Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 09/22/99 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall September 22, 1999 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Farr, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Rayor, Gary PapS. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Bobby Lee. DINNER WORK SESSION OF THE EUGENE CITY COUNCIL A. Items from Mayor and Council Mr. Rayor passed. Mr. Kelly passed. Mr. Meisner said that at the library kickoff on September 17 he had discussed with other councilors and City staff that there would be a considerable amount of chain link fence around the site, and there was discussion of placing art on the fence. He wanted to alert the council to the possibility there may be art project under consideration. Mr. Pap8 said he had just left a tour of the Broadway Place apartments and said he believed the project represented the type of infill development that the community wanted to see. It had integrated open space and great landscaping. He complemented Mr. Farmer for his department's efforts in facilitating the project. Mr. Pap~ called the council's attention to the annual Walk for Diabetes taking place October 2 at 8:30 a.m. at Alton Baker Park and encouraged its attendance. Ms. Taylor requested an update on the graffiti ordinance and its implementation. Ms. Taylor indicated interest in discussing whether the City should have an ordinance regarding fruit and nut trees that grow on one resident's property but intrude onto the property of another resident. Mr. Fart noted his previous request for an update on the condition of Bertzen Road, which was heavily degraded by traffic. For that reason, Lane Transit District buses no longer use the road. He reiterated his request, and asked the City Manager if the City could partially fund resurfacing the road. Mr. Torrey congratulated Downtown Eugene, Inc., (DEI) for a well-run Eugene Celebration, and expressed pleasure that the event went so well. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 1999 Page 1 5:30 p.m. B. Resolution Expressing Support for Lane County's Safer Communities Ballot Measure 20-25 Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to adopt Resolution 4603 expressing support for Lane County's Safer Communities Ballot Measure 20-25. ' Mr. Rayor indicated interest in knowing what entity would collect the tax proposed in the measure. Lane County Commissioner Bobby Green indicated he would take that request to the board. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. C.Work Session: Discussion of the Federal Courthouse Mr. Meisner suggested that the council have a general discussion and conclude the discussion with a motion reflecting the general sentiment of councilors. Mr. Rayor asked who owned what part of the block between 5th and 6th avenues and Pearl and Oak streets, what use the property was in, who controlled the parking, and whether those who owned the parking were obliged to provide it to general businesses in the area under contract. He asked if the adjacent property owners had met the parking obligations on their own sites; for example, did Station Square and Fifth Street Market meeting those obligations and, if not, why not. Mr. Rayor asked for information about the federal process and how they determine which blocks they looked at. He also wanted the federal government's site cost analysis. He also requested architectural renderings of the proposed courthouse, including elevations. Mr. Rayor asked what the County discussed earlier that day. Commissioner Green thanked the council for the opportunity to speak and for the council's support of Measure 22-25. Mr. Green said that the board had discussed the federal courthouse situation and the decision by the General Services Administration (GSA). He said the board discussed sending a letter to Mr. Pearson of the GSA reaffirming its support for the site decision. He said the board shared the council's concerns about parking and planned to ameliorate the parking, and planned a community meeting regarding the parking design. The board also had concerns about how the courthouse would impact local air quality. He noted that the North End Scoping Group was aware of the site's potential for use as a courthouse, and the board had been surprised by the amount of dissent subsequently expressed. Mr. Green said that the County was seeking a remedy to its crowding situation at the proposed courthouse site. He said that the board had requested a meeting with Mr. Pearson to discuss the same questions raised by Mr. Rayor. Mr. Rayor wanted to avoid large costs to the City from the placement of the courthouse. He was in favor of waiting to take action, and expressed concern about the potential of placing a large bond measure to support a new City Hall before the voters just after the successful passage of two other bond measures. Mr. Rayor was also concerned that the community's opposition to the 5th Street site could lead the GSA to locate the courthouse elsewhere. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 1999 Page 2 5:30 p.m. Mr. Rayor asked who was responsible for downtown parking. He said that the Budget Committee was interested in making the City's parking effort a true enterprise zone. He questioned why there were private parking garages in Portland but not in Eugene. Mr. Green said that the board understood the City was in discussions with the GSA and asked that the County be included in those discussions given that the project was going to impact the entire community. Mr. Torrey indicated that was the reason he had contacted Mr. Green earlier. Acting City Manager Warren Wong indicated that he had asked Lew Bowers of the Planning and Development Department to take the lead on the issue. Mr. Bowers said that there is no required parking in the area. In parking-exempt zones, the City has historically constructed structured parking to help provide the supply. That had not occurred in the 5th Street area because it was outside the urban renewal district. He noted that the City had provided information to the federal government about its analysis. Regarding the proposed design of the federal courthouse, Mr. Bowers said that GSA held a design competition for an unspecified site. He distributed a copy of a design from the selected architect, the Morphosis Group. Mr. Kelly said he would like to have a discussion to better understand what is going on with different sites and the financial implications of the final site selection. He said that parking was an issue but he believed it was easily solvable. His concern was with the character of the 5th Street area and the planning the City had done for the area. He believed it might be possible to retain the character of the area if the courthouse was built, but in the absence of any dialogue with the GSA he did not see how that would happen. He said that the City Hall site seemed the superior site, but that raised questions about how much money could be available from the federal government regarding reimbursement for improvements. Mr. Kelly also had concerns about the potential costs to the public of the move of City Hall. He wondered if the public was so opposed to the 5th Street site that it would support a bond measure to move services. Ms. Nathanson referred to the cost issue raised by Mr. Kelly and said she was very concerned, particularly since the voters just approved a parks and open space bond measure and a library measure. However, when she considered the costs of retrofitting City Hall, she did not think the money would be well-spent because it would not result in service efficiencies or service improvements. If the building was working well, she would feel differently. The building did not work well and was not a good place for the police station and fire station because of the seismic inadequacies of the structure. Ms. Nathanson did not think a building on the scale of the proposed courthouse was appropriate for the location selected. She believed that a consolidated city hall would serve the citizens best. A civic center could be created around the new library given that the Atrium already housed City offices. She believed that would realize both efficiencies and cost savings. Ms. Nathanson hoped there would be a way for the federal government to reconsider its decision. She believed that the council could make something good from the decision. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 1999 Page 3 5:30 p.m. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Rayor about the importance of knowing more about who was responsible for parking in the area, creating and paying for it. He said that in other cities private companies built structured parking, but in Eugene it was the City government, and he was unsure that was wise. Regarding the issue of citizen input, Mr. Meisner said that the GSA did not operate in the same way as the City. He said that GSA did not involve the City in its deliberations, and had to be persuaded to notify the City of its decision prior to announcing it. He said that the proposed courthouse was very large and could be potentially a massive structure. For that reason, scale, compatibility, neighborhood impact was a concern to him. He said that GSA would make the final decision and was not subject to local zoning and building codes. He believed it was in the City's interest to keep the structure downtown. Mr. Meisner said he hoped the council would encourage GSA to look at other sites, and in particular the City Hall site. He agreed that selection of the City Hall site would have financial implications for the City. He did not think that GSA would cover all the costs involved, and there may be additional City moneys required. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson it would be beneficial to combine all City functions in one location, and the savings from dropping those leases and selling other property in downtown could help to offset those costs. He said the council should ask the GSA to rethink the decision, and consider appointing a council committee to discuss the issues raised by councilors. Mr. Pap6 agreed that a new courthouse was needed and it should be in Eugene. The current courthouse was functionally obsolete. He felt good about what the GSA intended to build, and did not want it to be in Springfield or in the periphery. He said that another priority was to vacate City Hall and get a new facility. He said that it was also functionally obsolete. He wanted a win-win situation where the federal government purchased the city hall site and the City was able to consolidate all functions in one location. He believed that would lead to greater efficiencies. Ms. Taylor said that the Fifth Street Market District needed to be preserved. She said many mistakes were made downtown and the City did not want to make another one. She said that it appeared there may be a possibility the decision about the location would change, and the federal government would be able to pay more than the value of the land. She suggested that there were other sites not being discussed. Ms. Taylor said she hoped the City did not sell the Sears building in a hurry. It was a good location, available by bus, and close to the new library and the Atrium building. She wanted to know more about what the City can do and what the federal government would pay for the site. Mr. Fart said he would like to send a message to the decision makers in the GSA that the council was very diverse and did not agree about many things. However, he believed the council was in agreement it wanted the federal courthouse in downtown Eugene, that it wanted the courthouse to fit into downtown, and that the courthouse was more appropriately located on the City Hall site than on the 5th Avenue site. He said that the council was in a position to make a plea rather than a decision. He said that the 5th Street district was a beautiful area and he did not think a courthouse would fit into the area. He believed that the courthouse would have better access in the City Hall location and it would be a more appropriate location. Mr. Torrey stated the council had received a considerable amount of e-mail correspondence regarding the topic. He said that now the council needed to make a choice regarding what it believed to be in the best interest of the city. Mr. Torrey believed there was an urgency to the situation, and that the position the council MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 1999 Page 4 5:30 p.m. took would serve as direction to the area's federal representatives. He believed the support shown for moving the courthouse would result in the loss of the courthouse if there was no other solution. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, that the City Council supports the development of a needed new federal courthouse in downtown Eugene. Because the Fifth Street site presents significant challenges of scale, compatibility, and neighborhood impact, the council urges GSA to give serious renewed consideration to the City Hall site as a potentially better alternative for a new federal courthouse. Second, to authorize and appoint a council committee composed of councilors Kelly, Nathanson, Pap~, and Rayor to report to the council on the following: recommend a plan for developing options to relocate functions currently in City Hall if the current City Hall site is chosen. The committee should consider the following: 1) consolidation and relocation of services and activities; 2) use or disposal by sale or otherwise of other City-owned facilities; 3) new construction or remodeling; 4) timing and sequence including vacating spaces and providing for temporary spaces; and 5) cost and funding. The committee shall report to the council by November 1, 1999. Ms. Nathanson noted her support for the motion for the reasons she had already stated. Mr. Kelly asked if there had been any further communication between GSA and the City since the previous day. Mr. Bowers indicated that City staff had informed GSA of the upcoming council discussion. Mr. Meisner said that he had received a telephone call from Judge Michael Hogan about his concerns that the courthouse project proceeded in a downtown location. Mr. Pap~ liked the motion. He said that the federal government could move the site and wanted the motion to include some mention that the council endorsed and was pleased that the GSA was considering a courthouse in downtown Eugene. Mr. Meisner and Ms. Nathanson agreed to incorporate the concept in the motion. Ms. Taylor wanted to split the motion into two parts because she did not support the formation of the committee. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Mr. Rayor, to split the motion. The motion failed, 3:4; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Mr. Rayor voting yes. Ms. Taylor said it was a mystery to her why anyone would object to allowing the council to vote on the elements of the motion they liked. Mr. Meisner suggested the addition of the following text, so the motion read (italicized print added): Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, that the City Council supports the development ora needed new federal courthouse in downtown Eugene. Because the Fifth Street site presents significant challenges of scale, compatibility, and neighborhood impact, the council urges GSA to give serious renewed consideration to the City Hall site as a potentially better alternative for a new federal courthouse. Second, to authorize and appoint a council committee composed of councilors Kelly, MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 1999 Page 5 5:30 p.m. Nathanson, Pap6, and Rayor to report to the council on the following: recommend a plan for developing options to relocate functions currently in city hall if the current city hall site is chosen. The committee should consider the following: 1) consolidation and relocation of services and activities; 2) use or disposal by sale or otherwise of other city-owned facilities; 3) new construction or remodeling; 4) timing and sequence including vacating spaces and providing for temporary spaces; and 5) cost and funding. The committee shall report to the council by November 1, 1999. The council accepted the motion as amended with the friendly amendment first proposed by Mr. Pap6. Mr. Torrey encouraged the council to separate the elements of the motion. Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to separate the two elements of the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, that the City Council supports the development of a needed new federal courthouse in downtown Eugene. Because the Fifth Street site presents significant challenges of scale, compatibility, and neighborhood impact, the council urges GSA to give serious renewed consideration to the City Hall site as a potentially better alternative for a new federal courthouse. The motion passed, 6:1; Mr. Rayor voting no. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson to authorize and appoint a council committee composed of councilors Kelly, Nathanson, Pap6, and Rayor to be co-chaired by councilors Kelly and Nathanson to report to the council on the following: recommend a plan for developing options to relocate functions currently in City Hall if the current City Hall site is chosen. The committee should consider the following: 1) consolidation and relocation of services and activities; 2) use or disposal by sale or otherwise of other City-owned facilities; 3) new construction or remodeling; 4) timing and sequence including vacating spaces and providing for temporary spaces; and 5) cost and funding. The committee shall report to the council by December 1, 1999. Mr. Fart requested a response to a letter in The Register-Guard indicating the federal government could not take land without compensation. The council briefly discussed the timing of the committee process. Mr. Torrey said that the committee could determine if the time line could be shortened. The deadline could be adjusted later. Ms. Nathanson said that staff would be involved with the committee process and staff would provide the committee with information and options for proceeding. Ms. Taylor said that staff could be directed to prepare options. She did not know why it was better for four councilors to participate rather than the entire council. Mr. Meisner suggested that the issue was one of timing. He pointed out that the council's agendas were somewhat full at this time. The motion passed, 5:2; Mr. Rayor and Ms. Taylor voting no. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 1999 Page 6 5:30 p.m. Mr. Papd said that if there were only $7.5 million to purchase a site and develop a design, was the council willing to go forward and pay the difference? Mr. Torrey suggested that there was an opportunity to politically enhance the size of the funding involved. If the GSA was not, the community must be prepared to decide what it wished to spend. He did not think the council was in the position of answering it, or that it should be answered from a negotiating viewpoint. Mr. Rayor again expressed concern that the council's actions could make the federal government change its position on locating the courthouse in downtown. Ms. Nathanson left the meeting. D. Work Session: Downtown Issues Russ Brink of DEI provided a summary of the Downtown Summit, which occurred in May 1999. Ms. Nathanson returned to the meeting. Mr. Meisner recalled that attendees at the Downtown Summit had other suggestions for West Broadway outside of reopening it. He asked if any of the recommendations for filling the vacancies in the area had been followed up on. Mr. Brink said no. There had been some brown-bag lunches where people gathered to discuss possibilities, but no focused effort. Planning and Development Department Director Paul Farmer provided a presentation entitled Downtown Eugene: Where do we go from here? He asked the council to consider the presentation in light of three questions facing the City regarding the downtown: 1) what is it that we want to do about the downtown; 2) what is the role of the City; and 3) how do we want to pay for it. He noted the options for action before the council, and recommended Option 3, Fision Update and Opportunity Area Focus. Mr. Kelly wanted a strategy that produced both near-term and long-term results. He suggested that a preferred option would include placemaking as envisioned in Option 2 in the shorter term funded from council contingency funds, and a visioning process as suggested in Option 3 that took place in context of the fiscal year 2000 budget. He wanted further staff input about that concept and noted his need for information about the size of the council's Contingency Fund. Mr. Kelly said he also needed to understand better the deliverables from options 2 and 3 and the associated future commitments. Mr. Papd asked Mr. Brink if he supported the reopening of West Broadway. Mr. Brink said yes, citing several reasons, including the provision of on-street parking, safety, access, and the viability of adjacent properties. Mr. Rayor said that the situation was a planning exercise, and he did not know what the deliverables would be and if the results would be contentious. He preferred to install $250,000 worth of park benches to $250,000 worth of improvements. He also thought the public could do better in planning for downtown than the private sector. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 1999 Page 7 5:30 p.m. Ms. Taylor preferred Option 2 and suggested it could be funded by Contingency Funds. She suggested that the option could include park benches and the removal of barriers preventing people from sitting down. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 1999 Page 8 5:30 p.m.