One notable issue discussed was the proposed development agreement for the Waterman site, which many attendees felt lacked essential components. During the public input session, George, a concerned resident, voiced his appreciation for the agency’s efforts but criticized the agreement for not including critical elements such as benchmarks for standards and pre-development agreements. He suggested the agreement should be revised to incorporate these elements before any commitment was made. Sean, another speaker, echoed George’s sentiments, arguing that the development should be a “market driver” due to the financial support from the CRA. He also pointed out the absence of the previously discussed underground parking garage.

The discussion continued with Daniel, who labeled the agreement as “premature” and “ambiguous.” He highlighted the non-binding nature of the agreement and the six-month exclusivity clause, which he found problematic. Daniel estimated that a substantial investment, between $40 to $70 million, would be necessary for the project, and he suggested that surface parking would not suffice for the anticipated development scale. He advocated for subdividing the lots to allow for development that better serves the community’s needs.

The city attorney was asked to provide insights on the contract’s quality, stating that while revisions had been made, the contract was fundamentally lacking in details. She described the agreement as a “very low commitment first step,” allowing the developer to refine their concept based on the existing master plan without binding the agency to a definitive development agreement or lease. The attorney emphasized that the agreement would enable the developer to work on a concept for six months, after which the CRA would reassess whether to proceed further.

The meeting also featured a discussion centered on the conceptual plan for the Waterman site, led by representatives from G3 C2, who expressed eagerness to commence development discussions. They highlighted a history of mistrust stemming from a previous experience with another developer, Atria, which had led to hesitance from developers in engaging with the city. The G3 C2 representatives stated their readiness to show their plans and negotiate terms. One representative noted, “this is just the opportunity for us to show you all our cards,” reflecting a desire for transparency.

The suggestion of incorporating benchmarks into the agreement garnered support, as it was deemed essential to ensure accountability and progress. However, a city representative expressed discomfort with the current agreement, citing missing elements that created uncertainty. The city attorney echoed these concerns. This led to a debate over the six-month exclusivity period, with representatives suggesting structuring the agreement to allow for monthly updates to provide opportunities for feedback and adjustments. There was caution regarding the timeline, with one representative warning that waiting six months without interim evaluations could present difficulties if G3 C2’s proposals did not meet expectations.

Despite these concerns, the representatives of G3 C2 reassured the city of their commitment to moving quickly and efficiently. They emphasized that their time was valuable and expressed eagerness to demonstrate their capability to deliver. As discussions progressed, there was acknowledgment that a collaborative approach was necessary for moving forward. Multiple representatives called for action and commitment from both sides.