The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-26-16 Agenda Packet EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA October 26, 2016 12:00p.m.CITYCOUNCILWORKSESSION HarrisHall 125East8Avenue th Eugene,Oregon97401 MeetingofOctober26,2016; HerHonorMayorKittyPiercyPresiding Councilors 12:00p.m.CITYCOUNCILWORKSESSION HarrisHall,125East8Avenue th 1.WORKSESSION CoordinatedDowntownDevelopment J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161026\\A161026S.doc ¶¶¶ȁ¤´¦¤¤®±ȁ¦®µȁ J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161026\\A161026S.doc ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY ¶¶¶ȁ¤´¦¤¤®±ȁ¦®µ ISSUESTATEMENT information that was presented at the October 19, 2016,Joint Elected Officials meeting regarding the work of the Joint Task Force on CoordinatedDowntown Development. This work session is intended to afford City Council the opportunity to provide detailed feedback and specific direction to staff with regard to the work of the Joint Task Force. BACKGROUND On July 14, 2016, the Eugene City Council and the Board of County Commissioners held a joint session to provide an update on several planned projects in downtown Eugene and to discuss the potential for collaboration on the development of a renewed civic center. On July 18, 2016, the Eugene City Council approved a motion to direct the City Manager to work with the County and the Court to investigate the following possibilities: (1) a new City Hall on the Butterfly Lot and a Courthouse on the full City Hall block; (2) Phase 1 of a new City Hall as currently planned and a wrap-around Courthouse; (3) other options that may arise. The motion also cited factors to consider including, but not limited to, parking, City Hall Phase 2 and farmer’s market. Further, Council directed that the work with the County and Court shall be completed by November 15, 2016. Following this action by the Council, the Board of County Commissioners provided similar direction to the County Administrator in its July 19, 2016, meeting. To fulfill this charge, City and County staff met regularly through the month of August to charter the work and begin the collaborative effort necessary to fulfill the direction of each of the elected bodies. On September 20, 2016, staff presented an update on these efforts to a joint session of the Eugene City Council and Board of County Commissioners. This update included a review of the Elected Representative Group (ERG) members and their role in the work, a review of the joint Staff Task Force (STF) members, and an introduction of the task force’s independent facilitator, Cameron McCarthy. Additionally, Cameron McCarthy reviewed the planned scope of work of the task force, as well as the approach and methodology they will employee in order to meet the demanding schedule the work must be completed within. On October 19, 2016, City and County staff, along with representatives from Cameron McCarthy, presented information on work completed since the previous joint elected officials meeting. This included an update on the project task/action list, a review of the space programs that have been J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161026\\S161026A.docx developed for each of the uses to be accommodated under each development scenario, a discussion on the task force’s draft prerequisites and considerations document, and a presentation of preliminary development concept models. This Council work session is intended to serve as an opportunity for the City Council to review and comment on the material that was presented and discussed at the October 19, 2016, Joint Elected Officials meeting. This work session is scheduled to provide City Council with an opportunity to provide detailed feedback and specific direction to City staff with regard to the work of the Joint Task Force. RELATEDCITYPOLICIES CITY-!.!'%2Ȍ3RECOMMENDATION SUGGESTEDMOTION ATTACHMENTS FORMOREINFORMATION AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY City of Eugene and Lane County Joint Work Session -¤¤³¨¦ $ ³¤Ȁ /¢³®¡¤± ΐΘǾ ΑΏΐΕ )335% 34!4%-%.4 4§¤ ¯´±¯®²¤ ®¥ ³§¨² ¶®±ª ²¤²²¨® ¨² ³® ¯±¤²¤³ an ´¯£ ³¤ ® ³§¤ ¶®±ª ®¥ ³§¤ *®¨³ 4 ²ª &®±¢¤ ® #®®±£¨ ³¤£ $®¶³®¶ $¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³ȁ BACKGROUND / *´«¸ ΐΓǾ ΑΏΐΕǾ ³§¤ "® ±£ ®¥ #®´³¸ #®¬¬¨²²¨®¤±² £ %´¦¤¤ #¨³¸ #®´¢¨« §¤«£ ©®¨³ ²¤²²¨® ³® ¯±®µ¨£¤ ´¯£ ³¤ ® ²¤µ¤± « ¯« ¤£ ¯±®©¤¢³² ¨ £®¶³®¶ %´¦¤¤ £ ³® £¨²¢´²² ³§¤ ¯®³¤³¨ « ¥®± ¢®«« ¡®± ³¨® ® ³§¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³ ®¥ ±¤¤¶¤£ ¢¨µ¨¢ ¢¤³¤±ȁ / *´«¸ ΐΗǾ ΑΏΐΕǾ ³§¤ %´¦¤¤ #¨³¸ #®´¢¨« ¯¯±®µ¤£ ¬®³¨® ³® £¨±¤¢³ ³§¤ #¨³¸ - ¦¤± ³® ¶®±ª ¶¨³§ ³§¤ #®´³¸ £ ³§¤ #®´±³ ³® ¨µ¤²³¨¦ ³¤ ³§¤ ¥®««®¶¨¦ ¯®²²¨¡¨«¨³¨¤²Ȁ Ȩΐȩ ¤¶ #¨³¸ ( «« ® ³§¤ "´³³¤±¥«¸ ,®³ £ #®´±³§®´²¤ ® ³§¤ ¥´«« #¨³¸ ( «« ¡«®¢ªǿ ȨΑȩ 0§ ²¤ ΐ ®¥ ¤¶ #¨³¸ ( «« ² ¢´±±¤³«¸ ¯« ¤£ £ ¶± ¯- ±®´£ #®´±³§®´²¤ǿ ȨΒȩ ®³§¤± ®¯³¨®² ³§ ³ ¬ ¸ ±¨²¤ȁ 4§¤ ¬®³¨® «²® ¢¨³¤£ ¥ ¢³®±² ³® ¢®²¨£¤± ¨¢«´£¨¦Ǿ ¡´³ ®³ «¨¬¨³¤£ ³®Ǿ ¯ ±ª¨¦Ǿ #¨³¸ ( «« 0§ ²¤ Α £ ¥ ±¬¤±Ȍ² ¬ ±ª¤³ȁ &´±³§¤±Ǿ #®´¢¨« £¨±¤¢³¤£ ³§ ³ ³§¤ ¶®±ª ¶¨³§ ³§¤ #®´³¸ £ #®´±³ ²§ «« ¡¤ ¢®¬¯«¤³¤£ ¡¸ .®µ¤¬¡¤± ΐΔǾ ΑΏΐΕȁ &®««®¶¨¦ ³§¨² ¢³¨® ¡¸ ³§¤ #®´¢¨«Ǿ ³§¤ "® ±£ ®¥ #®´³¸ #®¬¬¨²²¨®¤±² ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ²¨¬¨« ± £¨±¤¢³¨® ³® ³§¤ #®´³¸ !£¬¨¨²³± ³®± ¨ ¨³² *´«¸ ΐΘǾ ΑΏΐΕ ¬¤¤³¨¦ȁ 4® ¥´«¥¨«« ³§¨² chargeǾ #¨³¸ £ #®´³¸ ²³ ¥¥ ¬¤t ±¤¦´« ±«¸ ³§±®´¦§ ³§¤ ¬®³§ ®¥ !´¦´²³ ³® ¢§ ±³¤± ³§¤ ¶®±ª £ ¡¤¦¨ ³§¤ ¢®«« ¡®± ³¨µ¤ ¤¥¥®±³ ¤¢¤²² ±¸ ³® ¥´«¥¨«« ³§¤ £¨±¤¢³¨® ®¥ ¤ ¢§ ®¥ ³§¤ ¤«¤¢³¤£ ¡®£¨¤²ȁ / 3¤¯³¤¬¡¤± ΑΏǾ ΑΏΐΕǾ ²³ ¥¥ ¯±¤²¤³¤£ ´¯£ ³¤ ® ³§¤²¤ ¤¥¥®±³² ³® ©®¨³ ²¤²²¨® ®¥ ³§¤ "® ±£ ®¥ #®´³¸ #®¬¬¨²²¨®¤±² £ %´¦¤¤ #¨³¸ #®´¢¨«ȁ 4§¨² ´¯£ ³¤ ¨¢«´£¤£ ±¤µ¨¤¶ ®¥ ³§¤ E«¤¢³¤£ R¤¯±¤²¤³ ³¨µ¤ G±®´¯ Ȩ%2') ¬¤¬¡¤±² £ ³§¤¨± ±®«¤ ¨ ³§¤ ¶®±ªǾ ±¤µ¨¤¶ ®¥ ³§¤ ©®¨³ 3³ ¥¥ 4 ²ª &®±¢¤ Ȩ34&ȩ ¬¤¬¡¤±²Ǿ £ ¨³±®£´¢³¨® ®¥ ³§¤ ³ ²ª ¥®±¢¤Ȍ² ¨£¤¯¤£¤³ ¥ ¢¨«¨³ ³®±Ǿ # ¬¤±® -¢# ±³§¸ȁ !££¨³¨® ««¸Ǿ # ¬¤±® -¢# ±³§¸ ±¤µ¨¤¶¤£ ³§¤ ¯« ¤£ ²¢®¯¤ ®¥ ¶®±ª of³§¤ ³ ²ª ¥®±¢¤Ǿ ² ¶¤«« ² ³§¤ ¯¯±® ¢§ £ ¬¤³§®£®«®¦¸ ³§¤¸ ¶¨«« ¤¬¯«®¸¤¤ ¨ ®±£¤± ³® ¬¤¤³ ³§¤ £¤¬ £¨¦ ²¢§¤£´«¤ ³§¤ ¶®±ª ¬´²³ ¡¤ ¢®¬¯«¤³¤£ ¶¨³§¨ȁ ) ³§¨² ²¤²²¨®Ǿ #¨³¸ £ #®´³¸ ²³ ¥¥Ǿ «®¦ ¶¨³§ ±¤¯±¤²¤³ ³¨µ¤² ¥±®¬ # ¬¤±® -¢# ±³§¸Ǿ ¶¨«« ¯±¤²¤³ information ® ¶®±ª ¢®¬¯«¤³¤£ ²¨¢¤ ³§¤ « ²³ ©®¨³ ¤«¤¢³¤£ ®¥¥¨¢¨ «² ¬¤¤³¨¦ȁ 4§¨² ¨¢«´£¤² a ´¯£ ³¤ ® ³§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³ ³ ²ªȝ ¢³¨® «¨²³ Ȩ!³³ ¢§¬¤³ !ȩǾ review ®¥ ³§¤ ²¯ ¢¤ ¯±®¦± ¬² ³§ ³ § µ¤ ¡¤¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¤£ ¥®± ¤ ¢§ ®¥ ³§¤ ´²¤² ³® ¡¤ ¢¢®¬¬®£ ³¤£ ´£¤± ¤ ¢§ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³ ²¢¤ ±¨® Ȩ!³³ ¢§¬¤³ "ȩǾ £¨²¢´²²¨® ®n³§¤ ³ ²ª ¥®±¢¤Ȍ² £± ¥³ ¯±¤±¤°´¨²¨³¤² £ ¢®²¨£¤± ³¨®² £®¢´¬¤³ Ȩ!³³ ¢§¬¤³ #ȩǾ £ ¯±¤²¤³ ³¨® ®¥ ¯±¤«¨¬¨ ±¸ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³ ¢®¢¤¯³ ¬®£¤«²ȁ \[File name\] RECOMMENDATION 4§¤±¤ ±¤ ® ²¯¤¢¨¥¨¢ ±¤¢®¬¬¤£ ³¨®² ³ ³§¨² ³¨¬¤ȁ ATTACHMENTS A.#®®±£¨ ³¤£ $®¶³®¶ $¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³ 4 ²ªȝ!¢³¨® ,¨²³Ǿ £ ³¤£ ΐΏȝΐΑȝΐΖ B.#®®±£¨ ³¤£ $®¶³®¶ $¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³,$± ¥³ 0±®¦± ¬ 3´¬¬ ±¨¤² C.#®®±£¨ ³¤£ $®¶³®¶ $¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³Ǿ $± ¥³ 0±¤±¤°´¨²¨³¤² £ #®²¨£¤± ³¨®² &/2 -/2% ).&/2-!4)/. 3³ ¥¥ #®³ ¢³Ȁ +±¨²³¨¤ ( ¬¬¨ttǾ #¨³¸ ®¥ %´¦¤¤ #¤³± « 3¤±µ¨¢¤ Director Telephone: 541-682-5524 3³ ¥¥ %-Mail: kristie.a.hammitt@ci.eugene.or.us 3³ ¥¥ #®³ ¢³Ȁ '±¤¦ 2¨ª§®¥¥Ǿ , ¤ County /¯¤± ³¨®² $¨±¤¢³®± Telephone: 541-682-6262 3³ ¥¥ %-Mail: greg.rikhoff@co.lane.or.us Coordinated Downtown Development Lane County & City of Eugene PROJECT TASK / ACTION LIST October 12, 2016 SCHEDULE JSTF -10/19, 8:15-9:00AM Next Meetings: ERG -10/14, 12:00-1:30PM JEO - 10/19, 12:00-1:30PM 6 (of 12) Weeks Remaining: TASK ITEM RESPONSIBLE DUE DATE PARTY STATUS 1 Project Initiation Stakeholder Outreach COE/LC Ongoing Stakeholder Meetings 9/7 CPW/Public Market Feasibility Study COE/LC/CM Complete 9/8 COE/Downtown Projects COE/LC/CM Complete 9/13 LC/Courthouse Needs Assessment Study LC/CM Complete 9/21 LC/Butterfly Lot Legal Research COE/LC/CM Complete 9/21 LC/District AttorneyLC/CMComplete 9/21 LC/SherriffÈs Office LC/CM Complete 9/22 Travel Lane CountyLC/COEComplete 9/22 Farmers Market LC/COE Complete 9/23 Saturday Market LC/COE Complete 9/26 COE Goals COE/CM Complete 9/27 Downtown Parking COW/LC/CM Complete 9/27 AIA/SWO COE/LC/CM Compete 9/29 Hilton LC/COE Complete 10/4 Farmers Market follow up LC/COE/CM Complete 10/5 Travel Lane County follow upLC/COEComplete 10/12 Justice Center/Municipal Court LC/COE/CM Scheduled 10/19 AIA/SWO CM Scheduled Cameron McCarthy 1 Coordinated Downtown Development Lane County & City of Eugene Project Task / Action List October 12, 2016 TASK ITEM RESPONSIBLE DUE DATE PARTY STATUS Elected Representatives Group Meetings 9/12 ERG Meeting Complete 10/7 ERG Meeting Complete 10/14 ERG Meeting Scheduled Joint Elected Officials Meetings 9/20 JEO Update Complete 10/19 JEO Update Scheduled 11/14 JEO Update Scheduled 1.1 Communications Plan (Internal) CM Final 1.2 Project Goals CM Final 2 Research & Data Gathering City Hall Request for SketchUp Model Complete COE Request for Existing Conditions info Complete COE Courthouse Public Service Building Request for historical info Pending LC Butterfly Lot Farmers Market CPW Report Update Pending LC Park Blocks Municipal Court All properties Title Reports Pending CM 2.1 Land Use Requirements Memo CM Draft 2.2 Existing Conditions Maps and Property Summaries CM Draft 2.3 Site Analysis Diagrams CM 10/19 9/16 Background data request to CE COE Complete 2.4 Opportunities and Constraints Diagrams CM 10/19 3 Facility Programming & Templates 3.1 Facility Program Summaries CM/RSA Draft 3.2 Building and Site Templates CM/RSA Draft 3.3 Development Concept Base Files CM Draft 3.4 Prerequisites and Considerations CM/RSA Draft 4 Coordinated Development Concepts 4.1 Preliminary Development Concepts CM/RSA Draft Cameron McCarthy 2 Coordinated Downtown Development Lane County & City of Eugene Project Task / Action List October 12, 2016 TASK ITEM RESPONSIBLE DUE DATE PARTY STATUS 4.2Refined Development ConceptsCM/RSA/RLB10/19 4.3 Preferred Development Concepts CM/RSA/RLB 10/26 5 Reporting 5.1 Draft Report CM 11/2 5.2 Final Report CM 11/9 Cameron McCarthy 3 COORDINATED DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT LANE COUNTY & CITY OF EUGENE DRAFT PROGRAM SUMMARIES October 7, 2016 EUGENE CITY HALLNOTES Phase 1 Building LEED Silver Baseline, LEED Gold Preferred Council Chambers3,000GSF Council Work Session Room1,200GSF Lobby2,000GSF Council Office Space1,000GSF Mayor's Office + Conference Room800GSF City Manager's Office22,000GSFStaff of 30 Related Meeting and Support Spaces5,000GSF Subtotal Building35,000GSF Site Parking, Secure (15-20 Vehicles)7,000GSF20 Spaces @ 350 SF Bike Parking, Covered Structure500GSF Public Plaza8,000GSF Service and Support5,000GSF Landscaping / Stormwater ManagementGSFPercentage of Impervious Area Subtotal Site20,500GSF Total Combined Area Phase 155,500GSF Phase 2 Building LEED Silver Baseline, LEED Gold Preferred Public Works Department40,000GSFJoint PW/PDD Facility is Preferred Planning & Development Department40,000GSFJoint PW/PDD Facility is Preferred Information Services Department15,000GSF Human Resources and Risk Services Department10,000GSF Finance & Central Services Department10,000GSF Subtotal Building115,000GSF Site Parking, Secure0GSFUse Downtown Parking Pool Service and Support5,000GSF Landscaping / Stormwater ManagementGSFPercentage of Impervious Area Subtotal Site5,000GSF Total Combined Area Phase 2120,000GSF Total Combined Phase 1 and Phase 2175,500GSF EUGENE MUNICIPAL COURTNOTES Building LEED Silver Baseline, LEED Gold Preferred Municipal Court18,500GSF Community Court1,500GSF Subtotal Building20,000GSF Site Parking, Secure2,100GSF6 Spaces @ 350 SF Parking, Public0GSFUse Downtown Parking Pool Bike Parking, Covered Structure200GSF Service and SupportGSF Landscaping / Stormwater ManagementGSFPercentage of Impervious Area Subtotal Site2,300GSF Total Combined Area22,300GSF Cameron McCarthy1 of 2 COORDINATED DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT LANE COUNTY & CITY OF EUGENE DRAFT PROGRAM SUMMARIES October 7, 2016 LANE COUNTY COURTHOUSENOTES Building Public Facilities & Building Support Spaces21,963GSFExcludes Secure Parking Courts82,880GSF Courts Administration22,648GSF Sheriff Transport and Central Holding7,364GSFIn Courthouse, Required Main Sheriff's Office43,414GSFMay be in Separate Facility adjacent to Courthouse Parole and Probation Services5,480GSFMay be in Separate Facility adjacent to Courthouse State Offices23,125GSF District Attorney Office29,256GSFMay be in Separate Facility adjacent to Courthouse District Attorney's Satellite Office / Grand Jury3,904GSFNeeded in Courthouse only if DA Offices not in Courthouse Subtotal Building240,034GSF Site Secure Parking, Judicial10,500GSF30 Spaces @ 350 SF, Direct Access to Courthouse Secure Parking, DA / Sheriff3,500GSF10 Spaces @ 350 SF, Direct Access to DA/Sheriff Secure Parking, Sheriff Patrol10,500GSF30 Spaces @ 350 SF (Half Total) Near Sheriff Office Bike Parking, Covered Structure500GSF Public Plaza19,800GSFSize of Existing Wayne Morse Plaza Service and Support5,000GSF Landscaping / Stormwater ManagementGSFPercentage of Impervious Area Subtotal Site49,800GSF Total Combined Area289,834GSF LANE COUNTY FARMERS MARKETNOTES Building Storage150GSFTables, chairs, equipment, signage, etc. Restrooms300GSF Indoor / Covered Facility12,000GSFIncluded in Vending Area below; 25-30 Venders Subtotal Building12,450GSF Site Outdoor Vending Area (Undercover and Open)35,550GSFSaturday Largest Use: 100-120 Spaces, 10x10, 10x20, 10x30 Sizes Bike Parking, Covered Structure500GSF Service & Support2,000GSF Landscaping / Stormwater Management2,000GSFPercentage of Impervious Area Subtotal Site40,050GSF Total Combined Area52,500GSF Cameron McCarthy2 of 2 COORDINATED DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT LANE COUNTY & CITY OF EUGENE DRAFT PREREQUISITES AND CONSIDERATIONS October 6, 2016 SITE Zoning Are the tax lots properly zoned for their intended use? Lot Size/ Buildable Area Does the scenario provide adequate areas to support full buildout of intended uses after setback requirements are considered? Development Does the scenario accommodate the independent timelines of individual projects (i.e. through phased development)? Are there opportunities for future expansion (i.e. on nearby developable sites or through the repurposing of existing facilities)? Does the scenario require extensive relocation or removal of existing infrastructure or utilities? Configuration/ Design Does the scenario create positive outdoor open spaces? Implications Does the scenario allow for the building(s) to create optimal solar access? Does the topography allow for universal accessibility? Access Does the scenario allow for adequate and appropriate vehicular access for each of the uses included? Does the scenario allow for adequate and appropriate service access for each of the uses included? Does the scenario allow for adequate and appropriate building entries? Infrastructure Do the proposed facilities have reasonable access to adequate utility services and infrastructure? Are the new or modified infrastructure needs (e.g. water, power, telecomm, gas, vaults, routing of utilities) cost effective? CONTEXT Relationship to Surrounding Does the scenario impact adjacent buildings, including other government facilities, in terms of Elements building height, use, and access? Does this scenario impact the Park Blocks? Does the scenario impact adjacent outdoor programs or functions? Does the scenario impact important existing landscape features and amenities? Does the scenario impact adjacent cultural and historic resources? Does the scenario impact viewsheds / view corridors? Planning Does the scenario aid in implementing the Eugene Downtown Plan (2004) goals and policies? Does the scenario enhance 8th Avenue as a 'Great Street'? (W2W) Does the scenario support the creation of "special" places for economic and social interaction? Does the scenario promote connections to important public places, including urban plazas and open spaces? Public Service Does the scenario allow for co-location of government functions in a way that improves service to the public? TRANSPORTATION Parking Does the scenario provide opportunities for addressing the impact of increased demand and/or reduced capacity associated with the proposed development? Cameron McCarthy1 of 2 COORDINATED DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT LANE COUNTY & CITY OF EUGENE DRAFT PREREQUISITES AND CONSIDERATIONS October 6, 2016 Does the scenario provide opportunities for addressing the impact of increased demand and/or reduced capacity associated with other planned development in the downtown area and long the riverfront? Active Transit Are there connections to public transit within close proximity (i.e. 3 blocks)? Are there connections to pedestrian and bicycle routes? COST Project Costs What cost increases/savings can be reasonably expected for the City Hall - Phase I project under this scenario, when compared to the planned Phase I construction on the site of the former City Hall? What cost increases/savings can be reasonably expected for the Courthouse project under this scenario, when compared to the constructing on the Butterfly Lot? Development Costs What is the total anticipated development cost of this scenario? ADDITIONAL WORK REQUIRED Additional Studies What additional studies should be conducted to fully develop this concept? Points of Negotiation What agreements would need to be in place in order to facilitate this concept? Cameron McCarthy2 of 2