Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/25/1990 Meeting e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council Oregon Electric Station--27 East 5th Avenue June 25, 1990 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Rob Bennett, Ruth Bascom, Shawn Boles, Roger Rutan, Freeman Holmer, Debra Ehrman. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Mayor Jeff Miller, Emily Schue, and Bobby Green. The regular meeting of June 25, 1990, of the Eugene City Council was called to order by Councilor Rob Bennett. I. UPDATE ON LANE TRANSIT DISTRICT (LTD) SITING Mr. Bennett said that discussion of this item was intended to provide direc- tion tO,the LTD Transit Station Siting Committee on the possible alternatives e for LTD station siting. Following public comment and review, the Station Siting Committee has agreed to select two or three sites from the four op- tions for further analysis. Mr. Bennett indicated that the Station Siting Committee is composed of six members representing Eugene and LTD. The City Council, Planning Commission, Downtown Commission, and LTD are all represented on this committee. With the acknowledgement that the existing on-street transit station was inadequate to meet the future needs of the transit system, the committee's purpose is to identify an off-street location that will best address previously agreed-upon criteria. Mr. Bennett introduced Phyllis Loobey, LTD General Manager, and Steffano Viggiano, LTD. Mr. Bennett provided an overview of the four lots currently under considera- tion for station siting, including: the Elections lot (County and privately owned land located at 6th Avenue and Oak Street), the Butterfly lot (located at 7th Avenue and Oak Street), the Firestone lot (privately owned land locat- ed at 10th Avenue and Pearl Street), and a lot located at 8th Avenue, south of City Hall, referred to as the City Hall lot. Mr. Bennett highlighted the importance of locating the LTD station as close to major employment as possible. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 1990 Page 1 Dinner/Work Session e Ms. Loobey said that one important consideration for an off-street site is to find a location which has adequate entrances and exits for buses, as well as enough space to locate the buses on the property. Ms. Ehrman noted that the results of a community survey revealed that a high percentage of riders listed the downtown area as their final destination point, and asked whether this was the reason behind the need for a centrally located transfer facility. Ms. Loobey responded affirmatively. Ms. Ehrman inquired about the legal status of the Butterfly lot. Mr. Viggiano said that this issue has not been resolved; the opinion of legal counsel is that the Butterfly lot could be used as a transit site location. Responding to question, Mr. Viggiano said that the Greyhound site has not been ruled out of the decision for site location. He noted, however, that for a variety of reasons the Station Siting Committee is generally opposed to this lot as a potential location. Mr. Rutan voiced concern about the limited number of surveys which were used to compile results of citizen and business attitudes regarding transit site location. Mr. Viggiano explained that the summary of findings contained in the council packet is composed of numerous written comments received by the Station Siting Committee and feedback from the public forum as well as survey results. The volume of comments received was too bulky to include in the council packet. e Mr. Boles said it would be impossible for the council to give a good recom- mendation to the Station Siting Committee without taking into consideration the implications of station siting to long-range mass transit planning. In particular, the City should plan for a substantial increase in the use of alternative modes of transportation. Mr. Boles expressed an interest in moving toward a nodal operation system. Ms. Loobey responded that LTD has been planning for long-term mass transit. The results of a study conducted in Eugene determined that a bus rapid tran- sit system was in the best interest of this community. Ms. Loobey noted that the type of system which LTD currently runs, a "hub-pulse" system, has been determined most appropriate for the geography and population of Eugene. She noted that as bus systems begin to accommodate passenger needs in a more populated area, systems tend to make a transition toward a nodal operational system. Mr. Holmer observed that the City Hall lot is not a feasible alternative for a transit site because of its size and the City's future need of this lot for more City offices. He expressed an interest in considering the Butterfly lot as a potential siting alternative. Mr. Holmer also urged LTD to reconsider whether an operating system which places more emphasis on nodes rather than the center might be more efficient than the "timed-need" system currently in operation. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 1990 Page 2 Dinner/Work Session ~ e Ms. Bascom expressed her opposition to the Butterfly lot because of its potential negative impact on the Park Blocks. Mr. Rutan indicated his opposition to considering the City Hall site as a potential transit site location. He encouraged the Site Selection Committee to recommend a process to the council which it could use to determine the best siting location. Responding to question, Mr. Viggiano pointed out that there is no optimal transfer station location. He noted that the Elections lot, because of its central location, is probably the most operationally efficient alternative. Mr. Gleason emphasized that it is not the City's intention to build a new City Hall on the lot being referred to as the City Hall lot. He did note, however, that this piece of property has the potential to solve existing City lease issues through the construction of additional office space. This would not involve construction of a new City Hall. Regarding the choice of transit site location, Mr. Gleason highlighted the need to choose a lot which is large enough to handle an aggressive transit system. He recommended that the council reject all half-block transit site proposals. He agreed with Mr. Viggiano that the Elections lot is the most operationally efficient alternative. Mr. Gleason said that the legal problems associated with the Butterfly lot make it an unworkable alternative for transit site location. He also noted e that although operational costs would vary, any site could be designed to handle either the "nodal" or "population hub" system of operation. Mr. Boles expressed concern with considering any sites which are located outside the Urban Renewal District. When determining a transit site loca- tion, he urged the council to consider only those lots which have sufficient capacity to handle the City's long-term commitment to mass transit. Regarding the projected need for the size of a transit site location, Mr. Viggiano commented that as ridership and service increase, downtown space needs for a transit site decrease. Mr. Boles requested information from LTD on its predictions for transit site needs which would allow a transition from the "population hub" to the "nodal" operational system. In general, the council offered little support for considering the City Hall lot as a potential transit site location. The council also offered its commitment to long-term mass transit and conveyed its willingness to move forward with transit site selection. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 1990 Page 3 Dinner/Work Session e II. REPORT FROM THE CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT COMMITTEE (CIC) ON CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT NEEDS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIPS Keli Osborn, Planning and Development Department, provided the council with an overview of the topic. She reported that in its annual report to the City Council last July, the CIC included a special section on Site Development Partnerships and Effective Citizen Involvement. These are partnerships formed by the City and private sector, and combine funds or resources to create facilities and infrastructure for private gain and public benefits. Because they challenge traditional forms of citizen involvement, the CIC has discussed ways to help define and safeguard the public's decision-making role and provide greater certainty to developers. At the council's request, the CIC has refined citizen involvement guidelines for such public/private ven- tures. Joining the council for the work session were Jon Stafford and Anne Morrow, CIC; Ken Tollenaar, Planning Commission; and John Brown, Downtown Commission. Mr. Stafford reviewed the concepts laid forth in the CIe-generated Pub- lic/Private Site Development Partnership Policy. He noted that this policy represents what the CIC perceives to be the council's policy toward pub- lic/private partnerships and encouraged council discussion on whether this document is an accurate reflection of the council's policy. Mr. Stafford provided an overview of the Guidelines for Citizen Involvement e in Public/Private Site Developments as generated by the CIC. He highlighted as most important Guideline 1, which states that each public/private site development partnership requires a basis in existing policy. Ms. Morrow indicated that although it is not normally the CIC's role to become involved in substantive issues such as this, the CIC decided on the need to define this policy because of several past public/private partnership relationships in which the CIC felt that citizen involvement needs were not met adequately. One example in particular was the proposed Pankow develop- ment project, which CIC felt did not have an adequate level of public review in its early stages. The CIC-generated guidelines are an attempt to make such projects go more smoothly, with debate focusing on project merits rather than citizen involvement processes. Mr. Holmer stated that the City has a responsibility to conduct its public activities in open public discussion. At Ms. Ehrman's request, Mr. Stafford walked through the guidelines for citizen involvement which would be used for the 8th Avenue and Willamette Street Request for Proposal (RFP) currently being issued by the City. He noted that the sense of urgency surrounding this RFP had a profound effect on its capacity for early citizen involvement. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 1990 Page 4 Dinner/Work Session e Ms. Morrow pointed out that in implementing this policy, the CIC wants to guard against duplicating citizen participation processes which are already in place. Mr. Gleason agreed on the need for public participation in public/private partnership proposals, but cited the importance of safeguarding private- sector needs for confidentiality in such things as financial pro formas. Placing this information in view of the general public would place companies at an economic disadvantage with their competitors. Mr. Rutan expressed appreciation to the CIC for its work, but said that he cannot support most of the policy and guidelines which have been developed. He voiced concern that their perceived need for this policy communicates a lack of trust in council and staff and jeopardizes the council's decision- making authority. Mr. Rutan agreed on the need to gain quality citizen input early on in the process that provides for the general needs of the public without violating private companies' needs for confidentiality. Mr. Boles said that he believes this policy was commissioned to protect the City from situations similar to the Pankow project in the future. He agreed with Mr. Gleason that this policy should be reviewed to ensure that the interests of the private sector can be protected adequately. Ms. Bascom agreed on the usefulness of these guidelines, but warned that they probably will not be adequate in the public's view. e Ms. Ehrman noted that these guidelines are not different from the processes which public bodies currently follow with respect to citizen involvement, She suggested that the council set up a public hearing on this proposed policy for citizen involvement. Mr. Bennett said that because of the financial and time constraints imposed by the nature of business opportunities, he does not feel these guidelines will be effective. Mr. Stafford emphasized the importance of having citizen input at the front end of project development. The two most important guidelines to use when considering the possibility of a public/private partnership are whether the partnership is appropriate for the City to be involved in and whether the cost of the partnership is balanced by the benefit. Mr. Bennett agreed on the need for public participation early on in the process. He pointed out that public involvement could be used to establish the parameters of the partnership being considered, but reiterated earlier concern for allowing a deal to work eventually without public participation. Mr. Boles said that the council should adopt this policy if it addresses the need for protection of private-sector confidentiality and articulates the need for public involvement in the front end of the process. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 1990 Page 5 Dinner/Work Session e Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Boles, to send this proposal back to the Citizen Involvement Committee for further review and bring it back to the council for final approval. The motion carried, 5:1; with councilors Ehrman, Boles, Bennett, Holmer, and Bascom voting aye; and Councilor Rutan voting nay. At 7:15 p.m., Councilor Bennett adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council. ~y ;b:itte . .. MiC~~~~~:'~:~r. - City Manager (Recorded by Traci Northman) mncc 062590-530 e e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 1990 Page 6 Dinner/Work Session