Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Penwell provided the staff report. He explained the City Hall Complex master planning process was 18 <br />months into process adopted by the City Council in 2005. The remaining issues included Eugene Police <br />Department (EPD) patrol consolidation and site selection. He asked for permission for staff to talk with <br />Lane County regarding acquisition of the county owned butterfly parking lot, and proposed that staff return <br />on December 11, 2006, with additional information. <br /> <br />Mr. Penwell said this meeting provided an opportunity for the City Council to focus on the decision of police <br />consolidation, and whether patrol should be housed inside of or outside of City Hall. He added that the City <br />Manager preferred to locate patrol outside of City Hall for operational reasons that were supported by <br />Police Chief Robert Lehner. <br /> <br />Mr. Penwell introduced Thomas Hacker of Thomas Hacker Architects. <br /> <br />Mr. Hacker reviewed several options that were displayed in poster form and included in the agenda packet. <br />He said the most important addition was development of a new one-half block scheme that incorporated <br />suggestions from the City Council and looked at a possible alternate containing a diagonal connection <br />between the reestablished Park Block at Eighth Avenue, Oak Street and Park Street with the intersection of <br />th <br />7 Avenue and Willamette Street. This provided a strong visual connection between the Park Blocks, the <br />city’s civic presence, and the cultural connection with the Hult Center and other similar assets. <br /> <br />Mr. Hacker said the other addition to the drawings, while somewhat different, had been to provide each <br />option with below-grade parking and at-grade parking entrances. He said if patrol functions were included <br />in the City Hall building, reflected in Option B of all six options, the need to respond directly to the street <br />level required two exits and two entrances in the event that one of the access or egress points was blocked. <br />He added that the “C” and “D” options offered single entrance and exit, with an added lane for exiting to <br />avoid conflict with other vehicles. <br /> <br />Mr. Hacker said the council request to reduce the impact of police functions on the ground floor was <br />reflected in the drawings, particularly in the one-half block site, and had been addressed in all cases by <br />reducing the police area on the ground floor to 10,000 square feet, with the balance of the police areas on <br />the second, third, or fourth floors. <br /> <br />Mr. Hacker said the design process would be continued through 2007, and various design options could be <br />carried through the process. Mr. Hacker invited questions from City Councilors. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz arrived at 5:40 p.m. <br /> <br />In response to Ms. Bettman, Ms. Dana Ing Crawford said it was vital to have two separate access and <br />egress ramps to avoid blockage for patrol vehicles, and ideal to have two separate ramps for other police <br />fleet vehicles. Ms. Ing Crawford added if patrol was not located in the building, multiple ramps would not <br />be a vital concern. Mr. Hacker concurred that two ramps had not yet been ruled out in any option. <br /> <br />Ms. Ing Crawford reviewed and explained the various cost models included in the agenda packet. She noted <br />that the total project cost number differences were reflected primarily in land acquisition and relocation <br />costs, while construction cost number differences were reflected primarily in the police consolidation option <br />and parking configurations. <br /> <br />MINUTES—City Council November 20, 2006 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />