HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem C - City Space Master PlanEUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Work Session: Downtown City Space Master Planning
Meeting Date: January 10, 2005 Agenda Item Number: C
Department: Central Services Staff Contact: Mike Penwell
www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5547
ISSUE STATEMENT
This work session is to request direction from the council on implementing master planning and
public participation process for consolidation of City services in a downtown city government
complex.
BACKGROUND
In 2001, the council began considering a long-range plan for replacing City office space in the
downtown area. Since that time, numerous council meetings and decisions have been made to
develop the long-term plan. The council action history is detailed in Attachment A.
On July 26, 2004, the council voted to place a $6.79 million General Obligation Bond measure on
the November 2 ballot to partially fund implementation of the Civic Center Phase I plan. The
measure failed, with a vote of 40% yes to 60% no. There was also a significant under-vote on this
measure, as 21% of voters who returned ballots indicated neither yes nor no.
On November 22, 2004, the council approved the transfer of $15.4 million into the Facility
Replacement Reserve and agreed, in concept, to move forward with a master planning and public
participation process for the purpose of informing future decisions related to a city government
complex. At that time, staff indicated they would return to the council with a more detailed scope
of work related to this process and to ask for authorization for budget resources for this purpose.
It is estimated that implementing a downtown City space master planning process that maximizes
public participation could require as much as $750,000 and 12 to 24 months to complete, depending
on the scope of public participation methods and degree of pre-design work completed. Without
this higher level of public process, completion of a pre-design master plan through the schematic
design phase could require up to $500,000 for a City government complex. The staff
recommendation is to implement a public participatio0n and master planning process in stages,
providing the council with the opportunity to authorize the funding level at each step in the process.
Funding for the master planning and public participation process could come from the Facility
Replacement Reserve set aside for the replacement of downtown City office space.
While the specific details of the public participation process would be developed with the assistance
of a consultant, the overall approach would be based on established principles and practices of
effective public participation developed by the International Association for Public Participation
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050110\S050110C.doc
(IAP2). The council was introduced to some of the IAP2 concepts at the November 17, 2004, work
session on neighborhood groups. The "IAP2 Core Values for Public Participation" were developed
for use in defining and implementing public participation processes. The purpose of these core
values is to help make better decisions which reflect the interests and concerns of potentially
affected people and entities.
Core Values for the Practice of Public Participation
1. The public should have a say in decisions about actions that affect their lives.
2. Public participation includes the promise that the public's contribution will influence the
decision.
3. The public participation process communicates the interests and meets the process needs of
all participants.
4. The public participation process seeks out and facilitates the involvement of those
potentially affected.
5. The public participation process involves participants in defining how they participate.
6. The public participation process provides participants with the information they need to
participate in a meaningful way.
7. The public participation process communicates to participants how their input affected the
decision.
Copyright IAP2. All rights reserved.
In Attachment B, the IAP2 Public Participation Toolbox provides examples of a broad range of
tools and techniques that are available to generate public participation in ways that incorporate the
interests and concerns of the community while addressing the policy issues relevant to the council
and the functional needs of City staff. The IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum included as
Attachment C identifies specific public participation goals and examples of the tools and techniques
available to accomplish those goals. The overall goal is to develop and implement a process that
promotes a true dialogue involving all the stakeholders.
The participants in this dialogue consist of three primary groups: 1) a Staff Team consisting of
representatives from all departments using office space in the downtown area, Facility Management
to manage the project, and staff with special knowledge in key professional or technical areas
related to the project; 2) a Consultant Team consisting of a consultant with an established record of
successfully leading public participation processes and consensus-building related to public
development issues, a local architect with a demonstrated involvement in and understanding of
community and downtown issues, an expert in sustainable design (could be one or both of the two
previous consultants), along with various engineers and other consultants (in steps 2 and 3) as
required to meet the specific needs of the project; and 3) the public, using as many public
participation techniques as necessary to ensure a broad range of viewpoints is represented.
The master planning and public participation process envisioned for the City government complex
would consist of three steps as summarized in Attachment D. Note that each of the three steps
would conclude with the opportunity for the City Council to weigh in and give approval before
proceeding to the next step. A description of the public involvement component of a more
traditional master planning processes is included in Attachment E.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050110\S050110C.doc
Upon completion of this three-step master planning and public participation process, the council
will be asked to provide direction for the next steps in implementing the downtown City space
master plan. At this point, additional design work would need to be completed before construction
could begin on all or part of a City government complex.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
The downtown City space master planning and public participation process relates to the council
goals of an effective, accountable municipal government, a safe community, and sustainable com-
munity growth and change.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The expansion or replacement of City Hall to create a City governmental center has been a major
project for the council since 2000. The options currently before the council provide a choice on
how to implement the final phases of the City's plan for future downtown office and public space.
One option incorporates broad community involvement in developing the master plan for a City
complex. Implementing a community involvement process at this level will require the council to
revisit previously adopted policies for future development of City downtown governmental space,
provide City Council direction on a number of policy decisions, and place time demands on the
council's work program. City Council direction to proceed with this option will signify the
council's commitment to the City's downtown space master planning process as a council work
plan priority.
Option 1: Take no action at this time.
Option 2: Authorize the expenditure of up to $75,000 to complete the first step of the downtown
City space master planning and public participation process as described in Attachment
D, including a detailed description of the specific policies to be presented for public
involvement, identification of the stakeholder and interest groups related to each policy
decision, the degree of public influence desired for each policy decision and a detailed
public involvement plan.
Option 3: Direct staff to return to the council with recommendations, budget and timeline for
implementing the City downtown space master plan as previously adopted by the
council, incorporating community information and consultation as described in
Attachment E.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends Option 2.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to direct the City Manager to proceed with Step 1 of the downtown City space master
planning and public participation process as described in Attachment D, periodically provide
progress reports to the council and return for City Council direction on succeeding steps in the
master plan and public participation process, and direct the City Manager to request on
Supplemental Budget #2 up to $75,000 from the Facility Replacement Reserve to implement Step 1
of this process.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050110\S050110C.doc
ATTACHMENTS
A. Council Action History on the Downtown Space Plan
B. International Association for Public Participation Public Participation Toolbox (reprinted with
permission)
C. International Association for Public Participation Public Participation Spectrum (reprinted with
permission)
D. Proposed Master Planning And Public Participation Process
E. Examples of master planning and public participation processes used in other communities
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Mike Penwell
Telephone: 682-5547
Staff E-Mail: michael.j.penwell~ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050110\S050110C.doc
ATTACHMENT A
COUNCIL ACTION HISTORY ON DOWNTOWN SPACE PLAN
On April 11,2001, council was presented with the concept of developing a long-range plan for re-
placing downtown office space. The plan included both potential short-term and long-term actions.
Council directed staff to research a variety of ways to procure City buildings, including design-
build, and report back to council before the planning phase begins for the next new City building.
On April 25, 2001, council was offered several potential short-term actions to create a safer, more
efficient environment for staff located in City Hall. Council directed the City Manager to (i)
develop programming, space needs, and site requirements for relocating certain police functions;
(ii) develop a long-term master plan for future use of the property in Roosevelt Yards by the Police
and Public Works Departments and a financial plan for implementation, including consideration of
redevelopment options for more efficient land use; (iii) dedicate the proceeds from the sale of four
surplus properties to the Facility Replacement Reserve; and (iv) identify and recommend an appro-
priate downtown site for purchase for Fire Station #1, with a report back to council with final site
selection prior to purchase.
On May 16, 2001, council directed the City Manager to develop a financial strategy and implemen-
tation plan for replacing City Hall and other downtown City office space with new buildings. The
council's direction included: consideration of possible joint development with other agencies;
consolidation; locations along 8th Avenue from Oak Street to the river as well as possible sites for
joint development with other agencies; and, potential for use of some of the warehouse and historic
structures east of Mill.
The 2001-2002 Council Goals included an action priority to "Develop a strategy and implementa-
tion plan for City downtown office and public safety facilities." One of the three work items was to
adopt a policy framework for long range plans to help guide decisions on reinvestment in existing
City buildings downtown. A policy for the maintenance and preservation of City Hall and the
Public Works Building was presented to council on July 5, 2001. This policy reduced the level of
reinvestment to provide for an expected 8 to 10 years of continued use.
On September 19, 2001, council addressed near-term and long-term projects by directing that
relocation of Special Operations and EPD personnel in the basement of City Hall, and relocation of
Fire Station #1 should be the first priority of projects in the Downtown Space Plan. Construction of
a new Police Services building and City Hall were the next projects, with design for the Police
Services building projected to begin in FY05, and a replacement of City Hall was targeted to begin
design in FY08.
The September 19, 2001, council item on the Downtown Space Plan included a description of
internal and external funding sources to implement the eventual replacement of City Hall with new
buildings. Council approved the staff recommendation that the projected funding gap be met with a
combination of the dedication of additional General Fund resources and General Obligation Bonds.
One of the proposed internal mechanisms, the payment of market based "rent" by services that
would be located in new downtown buildings, was the topic of a work session on November 26,
2001. The "market rent" concept was incorporated as an on-going City practice beginning in the
adopted FY03 Budget.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050110\S050110C.doc
On February 25, 2002, council approved a resolution to fund the construction of the new Fire
Station #1 through General Obligation Bonds, with City resources funding non-bond eligible capital
costs.
At a May 22, 2002, work session, council approved the location of the Roosevelt Police Facility, a
financing plan over two fiscal years using City resources from the Facility Reserve, and the use of a
Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) form of construction management. Council
adopted funding for the Roosevelt Police Facility on FY02 SB #3 and on FY03 SB #1.
On October 29, 2003, council held a work session on the Downtown Space Plan, focusing specif-
ically on the need for a new Police services building. Council directed staff to bring recommenda-
tions back on the preliminary planning, cost and financing of a new Police Services building.
Several councilors asked for more information on how a new Police building would fit with future
plans to replace City Hall, and for development of a more general "civic center" concept.
On November 17, 2003, staff presented the Multi-Year Financial Plan to the Budget Committee.
This plan identified both the capital and operating needs for the entire organization over a six-year
period. The police building was listed as a high priority need in the MYFP, and replacement of City
Hall was also included as a future project.
On November 19, 2003, council held a work session on sequencing of financial measures to be
presented to the voters. The staff materials indicated that a bond measure for a police building
would be the next potential item to be presented to voters in November 2004. Council discussed the
materials, but did not provide any direction or make any decisions at the work session.
On February 25, 2004, council held an informational work session on the Civic Center Design
Charrette and the Mayor's Civic Facilities Visioning Committee. On April 28, 2004, a work
session was held to update council on the Mayor's Civic Facilities Visioning Committee and on
financing plan options, borrowing methods and construction methods that could be applied to a new
police facility. On June 16, 2004, council reviewed the report of the Mayor's committee and asked
that a public hearing be held on the proposed policy principles that would guide future Civic Center
development. A public information session was held on July 8 and the public hearing on July 12.
On July 14, 2004, council held a work session on the Civic Facilities Visioning Committee Report
and adopted a revised set of Civic Center policy principles. They also determined that a City Hall
and Police Building would be located on City-owned property on 8th Avenue.
On July 21, 2004, council continued discussion of a potential bond measure for the November 2004
ballot. The council directed the City Manager to develop a resolution to place a measure on the
ballot based on an option that would combine near-term space needs with modest Civic Center
amenities. On July 26, 2004 council placed a $6.79 million bond measure on the November 2004
ballot. The measure was to fund social service agency space, police expansion space, improve-
ments to the parks blocks, and improvements to make 8th Avenue a "Civic Street". On November 2,
2004, voters rejected ballot measure 20-88 by a margin of 60% to 40%.
On November 22, council approved the transfer of $15.4 million into the Facility Replacement
Reserve and agreed, in concept, to move forward with a master planning and public participation
process for the purpose of informing future decisions related to City Hall and/or a Public Safety
Building. On SB#1 on December 8, council approved the budget actions to make these transfers.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050110\S050110C.doc
IAP2 Public PaFt dpation Spectrum
DeveLoped by the International Association for PubLic Participation
Participation Pa~dpa~o~
Goa~: Goa~: Goa~:
To provid~ To obtain To work dk~ct[g To paXn~r wit~ To p[ac~
thc public public faadback with thc public thc public
wit~ balanced on anatgsis, t~roug~out t~ aspect of t~ t~ ~ands of t~
and obj~ctiw attarnatiws and/or process to ~nsur~ dacision indudin9 public.
information to d~cisions, t~at public issues t~ d~wtopm~nt
assist them in and concerns of alternatives and
understanding am consistentty the identification
the probtems, understood and of the preferred
atternatives and/or considered, solution.
solutions.
Promise 1o Promise
We wiLL keep You We wiLL keep you We wiLL work with We wiLL Look to you We wiLL implement
informed, informed, Listen to ~ou to ensure that for direct advice what ~ou decide.
and acknowledge ~our concerns and innovation
concerns and and issues are in formulating
provide feedback direct[~ reflected solutions and
on how public in the aaematives incorporate
input influenced developed and your advice and
the decision, provide feedback recommendations
on how public into the decisions
input influenced to the maximum
the decision, extent possible.
Example Tools: Example Tools: Example Tools:
e Fact sheets · PubLic comment e Workshops · Citizen Advisor~ e Citizen juries
~ Web Sites · Focus groups ~ 9etiberate potting Committees ~ BaLLots
~ Open houses · Surveys · Consensus- ~ ~etegated
· PubLic meetings building decisions
· PaXicipator~
decision-making
~ 2000 Intema~ona[ Assodation for Public Par~dpa~on
ATTACHMENT D
PROPOSED MASTER PLANNING AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS
Step 1 - Define the Process
Following the selection of appropriate consultants through an open qualifications-based Request for
Proposals process, the Staff Team and Consultant Team would start by assembling and reviewing
relevant background information including adopted plans, committee reports and recommendations,
and council action history related to City office space and downtown. City staff would then return
to council with a summary list of identified issues and recommendations as to which of those issues
should be considered as already having been decided and which should be on the table for input
from the community. This work session will provide the opportunity for council to establish the
policy framework for the public input process and identify the level of community engagement to
which the City should commit. The IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum is an effective tool for
establishing the desired public participation goal and the corresponding promise to the public.
The Staff Team and Consultant Team would then develop the plan for the public input process,
including specific desired outcomes from the process, identification of represented and
underrepresented stakeholders, ideas of how to invite participation, and selection of the appropriate
tools and techniques for use in Steps 2 and 3. Step 1 could also involve a citizen advisory
committee, blue-ribbon panel, or some other mechanism to ensure that the community's values,
concerns, and issues are reflected in the alternatives developed for the master planning and public
participation process. A target schedule and budget can then be developed for the remaining two
steps of the process. The Staff Team and Consultant Team would present the alternatives and
recommendations to council for review and approval. End product: a detailed description of the
proposed master planning and public participation process related to the replacement of City Hall.
Estimated cost: $75,000.
Step 2 - Explore the Issues
The next step is to implement the process developed in Step 1 by exploring the relevant issues
through a variety of public participation techniques with the intention of including as broad a
spectrum of participants and viewpoints as possible. Possible tools and techniques include: public
workshops; focus groups; design charrettes; open houses; surveys, questionnaires, and polls (using
mail, telephone, and/or internet); web sites; newspaper inserts; and press releases. We could invite
Neighborhood Associations to co-sponsor some of these activities to ensure widely dispersed
outreach to all parts of the city. Depending on Council direction is Step 1, the issues to be explored
could include, but not be limited to:
· Site considerations · Security vs. transparency
· Consolidation of City services · Accessibility
· Enhancing the vitality of downtown · Financial considerations
· Supporting the Great Civic Street · Integration of Public Art
· Developing mixed-use opportunities · Replacement vs. renovation of exist-
· Sustainable building opportunities ing City Hall
· Enhancing civic open space · Phasing
· Promoting excellence in design · Co-location with other agencies
· Transportation and parking · Other issues that may be identified
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050110\S050110C.doc
Results and recommendations would then be presented to council for review and comment before
proceeding to the next step. A public hearing and public comment period would be incorporated
prior to the council work session on this topic. Council action could potentially include adoption of
an updated set of policy principles.
Step 2 is also the point at which the technical work related to master planning can begin. With
input from the Staff Team, the Consultant Team would develop basic program information for the
City government complex such as space need requirements and proximity assessments for potential
occupants. Site assessment could also be conducted on the City-owned properties abutting 8th Ave.
including geotechnical investigation and hazardous material assessment. End product: a Report and
Recommendations document detailing background information, the public participation process,
issues explored, major policy principles, architectural and urban design principles, and any other
information that would inform the schematic design process in Step 3. Also, a Program Document,
Geotechnical Report, and Haz-Mat Report would be completed by the end of Step 2. Estimated
cost: to be developed during Step 1.
Step 3 - Develop and Discuss the Options
This step utilizes the recommendations and policy principles established during Step 2 to develop
and refine schematic design options. The Staff Team and Consultant Team would collaborate in a
fairly traditional schematic design process interspersed with opportunities for public input at appro-
priate stages of development. Public participation at this point could include the use of an advisory
committee, task force, focus groups, public workshops, and/or surveys. Periodic public updates
could also be accomplished by using a variety of active and passive public information techniques
such as press releases, a web site, briefings and open houses.
Final schematic design options and recommendations would then be presented to council for review
and comment before proceeding to the next phase of the project. Again, a public hearing and public
comment period could be incorporated prior to council action at the conclusion of this step. End
product: schematic design alternatives, phasing options, and cost estimates. Estimated cost: to be
developed during Step 1 and 2.
ATTACHMENT E
A PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL COMPONENT FOR A TRADITIONAL MASTER
PLANNING PROCESS FOR THE DOWNTOWN CITY GOVERNMENT COMPLEX
A Design Team would be selected to work with staff to bring the additional experience, expertise
and resources of a consultant group to the master planning process. The Design Team would
work closely with the City staff throughout the study, as the master planning technical work is
completed, using City staff to help understand current policies, and to discuss the feasibility of
recommendations and alternatives that will be developed by the consultant team. The primary
product of the public involvement component of the master planning process would be public
informational materials to be used to support the plan for downtown City facilities.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Achieving public understanding and support is critical to the successful implementation of the
plan. The master planning program would involve a range of interested and affected parties.
Public input is particularly important to the:
· Identification of relevant data
· Determination of issues, needs, new ideas and priorities
· Review of alternatives; and
· Comment on recommendations during the public hearing process
Therefore, the master planning process would include the following elements:
Master Planning Advisory Committee (MPAC) - The City Council would be asked to appoint
a Master Planning Advisory Committee that consists of representatives of the City, interest
groups, other agencies affected by the City's development of a governmental center and citizens
at large. The MPAC may include members of the City Council, Planning Commission, business
associations, school districts, downtown interest groups and knowledgeable citizens. The
purpose of the MPAC is to serve as a sounding board and provide input to the consultant team
and city staff during each phase of the work plan. The diverse representation of individuals on
this committee is intended to ensure that a broad range of interests are represented, and that the
plan addresses challenges and opportunities as viewed by those who are most knowledgeable
about the community. The Design Team would help the Committee envision multiple
alternatives for achieving objectives identified during the facilities planning process, and use
graphics, text, and verbal communication techniques to help bring about a consensus. Also, the
Design Team would use interactive exercises and design workshops to solicit input in a format
that maintains the interest of all participants;
Coordination with Decision-makers and Agencies - The City Facilities Master Plan should be
coordinated with a variety of decision-makers and agencies. The Mayor, City Council and City
staff would set the initial objectives of the plan. Their work would be supplemented by
coordination with local agencies such as the school district and Lane County as well as federal
and state agencies.
Key Person Interviews - The Design Team would hold between twelve and fifteen key person
interviews as part of the facilities master planning effort. The purpose of the interviews is to
obtain information on problems, needs and opportunities from those who have a stake in
ensuring the continued success of the community;
Progress Reports / Media Releases - Progress reports and announcements of meetings can be
included in the City's newsletters and/or web page. The Design Team would assist City staff
with the preparation of media clips and other newsworthy articles related to the progress of the
study and the key issues under consideration.
Open Houses - The general public would be invited to several open houses, proposed to be held
after the alternatives are first developed and before a public hearing, to provide an opportunity
for individuals or groups to present their ideas or discuss their concerns with staff or public
officials. The open houses would begin in the late afternoon, and extend into the evening to
maximize the opportunity for public involvement. This ensures that the concerns of all
interested and affected parties can be further explored and adjustments made to the plan to
respond to public input before the public hearing;
Workshops - The workshops would begin with a 15 minute slide / PowerPoint presentation by
the Design Team that addresses the purpose of the plan, identifies how citizens can participate in
the process, and describes the land uses, businesses, and transportation patterns associated with
the anticipated growth for the community. Following the presentation, a public input exercise
would be used to establish a group vision and goals for Eugene that would later be shared with
the MPAC (Master Planning Advisory Committee); and
Comment Forms - We would use public comment forms as a way of obtaining a written record
of public input. We are proposing to tailor comment forms for the open house as a way to obtain
feedback on items specifically discussed at the public workshop and on plan alternatives
presented during the open house.
WORK PRODUCTS
The final plan would be a concise, readable document that provides clear direction on policies
related to the needs, goals, and actions required to move forward with the next phase of facility
development. It would include color exhibits that show the existing and proposed facility;
planning factors considered in the public consensus process; and the conclusions. At the
conclusion of the project, the Design Team would provide the following public informational
items to the City:
· Documentation of the existing conditions;
· Documentation of the needs;
· Documentation of the public information and input process;
· Conclusion and summary of the accepted City goals;
· Assistance with the preparation of educational materials to be distributed to community
groups, citizens, and agencies.
· Assistance with information and updates to be added to the City's website.
2