to do so in Eugene. Mr. Braud said that staff would prepare timelines for the proposal selected. Mr. Braud said the important component of the timeline was to have a MOU in place with both teams, and staff thought that could be accomplished in a reasonable time frame. The MOU would lay out the timeline and associated steps. The council would review and adopt the MOUs. Following the adoption of the MOU, staff would work on development agreements with both developers. Ms. Solomon asked if the Beam proposal would be accomplished more quickly. Mr. Braud said yes. Ms. Solomon saw that as a plus as it eliminated the idea there would be “too many cooks in the kitchen.” If the Beam project moved forward, by the time KWG was ready to move, it would be halfway accomplished. Ms. Solomon said her preference was for KWG alone but she discussed the issue with Mr. Zelenka and appreciated the work he had put into the motion. She thought the project defined in Alan’s motion captured what everyone wanted and supported the date certain for action proposed by Mr. Clark. Mayor Piercy expressed support for Mr. Zelenka’s motion. She had recently lived in downtown for three months at Broadway Place and found the West Broadway area to be not as bad as some said but not as good as it could be. Everyone she talked to wanted to see something done now. Mayor Piercy thought both developers had specialties the City could take advantage of. Beam had creative and innovative renovations with a commitment to green building and the arts. KGW had expertise in residential over retail with an emphasis on affordable housing and green building. She thought together they could do much for Eugene. Mayor Piercy also supported moving forward with the Sears housing development. Mayor Piercy said the City received an outpouring of support for both proposals and she thought Mr. Zelenka’s proposal was a rational response to that input. It would provide for the public participation desired. She said the developers expressed willingness to work with an independent facilitator and both had experience doing so. Mayor Piercy asked Mr. Braud to speak to the developers’ willingness to work together. Mr. Braud said both expressed concern about the complexity of the approach but expressed willingness to meet and determine if an agreement that worked for all parties could be developed. Mayor Piercy said both developers expressed a willingness to work with local businesses. Mr. Pryor agreed that public participation would be an important consideration and it could be built into the process in a positive and productive way. He suggested the kind of development that needed to occur downtown depended on “the slope;” if the slope was fairly easy, then incremental, local, and organic worked just fine. However, there were aspects to downtown development that were better likened to a heavy climb MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 9, 2007 Page 6 Work Session and he did not think incremental, local, and organic worked to accomplish that climb. He thought that Mr. Zelenka’s proposal reflected the need that existed in the downtown and created a framework that he thought provided the council with considerable latitude to do positive things downtown. Mr. Pryor agreed with Mr. Poling as to the importance of acting now. Mr. Zelenka said the process had been a difficult one. He stressed that there were no specific proposals on the table and the council had only seen broad-brush concepts. Both developers believed the scoping process could be accomplished in three months and that would include a market analysis. He pointed out that combining the proposals only added one block, but it was a crucial block because it was the heart of the downtown. He said the advisory committee he proposed included an independent planner/facilitator and he thought it needed to have a time certain to have its work done, such as by the end of August. Speaking to Ms. Bettman’s remarks, Mr. Zelenka thought the housing project on the Sears site needed to be integrated with a project that included housing on the north side because they would be better projects. He thought the neighborhood needed to change fundamentally to be successful. He emphasized that the result of his motion would be nonbinding MOUs. Ms. Bettman said that nonbinding MOUs meant that the City was not moving forward and would be committed to KWG without having a proposal on the table. The council would be passing up an approved proposal on the Sears site and if it fell through, the council would lose that opportunity. She termed Mr. Zelenka’s proposal “KWG Light.” Mr. Zelenka had “carved out” the Centre Court and Washburn buildings from the footprint and “thrown that bone” to Beam. He did not even give Beam the Aster property, which could leave the city with two pits in downtown for at least another year. Ms. Bettman said that once the City signed with KWG, it would wait a year. Her proposal, which was Option 2 in the Agenda Items Summary, had been endorsed as a viable if not preferred option by City staff and Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC). She said it would be a mischaracterization to say that Mr. Zelenka’s proposal had something for everyone. She was opposed to it. Ms. Bettman believed that the KWG proposal would entail at least $35 million in public subsidies. Ms. Taylor reminded the council about the Pankow and Van Dyn project proposals, which were never realized. She thought the City should move forward with its current agreement for redevelopment of the Sears site and adopt Ms. Bettman’s motion. If the council adopted the Beam proposal, work would start sooner and the two holes downtown would be filled. Ms. Taylor said that KWG might have indicated an interest in protecting local businesses but the firm also indicated its interest in an upscale development that those businesses could occupy if they could afford it. Mr. Clark determined from Mr. Braud that the developer thought it would take 12 months to secure anchor tenants for the project. He said if the council valued public participation and meant what it said in that regard, he thought it the decision was clear. The public wanted the council to act now, so he would support Mr. Zelenka’s motion. Mr. Poling disagreed with Ms. Bettman’s characterization of Mr. Zelenka’s proposal as “KWG Light.” He perceived the proposal as a compromise. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 9, 2007 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to call the question. The vote on the motion was a 4:4; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Zelenka, and Ms. Ortiz voting no, and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Clark, and Mr. Pryor voting yes. Mayor Piercy voted in opposition to the motion and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. Mayor Piercy said the Beam proposal currently proposed to use the Aster site for surface parking, which she did not think was the best use of the property. The company indicated the proposal was a placeholder as it believed there was a better use for it. She asked KWG about innovative solutions to helping local businesses to stay within the project footprint, and representatives of the firm indicated they had ideas about how that could occur. Mr. Zelenka said the MOU would commit the City to KWG and Beam as partners, but the details would remain to be worked out. He noted his proposal called for relocation and transition planning for local businesses. He did not think the Beam proposal took the City much farther than it had been five years ago, when the Washburn and Centre Court buildings were fully occupied. Mr. Zelenka said he would propose two amendments to his motion, one that the work of the committee be done by the end of August and one incorporating elements of Ms. Bettman’s motion. Ms. Bettman said she received a call from the owner of Lucky’s Tavern who said her property had not been optioned and she did not want to sell. She indicated she knew of at least two other owners whose properties were not optioned and who did not want to sell, but whose properties were included in the footprint of the KWG proposal. She thought it overly optimistic to think the public process could be completed in three months. She thought going forward with the KWG proposal was a big mistake and that it was also a mistake to presume the businesses who did not want to sell would be a part of the project. The motion failed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Mr. Zelenka amended his motion, with the concurrence of his second, Ms. Ortiz, as follows: Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved 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, a public process that includes a citizen advisory committee with an independent planner/facilitator whose work will be completed by the end of August in time for City Council action in September after summer break. As pertains to the re- maining portion of the West Broadway development site footprint, the motion further di- rects the agency director to secure the services of a qualified urban planner to oversee the public process for the remainder of the West Broadway development site footprint, and to establish a West Broadway Development Advisory Committee to work with a qualified ur- ban designer to identify preferred design elements, mix of uses for the remaining footprint of the West Broadway development site, as well as a transition plan for existing businesses. The ad hoc committee shall be comprised of 11 members, one each appointed by a council member and three by the mayor. In addition, the agency director shall secure services of a qualified consultant to perform a market analysis and economic feasibility studies for the remaining portion of the site. This research and analysis will inform the Urban Renewal Agency and ad hoc committee’s deliberations. Option agreements, financial tools, and a re- location transition plan consistent with the agency’s May 9 discussion, with all proposed MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 9, 2007 Page 8 Work Session actions and other options and agreements other than the option agreements and renewals to be brought back to the agency for final authorization. Mr. Clark asked that the motion be amended to indicate the council would review the work done on September 10. Mr. Zelenka preferred to defer to the mayor and manager to see if that worked on the schedule, but indicated that was his general intent. Ms. Bettman believed that selecting a developer at this point made a sham of the public process. The developer will make money but the City will not know what will be built for at least a year. She was not won over by arguments about public process and suggested that residents would not want to participate because they would have no impact on the final design. She noted that in its response to the Request for Proposals, KGW indicated it understood that there was no design review or similar process required, and that the land use entitlement was a function of satisfying City code requirements. In other words, the company only had to follow the code to receive $35 million in public money. She found that very troubling. Ms. Solomon said the council did not have a price tag for the KWG project and she did not think that councilors should be making statements about subsidies if it was not known if it was true. Ms. Solomon pointed out that things had changed since the RFP. She said the mayor reminded the council that even the Beam group did not define what it planned for the Aster property. Ms. Solomon determined from Ms. Muir that the added elements of Mr. Zelenka were workable. Mr. Clark thanked Mr. Zelenka and the developers for trying to accommodate the City. He agreed that the RFPs originally submitted were not relevant in light of the input received. He found it odd that Ms. Bettman would suggest that there would be no public participation. He believed the public would be involved in the design process. Mr. Zelenka did not agree the process was a sham. He said the success of the process depended on it was designed and implemented. The motion would not result in a deal being signed but in an MOU that would create a process that would lead a plan to inform the development agreement, which would be the basis of any future deal. The council had to “sign off” on all that, and the council could reject what was proposed if it did not meet the City’s goals. Mr. Zelenka said he asked the people against the KWG project to describe their vision of downtown, and they described the KWG project to him. He was trying to break down the barriers to moving forward and take advantage of the best in the two proposals. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to postpone action on the motion until the next meeting. Mr. Clark asked why the council should postpone action on the motion. Ms. Taylor wanted the public to be aware of what the council was about to do so they could get in touch with the councilors. Mr. Clark suggested that the council had already heard from the public and the motion on the table merely started the process. He asked again why the council would want to postpone action. Mr. Pryor said he would be happy to vote today as he liked the proposal but the council could give the public a couple of days to allow the public to react. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 9, 2007 Page 9 Work Session Ms. Bettman thought the public expected the council to select an option and essentially Mr. Zelenka had proposed Option 1. She thought postponement was acceptable. Mr. Zelenka agreed with the remarks of Mr. Pryor. He said he was open to hearing ways to improve the proposal in the interim. Mr. Clark said that the motion proposed by Mr. Zelenka was nothing new; it was a synthesis of the best parts of the proposal the community had already discussed. He questioned whether the council would learn anything new before it acted. He said that while the public expected the council to listen, it also expected it to decide and act, and that was what he would like to see it do. The motion to postpone action passed, 5:3; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Clark voting no. The meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young ) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 9, 2007 Page 10 Work Session