HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A: City Council Priority Issue - City Hall Complex
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Workshop: City Council Priority Issue - City Hall Complex
Meeting Date: August 9, 2006 Agenda Item Number: A
Department: Central Services Staff Contact: Mike Penwell
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5547
ISSUE STATEMENT
The purpose of the August 9, 2006, workshop is to discuss and refine the site evaluation criteria
for potential sites related to a new City Hall Complex and then begin the process of applying the
criteria to specific sites. The City’s approach to determining potential interest and options with
regard to the existing city hall building and site will also be presented. Finally, the design team
will seek direction on eliciting public input during the next Community Forum that will best
assist the council in narrowing down site options. Feedback from the August 24, 2006, forum
will be brought back to the council at the September 20, 2006, work session, including a request
for specific direction regarding sites for the City Hall Complex.
BACKGROUND
At the April 26, 2006, work session, the council adopted three Police consolidation options for
use in ongoing planning efforts related to the City Hall Complex: 1) Option B consolidates all
Police functions with the rest of City Hall on a single site; 2) Option C consolidates all Police
functions except patrol with the rest of City Hall and provides for a separate patrol facility
nearby; and 3) Option D consolidates all Police functions except patrol with the rest of City Hall
and provides for a separate patrol facility in a more remote location outside the downtown area.
At the July 19, 2006, work session, the council eliminated the “Renovate” and “Hybrid” options
related to the existing city hall building and adopted “New” construction as the option for the
City Hall Complex to carry forward for future planning studies.
The third and final major issue to consider during the current Development Plan Phase is site
selection for the City Hall Complex. Initial site evaluation criteria were e-mailed to the Mayor
and City Council on July 20, 2006, for the purpose of advancing the discussion about the criteria
ahead of the August 9 Council Workshop. Revised criteria are included in Attachment A and
incorporate the council’s input and specific site influences related to the criteria. Following is
the proposed agenda for the workshop:
?
Introduction and objectives
?
Site analysis presentation
?
Status of other agency sites and existing City Hall
?
Criteria discussion
?
Break
?
Interactive session applying criteria to potential sites
?
Desired public feedback and information required to evaluate and select site
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060809\S060809A.doc
The interactive session referred to above is intended to show how criteria affect choices, and
provide another opportunity to discuss or modify the criteria. Examples of issues that may be
discussed during this portion of the workshop include the interrelationship of site and police
consolidation options, consideration of prime private development sites, and the application of
key City planning guidelines (e.g. sites adjacent to Broadway).
RELATED CITY POLICIES
The City Hall Complex master planning and public participation process relates to the council
goals of an effective, accountable municipal government, a safe community, and sustainable
community growth and change. In addition, the City Hall Complex Action Plan identifies key
issues that must be addressed as the action plan moves forward.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The council is asked to provide general direction on the site options for the City Hall Complex
including input on the specific criteria used to narrow down options. While it is not anticipated
that any formal motions will be introduced during this workshop, there will be opportunities to
modify, add to, or delete the criteria used to explore site options and provide input on what
additional information is required by the council in order to make site decisions at the September
20, 2006, City Council work session.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
There are no specific recommendations for this agenda item.
SUGGESTED MOTION
There are no suggested motions related to this agenda item.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Revised Site Criteria and Council Comments
The consultant team will walk the council through all additional materials at the workshop in
order to facilitate an in-depth discussion of issues.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Mike Penwell, Facilities Design and Construction Manager
Telephone: 682-5547
Staff E-Mail: michael.j.penwell@ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060809\S060809A.doc
ATTACHMENT A
REVISED SITE CRITERIA AND COUNCIL COMMENTS
EUGENE CITY HALL COMPLEX
Revised Selection Criteria and Application to Sites
Site Configuration
Suitable sites for a new Eugene City Hall should feature:
Appropriate site size to accommodate space needs
?
Ability to accommodate future expansion space
?
High potential to integrate sustainable design
?
Examples of Site Configuration criteria applied to sites include:
Relationship of police consolidation option to site selection
?
Relationship of site size to horizontal and/or vertical expansion
?
Solar access, daylighting, and natural ventilation opportunities
?
Site Location & Access
Suitable sites for a new Eugene City Hall should feature:
Proximity to and beneficial relationship with other governmental services
?
Compatibility with adjacent land use
?
Easy accessibility via multiple modes of transportation: auto, walking, transit, bicycle
?
Easy access to transportation corridors for public safety vehicles
?
Examples of Site Location and Access criteria applied to sites include:
100-year flood plain
?
Public plazas and green space
?
Train Noise
?
Arts and Cultural Sites
?
Public Parking Garages
?
Site Cost
Suitable sites for a new Eugene City Hall should consider:
Costs related to existing improvements and site preparation
?
Site availability and willing seller/s
?
Downtown Vitality
Suitable sites for a new Eugene City Hall should:
Contribute to civic pride and vitality downtown
?
Support Downtown planning efforts
?
Consider impact of displacing prime private development opportunities
?
Examples of Downtown Vitality criteria applied to sites include:
Zoning
?
Renewal Districts
?
Identified Great Streets
?
Council Comments
Bettman
I support vertical as opposed to horizontal expansion potential.
A development site is an opportunity either public or private and city hall, like the library, will be
[an] economic asset to downtown, and an anchor. Although publicly funded it will stimulate
private investment.
I support consideration of all development sites that are available for City Hall.
Kelly
I think most of the criteria are fine. But I have mild to major disagreements with a few, as I
describe below. I'd also note, as much as I love criteria and an engineering approach, that we'll
also probably have a "gut reaction" to some of the site possibilities (as will the public).
Ability to accommodate future horizontal expansion space
I understand the problem that Dana wrote about future vertical expansion due to building codes.
However, I view this horizontal expansion criterion as just a "tie-breaker" level of criterion. I can
imagine there might be a perfect 1/2 block site at which we wouldn't expect to be able to buy the
other highly developed 1/2 block - but we'd still pick the 1/2 block site due to its other positive
qualities.
Optimum sustainable design potential
I've got a problem with this one as phrased because it sounds like an absolute - "optimum"? I'm
worried that this is code-language for "we want a full block rather than 1/2 block". The 7/19 AIS
talked about a full block giving more opportunity for energy saving (e.g., potential for more solar
exposure, different HVAC routing....) but when it came down to a number estimate of the
difference it looked like 5-10%. That's not enough to discuss from my point of view. So, I'd like
this criterion dropped or much better explained in advance as to what it means.
Easy access to transportation corridors for public safety vehicles
As the Mayor pointed out, this criterion only seems relevant if we pick police consolidation
option B, rather than C or D. They're all on the table.
Minimal existing improvements and site preparation requirements
"Minimal" is too limited, since it's utterly undefined. I would argue - depending on other site
attributes - that an existing 1 story building (or even a 2 story lower-quality) may be worth
clearing from a site if other positive attributes are present. I understand the intent here - it would
be laughable (to be hyperbolic) to propose demolishing the Citizen's Building - but I'd like the
criterion better defined.
Not displace prime private development sites
I agree with the Mayor and Bonny and Betty (were there others I've forgotten?) that this is
stated in too black-and-white terms. That's my preference, but "should not" is too absolute.
Ortiz
No comments.
Papé
No comments.
Piercy
Under site configurations, why horizontal expansion opportunities as opposed to vertical? Don't
we have to grow "up" so we don't grow out? At the recent city design meeting I went to, one of
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060809\S060809A.doc
the comments from designers was how sprawled out we are as a city and how flat we are. They
observed that we will have a hard time achieving the mixed use that we desire if we do not
achieve higher density urban usage in the core… you have to consider what you are trying to
accomplish over time
As to access by public safety vehicles, doesn't that depend on where those services will be
located?
Under Downtown vitality, don't we need to weigh the displacing of prime private development
sites? Does that mean the sites are privately owned or that since they could be prime private
development sites, we should not use them for public purpose?
Poling
No comments.
Pryor
Up is more thoughtful of available space. Up is also a lot more expensive to build. We’ll need to
be comfortable with the price tag.
Taylor
The one that I have a problem with is “not displace prime private development sites”. Why?
And for whose benefit? I disagree with the criterion.
THA Responses
Re prime private development sites:
the "not displace prime private development sites" criterion seeks to recognize that although a
new City Hall has the potential to enliven downtown through its siting and design, the siting
needs to consider potential impacts to good quality private-sector development (such as active
mixed-use development the council has been seeking for the former sears site).
The criteria are intended to spur discussion among the council members and the mayor, so
we’d like to hear your comments on whether the criteria includes all the essential site selection
issues that need to be addressed during the coming Council Workshop, Community Forum, and
Council work session.
Re future vertical expansion:
Horizontal expansion was identified because that possibility is defined by the site selection
process. While future vertical expansion is possible and will be part of the discussion for site
and concept design, it is rarely realized due to code changes and the disruption and expense of
building on top of an existing building. Vertical expansion is best realized by constructing
additional floors along with the initial construction and leasing to another organization (similar to
the library) or building additional floors without interior finishes and systems (a less expensive
initial cost), and finishing it incrementally as the city needs the space.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060809\S060809A.doc