HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A - Civic Center VisioningEUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Work Session: Recommendations on a Eugene Civic Center Vision
Meeting Date: June 16, 2004 Agenda Item Number: A
Department: Central Services Staff Contact: Glen Svendsen
www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5008
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is to present to City Council the recommendations of the
Mayor's Civic Facilities Visioning Committee on a future Civic Center for Eugene, and to
request City Council adoption of the vision and policy principles to guide planning for Civic
Center-related projects.
BACKGROUND
Council Action History
The council has worked on projects included in a downtown space plan for more than three
years. Most recently, on February 25, 2004, the 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 the council on the progress of the Mayor's
Civic Facilities Visioning Committee and to provide additional information on financing plan
options, borrowing methods, and construction methods. The full council action history on the
Downtown City Space Plan is included as Attachment A.
In a May 10, 2004, work session, the council reviewed the Downtown Work Plan
implementation strategies and project examples included in the Downtown Plan. The Downtown
Work Plan consists of a list of policy statements, many of which relate directly to future Civic
Center development.
Policy Issues
There are two primary policy issues for the council to address during this work session. The first
is whether or not the vision for Eugene's future Civic Center included in the committee's
recommendation is appropriate and desirable for the City to have as a goal. The second issue is
whether the council should adopt the principle policies included in the committee's
recommendation. Adoption of these policies would provide a framework for City staff in
planning future public facility, infrastructure, and park improvement projects.
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040616\S040616A. doc
Council Goals
This project relates to the council goals of an effective, accountable municipal government,
having a safe community, and sustainable community growth and change.
Financial and/or Resource Considerations
This work session focuses on the vision for Eugene's future Civic Center and policies to guide
planning for future public facilities. More specific plans for implementation of specific projects,
including location, facility size and design, resource and financing mechanisms, will be
addressed in future City Council work sessions.
Other Background Information
The Mayor' s Civic Facilities Visioning Committee has met four times over the past several
months. Minutes and materials from their meetings have been forwarded to the council. The
final meeting was held in May, and the committee's recommendations are being presented to the
council in a report at the current work session.
There has been significant public input into the creation of planning policies that underlie the
civic center vision. The guiding policies in the Civic Center Vision are closely related to the
Downtown Plan Update, which had extensive public input.
Specifically on the civic center concept, public input began back in 1999 with creation of the
Council Committee on City Hall Alternatives. Voters have had the opportunity to weigh in on
the relocation of the downtown fire station. In January 2004, the City and the American Institute
of Architects (AIA) hosted a well-attended design charette, which had been advertised to the
public. The information from that charette was used as the basis for the work of the Mayor's
Civic Facilities Visioning Committee, which included members from other public agencies and
from the general public.
It should also be noted that there will be ample opportunities for public input on implementation
of each project within the plan. For instance, if the council approves placing a measure on the
ballot this November, voters will be able to indicate their willingness to support the first phase of
the civic center vision. As a public building is designed, there would be opportunities for public
input, as there were during development of the library design.
Timing
Staff will be bringing a recommendation to the council on July 14 for construction of a new
Community Safety Building as the first element of the vision for a new civic center, including a
financing plan. If a financing plan was adopted that required a bond election, the council would
need to take final action on a bond measure resolution no later than August 27, 2004 (or prior to
summer break), to place a funding measure on the November 2004 general election ballot.
There are two main advantages to placing a measure on the November 2004 general election
ballot: 1) the project can begin to move forward at an earlier date, hoping to take advantage of
the recent trends in low interest rates; and 2) the election does not require a double-majority vote.
Any election other than a general election in an even-numbered year requires both that at least
50% of the voters turn out for the election and that a majority of voters must approve the
measure.
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040616\S040616A. doc
OPTIONS
Three options are presented:
Option 1 Accept the committee's report, and adopt the "major policy principles" to guide
planning for future City improvements in the Park Blocks, 8th Avenue and the
adjacent area identified for the Civic Center;
Option 2 Schedule a public hearing or another form of public comment on the vision and
policy principles prior to finalizing the council direction on future downtown City
office space improvements; or
Option 3 Take no action at this time on the policies to guide future planning for City civic
facilities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommendation is Option 1, acceptance of the committee's report and adoption of the
major policies to guide future planning for City facilities in the Civic Center area. Adopting the
policies in the recommendation will have an immediate impact on planning for a future
Community Safety Building, which will be the subject of the July 14 City Council work session.
Scheduling an additional public hearing prior to moving forward with a potential bond measure
would mean that it would not be possible to meet the deadlines for placing a measure on the
November 2004 ballot.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move that the council accept the committee's report, and adopt the "major policy principles" to
guide planning for future City improvements in the Park Blocks, 8th Avenue and the adjacent
area identified for the Civic Center.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Council Action History on Downtown Space Plan
B. Mayor's Civic Facilities Visioning Committee Report and Recommendations
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Glen Svendsen, Facility Management Division Manager
Telephone: 682-5008
Staff E-Mail: glen. 1. svendsen~ci, eugene, or. us
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040616\S040616A. 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
replacing 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 the Council before the planning new City buildings.
On April 25, 2001, Council was offered several potential short-term actions to create a safer,
more efficient environment for staff currently 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 appropriate 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, the Council directed the City Manager to develop a financial strategy and
implementation 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 for some City functions.
The 2001-2002 Council Goals includes an action priority to "Develop a strategy and imple-
mentation plan for City downtown office and public safety facilities." One of the three specific
work items included in this action priority 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 in both buildings to
provide only for an expected 8 to 10 years of continued use.
On September 19, 2001, the Council addressed both 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 be the first priority of projects proposed in the Downtown Space
Plan. Construction of a new Police Services building and City Hall were the next tier of 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 agenda item on funding the Downtown Space Plan included a
description of internal and external funding sources to implement the eventual replacement of
City Hall with new buildings. The 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
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040616\S040616A. doc
market based "rent" by services that would be located in new downtown buildings, was the topic
of a follow-up work session on November 26, 2001. The "market rent" concept was
incorporated as an on-going City practice beginning in the adopted FY03 Budget.
On February 25, 2002, Council approved a resolution to fund the construction of Fire Station #1
primarily with General Obligation Bonds, and City resources for 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 Replacement Re-
serve, and the use of a Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) form of construction
management. Council adopted funding elements for the Roosevelt Police Facility on FY02
Supplemental Budget #3 and on FY03 Supplemental Budget #1.
Some of the assets originally to be dedicated towards Downtown Space Plan projects have been
used for other purposes. The adopted FY04 budget includes a transfer of $900,000 from the
Facility Reserve to help balance the General Fund. In addition, on July 23, 2003, Council
adopted a financing plan for the new Santa Clara Fire Station #11 that dedicated revenues from
the sale of the three surplus fire stations to this project, rather than to the Downtown Space Plan
projects. Similarly, on August 18, 2003, Council directed that the proceeds from sale of the
Kaufman Annex be deposited in the Kaufman Trust Fund, for support of the Kaufman Center.
As a result of these actions, the sale of these surplus assets is no longer an element of the
Downtown Space Plan.
On October 29, 2003, council held a work session on the Downtown City Space Plan, focusing
on the need for a new Police services building. Council directed staff to bring more specific
recommendations back on the preliminary planning, cost and financing of a new Downtown
Police Services building and a City Hall, including financing options. During the work session,
Councilor expressed the desire to have more information on how a new Police building would fit
with future plans to replace City Hall, and to develop a more general "civic center" concept.
On November 17, 2003, staff presented the Multi-Year Financial Plan to the Budget Committee.
This plan identifies both the capital and operating needs for the entire organization over a six-
year period. The police building is listed as a high priority need in the MYFP, and replacement
of City Hall is 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 for that work session 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 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 Center Visioning Committee.
On April 28, 2004, an informational work session was held to update on the 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.
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040616\S040616A. doc
Committee Members 2
Executive Summary
A Vision for Eugene's Furore Civic Center 3
Guiding Policies 5
The Next Steps 5
Eugene Civic Center - Major Policy Principles 6
Vis,on for Eugene's Future C~v~c Center
Characteristics of a C~v~c Center 8
The Civic Center Vision 8
Background on City Efforts
Council Committee on City Hall A Iternatives 10
Police and Fire Task Force 10
Thc Downtown City Space Plan 10
The Downtown Plan Update 11
Civic Center Design Charette ~3
The Mayor's Civic Facilities Visioning Committee
Formation of thc Committee 15
Committee's Charge 15
Developing an Integrated Vision
Multi-Agency Pm~tnership Approach 16
The Community Elements of Civic Space 17
Civic Center Space Needs and Phasing 18
Architectural and Urban Design Principles 20
Key Principles 20
Other Principles 20
Siting Alternatives 21
Financing the Civic Center Vision 25
Phasing Plan 26
Attachments
A. Possible Space Needs A-I
C. Civic Center Financing Options B-1
Civic Visioning Committee - Report and Recommendations June 2004 Pa§e ~
The Civic Center Visioning Commktee is made up of 15 members representing a variety ofimerests and
governmental agencies. The Committee members are:
Paul Raft:in, citizen member
Brad Litchfield, citizen member
Dan Giustina, citizen member
Julia Dougan, U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Joseph Cavanagh, citizen member
Joe Connelly, citizen member
Angie Sifuentez, citizen member
Michelle Emmons, Downtown Eugene, Inc.
Lisa Ofenloch, U.S. General Services Achmnistration
Bob Lehner, City of Eugene Chief of Police
Jan Clements, Lane County Sheriff
Dennis Taylor, Eugene City Manager
Bill VanVactor, Lane County Administrator
George Russell, District 4j Administrator
Randy Hledik, citizen member
Consultant: Eric Gunderson, WBGS Architecture & Planning, PC
City Staff: Glen Svendsen, Facili~' Management Division Manager
Mike Penwell, Principal Facilities Project Manager
A Vision for Eugene's i:uture Civic Center
In Janua~', 2004, the Mayor appointed an ad-hoc Fi,s'ion into a framework for public and private
citizens' ~Civic Facilities Visioning Committee" to decisions affecting downtown in the future, as well
develop a coordinated vision of civic building and as building on other previous plans and studies.
infrastructure needs downtown, and to recommend During this same time period, the City Council
to the Council how to implement that vision. The adopted an overall financial strategy and imple-
Civic Facilities Visioning Committee's members mentation plan ~br replacing City Hall and other
include representatives of a broad range of public downtown City office space with new buildings
agencies and private interests. The goal was to as part of a longer-term plan for City downtown
have recommendations from the Committee to the office space.
Council by June, 2004. This very aggressive time
line allowed only four months ~br the Commit-
tee to reach consensus on a long-term vision for
Eugene's Civic Center. The first of four meetings
of the Committee was held in February, 2004.
In forming the Committee, Mayor Torrey noted
that as the Ci~' embarks on a multi-year process
to eventually replace Ci~, Hall, it is extremely
important that the needs and plans of other public
agencies be incorporated in the planning process.
The potential for creating a civic center contain-
ing nmltiple agencies that could serve the entire
conmmnity gave the Committee broad latitude to
explore all elements ora vision for civic develop-
ment in Downtown Eugene. In January, 2004, the City of Eugene and the
Southwest Oregon Chapter of the American Insti-
The Mayor's Civic Facilities Visioning Committee tute of Arehitects sponsored a well-attended Civic
has melded ongoing efforts to plan for future City Center Design Charette that was coordinated by
WBGS Architecture and Planning, PC. One major
buildings with the development ora more com-
prehensive vision for Eugene's future civic center, conclusion of the Charette is that the location of
These earlier or ongoing efforts include the 2001 a new Civic Center and improvements to existing
Fision./br Greater Downtown Eugene that pro- public buildings has great potential for creating a
moted downtown as a thriving, active urban center welcoming heart for Eugene.
with ties to our rich natural heritage; a variety of
intermingled activities; and safe, inviting streets. The consensus of the Charette's design teams was
The updated Eugene Downtown Plan, adopted by to locate the Civic Center in the central Downtown
City Council in April 2004, incorporated the 2001 area, in and around the existing CiB~ Hall and Park
Blocks. Most teams in the Charette assumed that
Civic Visioning Committee - Report and Recommendations June 2004 Page 3
a new Police building would be a separate struc- tectural and urban design principles used in the
rare from Ci~7 Hall. The Charette also produced a formation of alternative scenarios for the scale and
consensus that implementation of the Civic Center placement of buildings and functions.
concept would be incremental over a number of
years. Phased construction was seen as necessa~, The Committee reviewed three alternative scenar-
to maintain City servTices during the construction ios for future Civic Center development, selecting
of new facilities, especially if City Hall itself is to one as the basis for the development of the final
be reconstructed, recommendation. The final recommendation of
the Mayor's Civic Facilities Visioning Committee
The conclusions reached during the Charctte contains a set of policies that guide future develop-
recognize that the Civic Center is likely to be a ment of the Civic Center and a graphic representa-
changing concept as development in the down- tion of how that development might occur. Due to
town and the Courthouse district continues. The the complex inter-relationships among the cie-
report on the Charette notes that this is the begin- ments of the Civic Center, a phasing diagram was
ning of a search for an appropriate site to locate also prepared that provides suggestions on how
Eugene's Civic Center and Police Serwices build- the City and County elements of the Civic Center
ing. As stated in the final report, ~'It is important vision could be sequenced.
to view the Civic Center as a district composed of
elements which change over time." The Committee's recommended vision ibc
Eugene's future Civic Center is illustrated graphi-
After reviewing the visions and value statements cally by the drawing on the following page. The
developed during the Civic Center Design Cha- drawing shows how the principles and policies in
rette, the Civic Facilities Visioning Committee this report could be applied to create a vision for
began discussing how a vision of a future civic the Eugene Civic Center. While the drawing rep-
center in downtown Eugene could develop. This resents the general consensus of the Mayor's Com-
discussion revolved around several basic concepts, mittee, it is meant to be a concept only', a template
These underlying concepts included the assump- or master plan subject to alteration and refinement
tion that joint use of space and co-location of over time. Actual designs would require a long-
activities is an overall goal, that the integration of term collaboration between partnering agencies,
public facilities and outdoor public space is desir- the community, and design professionals. The per-
able and necessary' in a true civic center, and that spective drawing of the final Civic Center vision
key local public agencies need to create or retain a and the policy recommendations are presented on
downtown presence both for customer seiw'ice and the following pages.
organizational effectiveness. These fundmnental
approaches led to the creation of a space needs
analysis and the development of a set of archi-
Guiding Policies
The Committee adopted seven overall policies to
guide the future development of the Civic Center.
As the Civic Center is likely to be implemented
over time, by individual public and non-profit
agencies actions~ a common understanding of the
goals to be achieved through the Civic Center con-
cept will lead to more compatible and consistent
public investment decisions. These policies were
the basis for developing a graphic representation
of the vision of Eugene's Civic Center.
The Next 5reps
The MayoFs ad-hoc CMc Facilities Visioning
Committee has completed its charge by approv-
ing a vision and policy principles to guide the
development of Eugene's future Civic Center.
The Committee's task was to ~';form a coordinated
vision of a Civic Center for Eugene, and recom-
mend hoxv that vision could be implemented."
This recommendation will be presented to the
Eugene City Council on June 16~ 2004.
Once the City Council has reviewed the Commit-
tee's recommendation~ the Council will determine
what actions on the timing m~d financing of ele-
ments of the Civic Center should be hnplemented.
Civic visioning Committee - Report and Recommendations June 2oo4 Pa§e 5
1. Consolidate civic functions. Consolidate civic 5. Include Public Safety' services. Public Safety
functions in and around the future Civic Center services should be an integral part of the Civic
to the greatest extent practical. Create an "urban Center - open and visible to the public, embodying
campus" along 8a~ Avenue to reflect the partner- community policing goals. Support Public Safety
ships among public agencies and non-profit public activities that increase visibili~,, access, and actual
service organizations, providing integrated ser- and perceived safety for individuals and property
vices to the public and more efficient government downtown. Location of social service agencies
operations, with Public Safety services has a high potential for
mutual benefit.
2. Reinforce 8t~, Avenue as the Great Civic 6. Provide adequate parking. Coordinate the
Street. Locate significant municipal, count,, development of parking in the Civic Center to
state, and federal buildings along 8th Avenue. Use build on existing parking areas and locate new
consistent elements such as paving mad sidewalk structured parking that is convenient and secure.
Provide parking for the public, for safe~, vehicles,
design, plantings, and street lights to create a
Civic promenade from Willmnette Street to the and for employees.
Willamette River.
7. Employ cost-effective development
3. Enhance open space. Create and enhance approaches. Utilize existing publicly-owned land
open space making the Civic Center attractive and resources to the maximum extent. Encourage
for the general public as well as employees and public-private partnerships that realize efficien-
customers. Enhancements to and expansion of cies through co-location of services. Minimize the
the Park Blocks will support increased activity need for new public revenues. Minimize life-cycle
downtown. Open space along 8~h Avenue will costs via appropriate location, design features,
enhance its character as a great civic street. Can- timing, and size of new or renovated facilities.
neD' Square will draxv pedestrians across Mill St. Use a 20 year horizon for space planning.
and provide a gateway to the river.
4. Develop partnerships. Develop partnerships
between public agencies and non-governmental
service providers to improve customer conve-
nience, efficient se~wqce deliveD~, and communica-
tion between related agencies. Include non-profit
agencies with government functions to create more
pedestrian traffic supporting small scale retail,
entertainment, and other activities in the Civic
Center area.
VISION FOR F. UGF. NF. 5 FLITLIRF. CIVIC CENTER
Characteristics of a Civic Center
The vision for Eugene's CMc Center is the intersec- two existing South Park Blocks, newly repaired
tion of government and culture. It is a place where and updated. To the left, the County ~Butter-
citizens come to conduct the business of govern- fly" Parking garage is gone.~ replaced by the nexv
ment.~ obtain services.~ seek justice and participate in Northwest Park block. A new North Park Civic
democracy. It is a place of art, free speech, public Building, which might be the home of State and
debate, and the expression of the spirit of Eugene. It County Courts, faces the park block. To the
is a place for events of public ceremony, enjoyment northeast.~ the County Courthouse steps have been
and a fundamental part of what makes us a commu- removed making way for the Wayne Morse Free
nity. It is a desirable place to come, which is safe Speech plaza at sidewalk level. The Morse Plaza,
and accessible for all. It is the heart of things, with NW Park Block, and 2 existing South Park blocks
connections to commercial, governmental, social, complete the original 4-quarter blocks that were
spiritual and cultural elements of our City. once Eugene's central park. Buildings ofa varieB~
of uses surround the Park Blocks clearly defining
The Civic Center Vision its edges and adding vitality to the area.
The perspective drawing on page 7 illustrates how
the principles and policies in this report could be A block away to the north, on the south side of
applied to create a vision for the Eugene Civic 6th Avenue between Oak and Pearl Streets.. is the
Center. As stated earlier~ the drawing is a xvay of newly expanded Comity parking structure. Three
visualizing the concepts adopted by the Mayor's additional floors increase its capaciB~ to 650 cars
Committee. It is not a final design. The prin- serving new and remodeled Count' facilities as
ciples can also be understood through the written well as the 5th & Pearl District. The site of the
description which follows, former State Office Building is now a 4-sto~:
County Services Building providing space for
The vision adopted by the Committee can be Public Health, Intake Center, Parole & Probatiom
described by a walk down 8th Avenue, the Great ADO, and Veterans Services.
Civic Street. Looking east from Willamette Street,
8th Avenue is a wide tree-lined street with broad Continuing east along 8th Avenue, we leave the
park blocks and pass the County Courthouse and
sidewalks extending for seven blocks all the way
to Hilyard Street. The pavement of the sidewalks PSB where construction is underway to renovate
and streets, the trees, lights, and street furniture the counB.' buildings. The existing Count5.,' building,
are all consistent from Willamette past the new freed up by moving counB.' services to the new North
Federal Courthouse. The street is two way. The Park Building and CounB.' Services Building, will
Civic Street is the place where the Eugene Cel- soon house counB~ offices displaced from other sites.
ebration begins and where we have a ~First Night" At Pearl Street. we see a pair of buildings facing
fireworks show on New Year's Eve. ~
each other across 8th Avenue. The buildings are
Walking eastward from Willamette, 8th Avenue each shaped like a horseshoe with the open ends
opens up into the Park Blocks, Eugene's most facing the street and each other. The open center
active outdoor civic place. To the right are the forn~s a civic cou~,ard. To the north, the new City
Civic Visioning Committee - Report and Recommendations June ~oo4 Page 8
Hall steps from one stoD.' high at the street to seven The Great Civic Street continues across the Ferry
floors on the north side of the block. The taller Street Bridge ramps (Mill St). There is a traffic
office portion of the building is a partnership shared light and pedestrian crosswalk connecting down-
by the CiB,', Count', LCOG, EWEB, 4J and others, town to the Federal Courthouse district. To our
A single stoD.' wing below is a large public meeting left, is the dynamic new Federal Courthouse. The
room with direct access from the plaza. Another Courthouse steps face south onto 8th Avenue. The
wing contains a public se~wice mall with ci~: and most prominent features of the building are the
coun~~ building permit counters, visitor information, three curving forms of courtroom elements rising to
public art display, Internet caf6, and other activities, the equivalent of eight stories above the street. 8th
Avenue brings us to a new civic open space, Can-
Located on the former parking lot across 8th is neD' Square, at the intersection with Ferry St. We
the new Communi~, Safety Building, home to the have arrived in the heart of the Courthouse district
Eugene Police Department and portions of the near the river. Beyond is the gateway to the river
Lane County Sheriff's Office. The CommuniB~ district, made possible by EWEB's relocation of its
Safety building is all glass on the ground floor operations to west Eugene and to the new Ci~' Hall.
with doors to the street. Within the glass lobby
are public serwice portions of Police and Sheriffin All of the buildings in the Civic Center share
addition to counters for non-profit agencies such as common features. They have been developed
Womenspace, Victims Assistance, and others. The with economic and environmental sustainability
building is four stories tall and has secure parking in mind, with flexible floor plans, durable finishes,
below for patrol vehicles. As an Essential Facility, energy efficient mechanical and electrical systems,
it is designed to be fully operational after disasters photovoltaic panels to provide shading and gener-
such as earthquakes and storms. The building ate electricity, and rainwater collection for irriga-
appears open and expressive of community polic- tion and flushing of toilets. The fact that the civic
ing goals. It is clearly a part of the civic center, street runs east to west allows the civic buildings
close to City Hall and Courts. on each side to have large south walls for solar ori-
entation and north glazing lbr natural daylighting.
Continuing east we come to a new 3-stoD~ public
parking garage with a capacity of 360 cars. It is The Civic Center also supports commercial
located on the south side of the street east of High. development. It is mixed with other uses, comple-
The ground floor facing the street consists of com-
menting its proximity to Broadway--the Great
mercial space. The garage is a partnership with Commercial Street--just one block to the south.
The Shedd and others. During the day it is used This vision of the Civic Center is a master plan for
by the public and civic center employees includ-
improvements to downtown Eugene accomplished
ing those from the new Federal Courthouse across
over many years with the pfimao' goal of sup-
Mill St. In the evening, it provides parking for
porting quality government services and making
those attending performances or headed for a night dowmown Eugene a great place.
out on the town.
Civic Visioning Committee - Report and Recommendations June 2oo4 Page 9
BACKGROUND ON CITY EFFORTS
The Mayor's Civic Facilities Visioning Committee address functional proximi~' to courts, the jail,
has melded ongoing efforts to plan for future City and other City of Eugene offices; service deliveD'
buildings with the development ofa comprehen- issues; and growth management goals.
sive vision for Eugene's future civic center.
The Task Force recommendation became the basis
Council Committee on City Hall of a May 2000, bond measure that would have
Alternatives funded both the Fire and Police facilities. After
In September, 1999, the City Council created the defeat of this measure (54% to 46%), a combined
Council Committee on City Hall Alternatives Police and Public Works facility bond measure
(CCCHA) to recommend a plan for developing was placed on the November 2000 ballot. This
options to relocate functions in Ci~, Hall in the measure also tailed 62% to 38%.
event the current City Hall was chosen as the site
for the new federal courthouse. While most of The Downtown City Space Plan
the recommendations of this committee have been The needs identified by the Task Force were taken
superceded by subsequent plans and policies, the into consideration in the development of the
CCCHA represented the first serious look at the Downtown City Space Plan by a multi-discipline
existing functional, seismic, and condkion deft- team of City stall'. In early 2001, staff presented
ciencies in Ci~' Hall. The committee's key finding Council with the concept of developing a long-
was that the existing City Hall is not an appropri- range plan for replacing downtown office space
ate facility for housing public safct'y functions due with new buildings, and a number of short-term
to the seismic vulnerability of its structural system, actions to create a safer, more efficient environ-
Relocating public safety facilities from City Hall ment for public safety staff currently located in
was identified as the committee's highest priori~,. City Hall.
The City Council ultimately decided it was not
In September, 2001, the Council addressed both
in the City's best interest to sell City Hall to the
near-term and long-term projects by directing that
General Services Administration as the site for the
relocation of EPD personnel from the basement of
new federal courthouse. City Hall and relocation of Fire Station # 1 from
Police and Fire Stations Task Force
Following up on the recommendations of the previ
ous committee, Mayor Torrey appointed the Police
and Fire Stations Task Force in Janua~', 2000, to
develop a recommendation to the Ci~, Council on
providing safe, adequate facilities tbr Police and
Fire. One of the most important recommendations
of the task force was that the new Police facility
should be located within the downtown area to best
Fire Station I
Civic Visioning Committee - Report anti Recommendations June 2004 Page ~o
City Hall be the first priorities among projects pro- The Downtown Plan ~Jpdate and
posed in the Downtown Space Plan. Construction Worl{ Program
of a new Police Services headquarters building and At the same time that the City was developing a
a new City Hall were the next tier of projects, with plan for future space needs, a broader effort was
design for the Police Services building projected underway to develop a vision for the future of
to begin in FY05, and a replacement of CiB7 Hall downtown Eugene. In 2000, the Eugene City
targeted to begin design in FY08. Council appointed a Committee for Greater Down-
town Visioning to explore the future of downtown.
Development of more specific recommendations The vision that emerged promoted downtown as a
on replacing Ci~' Hall has been deferred until the thriving, active urban center with ties to our rich
Civic Center Design Charette was completed and natural heritage; a variety of intermingled acfivi-
recommendations from the Mayor's Civic Facili- ties; and safe, inviting streets. In 2001, the City
ties Visioning Commktee were provided to Coun- Council accepted the Vision for Greater Down-
cil. These efforts offer a clearer concept of future town Eugene and directed staff to use it as the
Civic Center needs and opportunities, basis for an updated Downtown Plan.
Civic Center concept from the Design Charette
Civic Visioning Committee - Report and Recommendations June 2oo4 Page
The Planning and Development Department began
the process of updating the Downtown Plan, previ-
ously adopted in 1984. The plan update incorpo-
rated the 2001 Vision into a framework for public
and private decisions affecting downtown in the
future, as well as building on other previous plans
and studies.
The updated Eugene Downtown Plan was adopted
by Cib: Council on April 12, 2004. During dis-
cussions of the Downtown Plan, Cib: Councilors
indicated their interest in prompt implementation
to establish the plm~ as a tool to realize our vision
for downtown. Prompt implementation of the plan
also takes advm~tage of the positive momentum for
change currently undem'ay in downtown.
After the plan was adopted, a downtown work plan
was developed that includes 116 implementation
strategies and project examples. These stratcgies
cover a range of dynamic and appropriate ideas for
transforming downtown Eugene. The Vision for
Eugene's Civic Center directly supports approxi-
mately 30 of the 116 work plan ilnplelnentation
strategies.
During an October, 2003~ work session focused on
the need for a new Police services building, several
Councilors expressed the desire to have more infor-
mation on how a new Police building would fit with
future plans to replace Ci~' Hall, and to develop
a more general %ivic center" concept. Council
directed staff to provide some conceptual informa-
tion on how Ci~: and other agency offices would
form a downtown civic center and how a new Police
building would fit into a civic center concept.
To facilitate the rapid development of multiple civic
center schemes, the Facility Management Division
sponsored a well-attended Civic Center Design
Charette on Janua~' 23 and 24, 2004 that was hosted Most teams in the Charette assumed that a new
by the Southwest Oregon Chapter of the American Police building would be a separate structure.
Insfitute of Architects and coordinated by WBGS The two most popular sites were the Cit'y-owned
Architecture and Planning, PC. Ten teams were parking lot south of City Hall on 8*h Avenue, and
formed--each assigned one of thrce areas within the current site of the "Good Times" tavern and
downtown--to develop a Civic Center concept Federal Building parking lot. At the time of the
specific to that area. Each teanl was free to develop Charettc, the need for the Police building to have
principles, specific sites, and concepts, high public vis/b/lity at the street level was not
considered to be a priority.
One outcome of the Charette was general agree-
ment that the location of the Civic Center coupled The Charette also produced a consensus that
with improvements to existing public buildings has implementation of the Civic Center concept would
great potential for creating a welcoming heart for be incremental over a number of years. Phased
Eugene. The consensus of the teams was to locate construction xvas seen as necessaly to maintain
the Civic Center in the central Downtown area, in
City services during the construction of new facili-
and around the existing City Hall alld Park Blocks.
ties, especially if Ci~ Hall itself is to be recon-
The degree to which government buildings were
structcd. Use of the City Hall site also requires
concentrated varied. Some concepts showed fight
that the Police building be built in the first phase,
groupings of City Hall, Police, Coun~~ mad State
as there are no viable options for ma "interim"
building. Others purposely sought diversit'y with
location meeting essential sen4ces seismic stan-
mixed use buildings intermingled with govern-
dards to house Police functions temporarily while
mental uses. These concepts included mixed uses
within the Civic Center buildings, ranging from City Hall is reconstructed or replaced.
cafes and small retail to multi-sto~~ housing mad
all art museum.
Civic Visioning Committee - Report and Recommendations June 2004 Page q3
The conclusions reached during the Charctte
recognize that the Civic Center is likely to be a
changing concept over many years, as develop-
ment in the downtown and the Courthouse district
continue. The Charette final report, notes that
this is the beginning of a search for an appropri- ~-~;~ >: .~!
ate site to locate Eugene's Civic Center and Police
Services building. As statcd in the final report,
is important to view the Civic Center as a disthct
composed of elements which change over time."
The complete report from the Charette, entitled
Eugene Civic Center Visions. cm~ be viewed on the
City's web site at: http://www.ci.eugene.or, us/
A SD/facilifies/Civic_Center/report.htm
City of E¢gene and AiA Civic Center Design Charette
At the same time the Civic Center Design Cha- a general obligation bond and said that after its
rette was being organized, the Mayor appointed ihilure it became evident to the council that it
m~ ad-hoc citizen's "Civic Facilities Visioning would be shogsighted to remm to the voters with
Commi~ee" to develop a coordinated vision of the same question. ~e Mayor noted the council's
civic needs downtown, and to recommend to the agreement that it was impo~ant to look at efficien-
Council how to implement ~at vision. ~e Civic cies of scale ~d the potential of creating a civic
Facilities Visioning Commi~ee's members include center containing multiple agencies that could
representatives of a broad rm~ge of public agencies sense the entire community. He said that the eom-
and private interests. ~e goal was to have recom- lnunib' should consider multi-use facilities and the
mendations from the Committee to the Council possible co-housing of the Lane County Sheriff's
by June, 2004. ~is veD' aggressive time line Office and Eugene Police Depa~ment.
allowed only four months ibr the Commi~ee to
address veo, impo~t public development issues. As a result, the Colnmittee had broad latitude to
The first of four meetings of ~e Commi~ee was explore all elements of a vision of civic develop-
held in February,, 2004. In order to take advantage ment in Downtown Eugene.
of the work done on the Design Chare~e, Eric
Gunderson of WBGS Architects and Planners pro-
vided professional suppo~ to the Committee.
Committee's Charge
As stated by Mayor To~ey~ the Civic Facilities
Visioning Commi~ee was foxed "to develop a
coordinated vision of a civic center for Eugene~
~d recommend how that vision could be imple-
mented.' ~e mayor noted that, as the City ........
embarks on a multi-year process to eventually Horseshoe shaped
replace City Hall~ it is extremely impo~t that ~e civic bui[dingsfi~cing
needs and plm~s of other public agencies be incor- each other across 8th
porated in the plam~ing process. The Collllllittee A~,enue~om the Design
was also encouraged to use the recommendations Chare~e.
and conclusions from the Civic Center Design
Chare~e as a sta~ing point for ~e Commi~ee's
work.
At the first meeting of the Committee, Mayor
Torrey recalled the City Council's attempts to fund
the construction of a new police station through
Civic Visioning Committee - Report and Recommendations June 2004 Page ~5
After reviewing the visions and value statements could benefit from partnerships. For exan~ple,
developed during the Civic Center Design Cha- co-location of the reception and records functions
rette, the Committee discussed how a vision of of the Eugene Police Department (EPD) and Lane
a future civic center in downtown Eugene could County Sheriff's Office would improve efficiency
develop. This discussion was centered on a few in the two police agencies. The co-location of
basic concepts: joint use of space and co-loca- detectives from the two agencies could result
tion of activities provides operational efficiencies in greater efficiency and better communication
and improved customer service; the integration between agencies. Consolidation opportunities
of public facilities and outdoor public space is include intake, with process efficiencies, if these
desirable and necessaD' in a true civic center; and activities were located close to the State courts.
local public agencies need to create or retain a Due to the nature of the Sheriff's operations, it is
downtown presence both for customer service and more likely that public safety functions related to
organizational effectiveness. These fundmnental prisoner holding and transport would stay in or
precepts led to the development of a space needs close to the County Courthouse or County Public
analysis and a set of architectural and urban design Services Building.
principles to be used in the formation of alterna-
tive scenarios for the scale and placement of build- Partnerships between the police departments and
ings and functions, social service agencies also provide important
partnering opportunities. Inclusion of space for
Multi-A~lency Partnership Approach public service and non-governmental organiza-
In developing estimates of future space needs, tions (including nonprofits) on the ground floor of
the basic approach by the Committee was that a community safety building would provide more
most agencies face similar building issues (aging, community interaction with public safety se~w'ices.
seismic deficiencies, functional obsolescence). In Non-profit agencies providing Ihmily and victim's
addition, there was general agreement that agen- services, for example, could use shared lobby and
cies have a need to maintain a downtown presence, meeting spaces.
both for citizen/client convenience and interaction
with other agencies and services. Shared use of Lane County is lacing a number of needs for new
meeting space, classrooms, reception counters, or replacement space. Relocation of the County's
records functions, etc. could decrease individual Public Health program has been identified as the
agency space needs. This led to the conclusion highest priority need. The Public Health progrmn
that co-location of related services can increase and the Alcohol, Drug and Offender (ADO) pro-
efficiency and communication, and that co-loca- gram currently share a building with the County
tion of social sen'ices with public safeB, functions Elections Division. When the Elections Division
has high potential for mutual benefit, moves to its new offices on 10*3' Avenue near the
Library, the Count, would like to raze the exist-
Public safety and community policing specifically ing Elections building. Although the CounB~ is
considering a number of options, the Public Health space. (BLM has an additional need of about
programs could potentially be located with one 100,000 sq. ft. for a fleet area, flammable storage
of the hospitals, or in the Peace Health clinic, and both secured m~d public parking. This activ-
although differences in client groups would have ity is probably more appropriate in an industrial
to be addressed. The County may need a location area rather than downtown.) The State of Oregon
to house Probation and Parole in the near future, potentially needs 60,000-80,000 sq. ft. for a
most likely with another use. computer center in Eugene, although a downtown
location is also not necessa~.' for this type of use.
Other types of public partnerships could include
School Disthct {i, Eugene Water and Electric The Community Elements ot: Civi~:
Board (EWEB), and the Lane Council of Gov- Spitce
ernments (LCOG). District 4j can envision the A Civic Center is more than just a set of public
School Board meeting in a downtown location, buildings; it is also provides space to be used by
which would require a board room capable of the public and that engages the public in down-
seating 300 or more people. The District's admin- town activities beyond the public services located
istrative functions could be centrally located in there. Key objectives for the Civic Center public
a shared facility to gain efficiencies. EWEB is space include improving citizen access to services
tentatively planning for retention of approximately and efficiency, and increasing activity down-
10,000 square feet of downtown office space for town to enhance the sense of safety and security.
customer seiafice and general administrative func- Inclusion of non-profit agencies with govermnent
tions. EWEB could also use shared lobby and functions will create more public traffic and crifi-
meeting spaces, including a large board room for cal mass to support other uses, such as small retail
the EWEB Board of Commissioners meetings, businesses.
The Lane Council of Governments is projecting Open space is also a priority to make the center
the need to relocate their general administrative attractive for the general public as well as employ-
and planning offices in early 2010, resulting in ecs and customers. The consensus of the Commit-
the need for approximately 20,000 square feet of tee is that enhancements to the Park Blocks would
space. In addition, LCOG's health program in the support increased activity downtown. The Com-
Schaefer building could eventually relocate with a mittce noted that as additional open space is pro-
compatible use. LCOG also expressed some inter- vided, it will need more programming ibc fumilies
est in converting the current ground floor of the and additional efibrt to create that attraction.
Schaefer building to retail uses.
The vision for the Civic Center should enhance the
State and federal agencies also reported an inter- ~'Great Streets" concept for 8th Avenue as the Great
est in retaining a downtown Eugene presence. Civic Street. The use of design elements, signage,
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would lighting and operating practices, such as street cio-
require about 35,000 square feet for general office
Civic visioning Committee - Report and Recommendations June 2oo4 Page ~7
sures for special events, can help create 8*~ Avenue Services related to youth could provide support
as the public promenade linking the Civic Center for activities and programs in the Civic Center.
from Willamette Street to the Courthouse District Currently, day care programs sponsored by public
and the river beyond. The use of landscaping agencies arc located on the periphe~.' of down-
shade trees and generous sidewalks will enhance town. Relocation of the joint Count'/federal
the streetscape, reinforcing the Great Streets con- agency supported day-care operation into the civic
cept. An at-grade signalized intersection at 8,t' and center would be supported by both the agencies
Mill (i.e. - Franklin Blvd. crossing) will complete and parents. EWEB, which currently operates
the connection and provide a gateway into Eugene da5" care services adjacent to its headquarters site,
from the Ferry Street Bridge. could be interested in participating in a centralized
day-care program to se~e its remaining downtown
In terms of retail uses, the Committee agreed that employees ifEWEB operations move to the west
the Civic Center would be veo' desirable space due side of Eugene.
to traffic during the daytime. Mixed commercial
and residential use is possible in the Civic Center, District 4j also sees the potential need for a "store-
but the impact on neighboring retailers needs to be front" high school concept for 50-100 students
considered. As such, the Committee identified fill- which could fit either with EPD functions or Lane
ing current retail space before building new space Community College's downtown campus. There
as a priori~,. This has t~vo primaD' design implica- is also some potential for offering da5' school for
tions for the vision for the Civic Center. pre-K through early grades serving children of
area employees.
First, open space has an expensive opportunity
cost, in terms of foregone commercial develop- Civic Center 5pace Needs and Phasin[l
merit, so the emphasis should be on enhancing Based on the Committee's identification of space
existing open spaces and streetscapes, rather than needs, an overall estimate of future public space
turning existing developed properties into open requirements was prepared. The potential need for
space. Second, the consensus was that the Civic downtown space identified by the different agencies
Center vision should make use of the current City included in the scoping effort totaled over 650,000
Hall block. The general feeling is that this block square feet. (Attachment A details agency space
is not as promising a location for commercial needs.) This is almost seven times the size of the
redevelopment as other areas in Downtown. Con- existing Eugene Ci~' Hall. Adding new construc-
currentl>; it was agreed that the relocation of the t/on, including new parking structures, increases the
County Elections, ADO and Public Health pro- total space included in the Civic Center vision to
grams means that the Elections Building site might approximately 1 million square feet. However, not
be available for development compatible with the all of this space would be built at once.
larger 5'~ Street/Depot district.
The vision for the future Civic Center is a long-
term view and the recommendation is for specific
elements of that vision to be built over thne. A priority of the County is to relocate the Public
Decisions on the priority, timing and fundraising Health, ADO, and the Probation and Parole
of specific prqiects to implement the Civic Center programs from existing ihcilities. The preferred
vision will be made by each of the local agencies locations would be new buildings on sites closely
that require downtown office space. The avail- connected to the County, such as the %uttcrfly' lot
ability of funds will be a major detenmnant tbr and the site of the current State off:ice building at
each agency's decision to invest in the civic center the comer of 7d~ and Pearl.
vision.
Replacement of the Eugene Ci~' Hall will require
As there are inter-relationships among many of a series of phased improvements. As the Eugene
the potential uses of downtown space, there are Police Department can only be relocated into
a number of considerations in determining how facilities meeting %ssenfial service" seismic stan-
different elements of the Civic Center might be dards, the most practical phasing plan is to con-
phased. Phasing of development and interim use struct a new Community Safety Building as one
of expansion space are strategies to apply to size, of the first steps in implementing the Civic Center
location, and timing of civic center development, vision. If the Community Safety Building were
For example, the northern half of the Counb?s sited on 8~ Avenue, on the Cib,-owned parking lot
~'butterfly" parking lot at 7*~' and Oak is a desir- across from City Hall, approximately 125 public
able site for a joint use public building, and would parking spaces would be lost. In terms of phas-
allow the restoration of the original NW Park ing, it would be preferable to provide replacement
Block on the southern half of the site. This phase parking in advance of construction of the Commu-
could coincide with enhancements to the existing nity Safcb' Building.
Park Blocks.
Another concept related to phasing is the deci-
However, a number of steps need to occur before sion on whether to build needed expansion space
the butterfly lot can be redeveloped. Parking for now, and lease or backfill that %xtra" space in the
both the public and Lane County staff vehicles interim until it is needed. If buildings are to be
needs to be replaced if the %utterfly lot" is con- expanded in the future, they should be designed to
verted to other uses. In fact, secure parking is a expand '~out" rather than %p", as vertical expan-
functional requirement for the City', Lane County sion is more problematic in the future due to
and some federal agencies, and needs to be part changing building codes, difficulties in construct-
of the civic center development. The most likely ing over occupied space, and higher construction
location for replacement parking for County costs. However, the financial feasibility of build-
purposes is expansion of the County's lot on 6ti' ing in leasable space will be influenced by the
Ave, which would retain a direct connection to the overall economy at the time.
County Courthouse and the Counb' Public Ser-
vices Building.
Civic Visioning Committee - Report and Recommendations June 2oo4 Page ~9
Architectural and Urban Design
Principles
To organize the complex issues related to facil- treatment, landscaping, photovoltaic panels, etc.
ih' needs, public open space, service deliver,, Consider seeking LEED certification.
urban development, and phasing of projects, Eric
Gunderson of WBGS Architecture and Planning, 4. Lively Streetscapes: Design buildings,
PC assisted the committee in developing a set of sidewalks, and plazas to enhance streetscapes and
architectural and urban design principles. Mr. enliven the pedestrian experience. Locate activi-
ties on ground floors and along building edges that
Gunderson, acting in the capacity of design con-
interact with the sidewalk. Incorporate public art,
sultant to the Committee, used these phnciples as
a guide in developing akernative scenarios for the historic markers, landscaping, and other elements
Committee to consider, to create special places for all ages.
5. Accessibility: All elements of the civic center
The key architectural and urban design principles are:
should incorporate universal design concepts.
Key Principles Design for the requirements and the spirit of ADA.
1. Partnerships: Form partnerships with other
public agencies, public service organizations, and Other Principles
non-profits to reduce operating costs and enhance 6. Orientation: Orient buildings east to west in
order to maximize solar access to the south and
servTices to the public. Shared buildings consume
less land and require less building area. The daylighting opportunities to the north. Outdoor
community perception of government forming spaces should face south and receive sun.
partnerships to reduce cost and improve serwice is
positive. Include social service, tourist and busi- 7. Civic Squares: Use buildings to create and
ness information centers, and others, define civic squares. Restore the NW Park Block.
Include Canneu' Square in the civic center project.
2. Compact Land Use: Increase densi~, of civic Do not dilute civic spaces.
buildings. Governmental buildings are currently
8. Mixed Use: Integrate mixed uses within and
scattered, often one or txvo sto~3,, and consume a
large percentage of downtown land area. next door to civic buildings where appropriate.
Multiple blocks of government buildings create
3. Make it Green: Include sustainable design ~'inactive zones" during evenings and weekends.
Government spaces on weekdays used by the
features in the civic center buildings and open
spaces. Green features should be understandable public on weekends add life to downtown.
and visible parts of the civic center. Consider
green roofs, passive solar heating and cooling, 9. Support Private Development: Public buildings
contribute pedestrians who participate in the life
natural light, sustainable materials, storm water
of downtown. Consider features and locations for
public buildings that support private development.
Civic Visioning Committee - Report anti Recommendations June 2004 Page 2o
10. Sequence of Development: Develop an 15. North Park Building: Develop the north half
orderly sequence for funding and construction of of the counB?s Butterfly Parking Lot as a promi-
civic center elements, nent governmental building site. The building
could include mixed use, arts, or other activities
11. Build Community Interest: Taking action consistent with deed restrictions. The building
toward development of the civic center shows should frame the north park block and contribute
leadership and encourages a positive view of to its activity.
downtown. It increases the value in making down-
town a great place. Establish clear goals, move 16. Revitalize Vacated Buildings: Do not leave
ahead, empB.' buildings as a result of relocation. Find uses
for the Atrium, Public Works Building, State Office
12. Safe & Secure: Employ design principles Building
that increase safe~~ and security in the downtown.
Features include "eyes on the street", lack of 17. Growth: Plan for future grox~h. Utilize
hiding places, qualit'y lighting, open views at eye future growth space for interim uses.
level, promote a sense of'~ownership'~ of outdoor
places, open stairwells and elevators, access con- 5~tin[l Altern~t~ve~
trol where appropriate, etc. The Committee considered three graphic repre-
sentations of alternative visions for a future Civic
13. Police Services: Locate police within the Center, prepared by Eric Gunderson. These three
Civic Center area as an expression of commu- alternatives allowed the Committee to consider
ni~~ policing concepts. Contribute to the image different relationships between some of the pri-
of police as contributing to safety and security, mary components of the Civic Center. These dif-
Locate public service agencies and other public ferent scenarios reflected differing policy choices
uses on the ground floor. Non-profit agencies such on how the physical spaces interacted within the
as Victim's Assistance and other serfice agencies Center, and priorities among those policies.
are good partners for Police.
All three scenarios had common elements. For
14. City Hall Design: Include a large meeting example, all assumed that the Coun~?s %utter-
room ~br council and other public meetings. Make fly" parking lot on Oak Street between 7a~ and 8a~
the meeting room a visible element of the build- Avenues would be redeveloped, with the re-cre-
ing with direct access to the outdoors. Create a afion of the historic Park Block on the south half,
large civic room or lobby. Models of civic rooms and placement of a public building on the north
include the Hult Center Lobby. Locate public ser- half of the site. The displacement of parking from
vices on the ground floor in a public se~w~ice "mall" the "butterfly" lot was accommodated in all three
arrangement - open and accessible, scenarios by expanding the Coun~?s existing park-
ing garage on 6th Avenue bet~veen Oak and Pearl.
Civic visioning Committee - Report and Recommendations June 2oo4 Page 2~
Similarly, the scenarios showed continued use of the siting cfa combined Eugene Police Depart-
the existing Public Service Building, and potential ment and Count, Sheriff's Office and supporting
new Counb7 facilities either at the site of the exist- social service agencies on one-half block along
ing Election building or a joint development with 7th Avenue just west of the existing County Court-
the State of Oregon on a site at the comer of 7*~ and house. This would require redevelopment of both
Pearl. All scenarios anticipate the construction of a the ~butterfly' parking lot and the business at the
parking garage along 8'~ Avenue between High and comer of 7a~ and Willamette Street. The Eugene
Mill streets~ responding both to the demand cre- City Hall would be redeveloped on the current site.
ated in the developing Courthouse District and by
Scenario A had the advantage of convenient public
the Eugene Civic Center. This garage represents
parking to support the public safety functions and
an opportm~ity for a public/private partnership to
a close connection to the Count>, Courthouse,
create spaces serving the adjoining private, com-
which was of high importance to the Sheriff:
mercial development and public spaces.
However, the use cfa site adjacent to the Hult
Center and across from the Hilton for public
The most significant elements of Scenario A xvere
safety xvas not considered as the highest potential
HILTON I ~usuc s^~[¥ P^R~,~ I FEDERAL BLOC
CONFER NCE STATE
OFFICE
CENTER B
Civic Visioning Committee - Report and Recommendations June 2004 Page
public use for the site. The Eugene Police Depart- partners was a better use of the "butterfly~' lot, the
ment xvould also be separated from Ci~~ Hall by a location of Cib, Hall on 7~ Avenue diminished the
block's distance, identity of 8~ Avenue as the civic "Great Street".
Also, the former City Hall site was not a viable
Scenario C took the opposite approach to the candidate for intensive private redevelopment, as it
~'¢butterfly' parking lot and the adjacent business, would be isolated from other commercial activity,
placing a nexv Eugene City Hall on the no,hem surrounded by public buildings and potentially out
one-half of that block. ~is would flee up the cur- of character for a civic promenade. ~e new Com-
rant City Hall site for private redevelopment. ~is munib' Safety building would also be separated
scenario placed a new Conmmnity Safety Building from the Eugene Ci~ Hall by a block.
on the one-half block on 8'~ Avenue directly south
of City Hall, between Pearl ~d High Streets. Scenario B included ~e redevelopment of City
Hall on the cuxcnt site, with a Communib,~ Safety
The consensus on Scenario C was that, Building on the one-half block directly across 8;~
while a City Hall shared with other governmental Avenue. Again, the "buae~y" parking lot xvas
GARAGE CENTER
GONFERI NGE STATE
I[JPROVE 8TH AVENUE
rcdeveloped, this time with a one-quarter block a space for those Sheriff's Office functions, or
building to house Count>' services on the northern could house County operations currently located
portion of the site, and the re-created Park Block in the Cotmty Public Service Building, in mm
on the south portion of the site. making room for the Sheriff's Office in the exist-
ing building.
This scenario strongly reinforced 8*h Avenue as
the civic "Great Street". While the connection Overall, the Committee identified Scenario B as
between the Eugene Police Department and City the basis for developing a more specific vision for
Hall was enhanced in this scenario, this location Eugene's future Civic Center.
was not as convenient to the Count5; Courthouse
lbr some of the functions of the Counb, Sheriff's
Office. The placement of a County building on
the ;butterfly" parking lot, directly across Oak
Street from the Counb~ Courthouse, could provide
EPAC HULT
PARCADE i
~:inancing the Civic Center Vision
One of the main policies recommended by the there arc existing revenues that might be used for a
Committee is that the need for new public rev- project, the City could include another borrowing
enues should be n~inimized, and that the use of method in the financing plan, but it is unlikely that
existing, internal resources to fired Civic Center there will be sufficient existing revenues to fired
projects be a priority. Financing for the different Civic Center projects entirely without issuance of
elements ora future Civic Center is likely to come some amount of General Obligation Bonds.
from a variety of sources, and reflect the fiscal
needs of the different public and private entities To date, a broad financing strategy has been used
involved, to implement the Downtown City' Space Plan proj-
ects listed in an earlier section of this report. As
A broad list of potential financing sources and uses adopted in 2001, the plan for funding the Down-
of funds was provided to the Conlnlittee. This town Space Plan included both internal and exter-
included a sunlnlary of the plusses and lninuses nal funding sources to replace City Hall with new
associated with the different funding sources and buildings. The funding gap between the projected
limitations on their use. (See Attachment B) For cost of these projects and internal revenue sources
example, the use of some resources would mean was to be met with a combination of the dedication
that a portion of those funds could be restricted to of additional General Fund resources and General
particular kinds of expenses, such as Lane County Obligation Bonds. One internal mechanism is the
Road Fund dollars that could only be used to payment of market based ~rent" by services that
help with transportation improvements, or C/ty would be located in new downtown buildings,
of Eugene Parks and Open Space bond funds that and was incorporated as an on-going Ci~, practice
could only be used for park-related enhancements, beginning in the adopted FY03 Budget.
Although there are a number of potential funding It is expected that funding for future Civic Center
sources for future Civic Center projects, there will projects will use this same strategy of combining
be a gap between available resources and the cost internal resources with requests for voter approval
of constructing most new buildings. As a result, it of General Obligation bonds. Council applied
is veu, likely that a significant portion of any spe- this strategy of combining internal and external
cific project will require General Obligation Bond resources by funding the Roosevek Police Facility
approval by the voters. The main advantage of with City resources from the Facility Replace-
GO Bonds is that they come with a revenue source merit Reserve, and funding the new Fire Station # 1
in the form of property taxes. All of the other bor- prinmrily through General Obligation Bonds, with
rowing methods listed in Attachment B, includ- City resources used for non-bond eligible capital
ing a lease-purchase option, require that there be costs.
an existing revenue source available to make the
debt service or lease payments. To the extent that
Civic Visioning Committee - Report and Recommendations June 2004 Page 25
Phasing Plan
The phasing plan is designed to achieve the Civic While the order mad timing of the first three Ci~'
Center vision by implementing a number of dis- components of the phasing plan xvill likely depend
crete components over several years. As shown on a nmnber of factors.~ including funding and
on the phasing diagram below these components public support, the reconstruction of City Hall
of the larger vision are primarily the responsibility should be the last component for several reasons.
of the City of Eugene and Lane County to inifi- The abili~7 to find temporaD~ space for the City's
ate, but can incorporate the public and non-profit Municipal Court will affect the timing of the
partnerships identified earlier, replacement of City Hall. The phasing plan identi-
fies the current Federal court building as a poten-
The components of the phasing plan that are pri- rial interim location for Municipal Court, once the
marily related to the City of Eugene arc: Federal courts move from their current location to
1. Construction of a new Community Safety the new Federal Courthouse.
Building
2. Rehabilitation of the Park Blocks (mad possibly Once EPD mad Municipal Courts are relocated
the re-construction of the north Park Block on from the current City Hall, approximately 30,000
the site of the County's "butterfly'~ parking lot) square feet of other uses will remain. This
3. Potential participation with the private sector in includes the City Manager's Office, the City
a parking garage along 8th Avenue, east of High Council Chambers, and the Human Resources
Street and Risk Serwices Department. As these uses are
4. Reconstruction of City Hall on its current site, primarily general office functions, it will be easier
including relocation of remaining programs in to find temporal.' leased space to use while City
City Hall to temporal: locations during recon- Hall is undergoing reconstruction. One phas-
struction of the building ing option xvhile City Hall is being replaced is to
5. Sale and redevelopment of City buildings locate these functions in any expansion space, or
vacated xvhen offices are consolidated in the futnre Coun~ Sheriff's Office space, that could be
new City Hall included in the new Community Safety building.
The expectation is that an agreement xvith other
Construction of a Community Safety Building agencies would enable Council meetings to be
should occur relatively early in the phasing, as held in existing board meeting rooms or a similar
the Eugene Police Department must be relocated ceremonial space.
before reconstruction work can begin on City
Hall. It is more cost effective to initially construct Improvements to the Park Blocks and participation
a seismically sound fuciliB; to house EPD, mad in construction of a new parking garage at 8th and
address the remaining City Hall uses after the relo- High are components of the Civic Center concept
cation of EPD is completed, that can be implemented independently from the
decisions on the Communib' Safety building and
City Hall. Funding for Park Block improvements
Civic Visioning Committee - Report and Recommendations June 2004 Page 26
could be included with a new Parks and Open Count}, building and Courthouse, and could have
Space bond measure submitted to Eugene voters, underground access to both the Count: building
Likewise, the City's participation in a new parking and the Count}; parking lot on 6th Avenue.
garage prqiect will depend on the timing of com-
mercial development on the block east of High The second phase of Count, development recom-
Street between 8th Avenue and Broadway, mad by mended is expansion of the existing Count: park-
the Shedd, which owns the existing parl~ing lot at lng lot along 6th Avenue, between Oak and Pearl
the northwest comer of that site. Streets. If the plan to reconstruct the north Park
Block at the comer of 8th Avenue and Oak Street is
The components of the phasing plan that are pri- to move forward, the parking currently in the "but-
marily related to Lane Count}; are: terfly" parking lot at that site would be displaced.
A. Demolition of the current Elections building Completing the expansion of the CounB,"s parking
and relocation of the County Public Health, garage on 6th Avenue by approximately 375 spaces
ADO and the Probation and Parole programs in advance of the demolition of 250 spaces at the
B. Expansion of the County's parking garage "butterfly" lot would result in a net increase in total
along 6th Avenue public parking in Count,' facilities.
C. Construction of a new building on the north-
em portion of the "butterfly" parl~ing lot along The third phase for development of Count>'
Oak Street, which could primarily house new properties is construction of a new building on the
County Court space or other Count, functions northern portion of the current site of the "buttcr-
D. Renovation of the existing County Courthouse, fly" parking lot on Oak Street. This building has
and a number of potential uses, including expansion of
E. Relocation of the Sheriff's Office Intake Center the Count>' and State court facilities, other Coun~,
into new facilities close to the Courthouse offices, and could have associated non-profit uses
on the ground floor. Parking under the building is
The County's top priority is relocation of their also anticipated in the Civic Center vision for this
Public Health, ADO, and the Probation and Parole site.
progran~, which will require about 50,000 square
feet. The County has a number of options that Demolition of the County's "butterfly" parking lot
affect the long-term decisions on phasing other in this phase would make way for reconstruction
elements of the Civic Center vision. The preferred of the historic Park Block at the northwest comer
option is to jointly construct a new building with of 8th Avenue and Oak Street. It is assumed that
the State of Oregon at the comer of 7th Avenue the Park Block would be completed by the City
and Pearl Street. This could accommodate the of Eugene, rather than Lane County, and would
three priority Count>' programs and accomplish become an addition to the City's Park Blocks on
two separate phases of the Civic Center vision, the south side of 8th Avenue.
The location is directly across 7th Avenue from the
Civic visioning Committee - Report and Recommendations June 2oo4 Pa9e 27
~LAN MAY 18,: 04
COURTS/
PARKING/
Depending on County programs housed in the new
building at 7th and Oak, the County may be able
to initiate a large scale renovation of the County
Courthouse and portions of the County Public Ser-
vice building. When completed, this could create
space tbr County programs not already accommo-
dated in the phasing plan. For example, the ADO
and the Probation and Parole programs could be
relocated closer to the Court, if the space needs
of these programs are not addressed in an earlier
phase of the County's implementation of the Civic
Center vision.
City Manager's Office 7,700 13,000 City Hall
Council Chmnber & Work Room 6,250 10,000 City Hall
City Recorder Storage 3,250 4,800 C/ty Hall
Human Resources & Risk Services 9,450 13,000 City Hall
Financial Services 14,480 17,500 LibraD~ 4th Floor
Information Services 16,700 20,000 LibraD7 4th Floor
Rcprographics/Mail Services 5,092 6,100 Parcade Building
Municipal Court 13,000 24,000 City Hall
Public Works Administration 4,640 6,600 858 Pearl St.
Public Works Engineering 13,590 19,000 858 Pearl St.
Public Works Engineering 19,275 22,000 Eugene Hotel
Public Works Engineering 4,913 6,000 Central Bldg
Plmming & Development (incl. PIC) 33,703 46,000 Atrium Bldg
Consolidation Factor (10%) (20,800)
Total City Hall Building 152,043 187,200
Police Services Building
Office of the ChieffOperations Support 5,363 City Hall
Patrol Division 14,492 City Hall
Investigations Division 23,071 City Hall/Roosevelt
Special Operations Division 871 City Hall
Technical Services Division - Public 6,323 City Hall
Rcception
Department Support Facilities 9,928 City Hall
Department Conference Meeting Rooms 5,676 City Hall
Ancillaiy Facilities 4,975 City Hall
Circulation & Support Spaces, Appmx 33% 22,264
Total Police Services Building 60,000 92,963
Total City of Eugene ~o43 ~8o~63
Civic Visioning Committee - Report and Recommendations June 2004 Page
EWE~
Dowmown Services 10,000 10,000 EWEB Headquarters
Total EWEB 10,001) 10~000
Nonprofit & Public Service Groups
Victims Assistance Various
Community Service
Tourist Inibrmation
See Note 2
Total Nonprofit & Public Service 30,000 30,000 Allowance
Lane County
Public Safety 28,000 66,000 County Courthouse
Future Intake Centcr 0 40;500 None
Public Health 49,000 45,000 Annex, PSB, Leased
Parole & Probation/ADO 9,500 26,100 State Office Building
Veterans Serif ices 1,275 1,275 State Office Building
RIS System 15,000 15;000 PSB
Joint Use Da5,' Care Center, sharcd with Bus Barn
Fed,
Total Lane County 102~775 181~775
Civic Visioning Committee - Report and Recommendations June 2004 Page A-2
Lane Council of Governments
Senior & Disabled Services Division 0 0 Schaefcr's Build-
(S&DS) lng
22,000 22,000 Wells Fargo Bank
Total LCOG 22,000 22,000
Eugene School District 4J
Administrative Functions 10,000 10,000 Monroe St.
Instruction & Special Education Pro- 13,000 13,000 Monroe St.
grams
Meeting Space 5,400 5,400 Monroe St.
Storefrom School Not in Civic
Center
Total School District 4J 28,400 28,400
State of Oregon
Computer Center 60,000 60,000
(Possible location with PIS)
Total State of Oregon 60,000 60,000
Civic visioning Committee - Report and Recommendations June 2004 Page A-3
Office 33~531 33,531 Chad Drive, Leased
Storage~ Note 3 Chad Drive~ Leased
Paint & Flammable Storage~ Note 3 Chad Drive~ Leased
Wash Rack~ Note 3 Chad Drive, Leased
Ware yard~ Note 3 Chad Drive~ Leased
Total Federal Government 33,531 33~531 See note 2
Notes:
1. Space for year 2004 in Eugene City Hall is the area available in existing buildings. This generally rep-
resents less space than is needed.
2. Space needs are an esthnate that allows for a variety of partnerships with non-profit service agencies.
3. Presumed location on industrial land outside downtown.
Civic Visioning Committee - Report and Recommendations June 2004 Page A-4
Sources of i:unds
General Obligation Bonds: The City could ask cost for downtown City office l'acilities. The
voters to approve a property tax levy to repay annual charge is deposited into the City's Facility
general obligation bonds. Under Measure 50, a Reseiwe.
bond measure would be subject to double-majority
requirements, which includes an exception if the Net Freed-L~ Lease Payments: If sections of
bond election is held at a November general elec- Public Works that are located in private lease
fion in an even numbered yeah GO Bond proceeds space are moved into City-owned space, the
cannot be used for furnishings and equipment, annual amount that is paid in lease payments (net
of the operations and maintenance costs on the
Other [lorrowit[g ]kIethodg: If the City had a new space) could be re-directed towards debt ser-
dedicated revenue stream to put towards this vice payments on bonds issued for the new space.
project, other borrowing methods could be used.
Attachment C includes a summary of the alternate Rate Increases for Services Housed in City
borrowing methods that might be available for a Hall: Those services that are rate-based, such as
large construction project, stormwater, wastewater, and so on, could increase
their rates to contribute fnnds towards annual debt
Capital Lev3,: The City could ask voters to service payments on bonds issued to construct a
approve a capital levy of up to 10 years to pay for iproportionate area in the new City Hall.
the costs of capital construction. The levy would
exacerbate Measure 5 compression in the General Se~,ice Reprioritization in the General Fund:
Government category of taxes and cause a loss Services in the general fund could be reprioritized
of taxes levied fbr the library and youth/schools to dedicate a portion of the resources towards
programs. In addition, the funding would come annual debt service payments on a civic center or
in over time, rather than up front when capital police facility. This will probably need to be done
construction is occm-ring. For those reasons, this in order to pay for higher operating and mainte-
option seems undesirable, nance costs on the facilities too.
Facility Reserve: The City has been saving CDBG Non-Profit Grants: CDBG funds could
money for several years towards construction of a be used for leasehold improvements on any space
new civic center, including a police facility. The built into the project for the provision of social ser-
current balance in the Facility Reserve is approxi- vices by non-profit entities. The amount available
mately $6million. would be fairly small, and would include some
significant restrictions on the use of funds.
Capitalization Charge for Downtown City
Offices: General City. office space in the down- Homeland Security Grants: There may be funds
town area pays a capitalization charge that's available for public safety puqooses from ttome-
meant to help offset a portion of the replacement land Security grants.
Civic visioning Committee - Report and Recommendations June 2004 Page
Sale of Tax Credits: There are tax credit pro- such as installing fiber to the site, purchasing and
grams that might be available for this project. One installing telecommunications equipment, incor-
option is an energy tax credit program, which the porafing a back-up 911 center, or undergrounding
City is currently experimenting ~vith on Fire Sta- existing utilities.
tion #1.
Donations: The City could solicit donations
Urban Renewal Funds: If a project is located directly, or any partner social service agencies
within the boundaries of either urban renewal could solicit donations to help pay for a share of
district, it is possible that a portion of the project their space in the new Facility.
cost could be paid f¥om tax increment frauds. The
Riverfi'ont District plan mnendments that would County Road Fund: If there are any significant
allow funds to be used for this project are cm'- road projects included within the Civic Center
rently in the process of being challenged by a plan, the City could apply for County Road Fund
voter referendum. The City Council would have money.
to approve urbm~ renewal plan amendments fbr the
Downtown District in order to use tax increment Parks & Open Spaces Bond Proceeds: The Parks
funds for any project other than the library in that & Open Spaces Bonds approved by voters in 1998
district, can be used to purchase parkland and build parks.
Although most of the money has already been
Asset Sales: One option might be to consolidate programmed for specific projects, there might be
as much City office space as possible. In that case, some funding available to help with development
other City-owned facilities might be available for of a new park block, for instance.
sale, such as 858 Pearl Street or the Atrium. If a
non-City owned site is chosen for any facility, the ~,stems Development Cha~es: A small amount
existing City Hall and/or the parking lot across of SDCs for park projects might be able to be used
the street might be available for sale. It should for development of additional park blocks. The
be pointed out, however, that asset sales typically transportation projects envisioned lbr around the
take several years to accomplish, and they fre- civic center would most likely not qualify for SDC
quently do not generate the level of proceeds that funding.
have been estimated; therefore, it is difficult to
guarantee this funding source fbr projects unless Other Miscellaneous Funds: The City will con-
the sale has occulTed and proceeds tire already' in tinue to look for opportunities to set fm~ds aside
the City's coffers, for this project, including any one-time dollars that
are identified over the next fe~v years.
Telecommunications Tax Funds: The City's tele-
COlnmunications tax could be used to pay for new Other Government Agency Funds: If other
City technology related projects and purchases, govenm~ent agencies co-locate at the civic center,
or want to share facilities, they would bring their Day Care Center: It might be possible to include
o~vn funding som'ces to the project. This could a day care center for City employees and others
include bringing land owned by other agencies to who work in the neighborhood.
the project.
Parking Structure: The civic center development
Uses of l:unds will result in increased parking demand in thc
Police Building: The building area for a police downtown area. Additional private development
headquarters was programmed at approximately and construction of the Federal Courthouse will
93,000 square feet and the initial project cost esti- also increase demand for parking in the downtown
mate was about $30 million. The building could area.
also include lease space for social service agen-
cies, a day care cemer, a back-up 911 center, and Street and Sidewalk Improvements: The Down-
co-location or joint use opportunities with other town Plan envisions a civic st~'eet that has a more
agencies. The overall project could include other developed presence than the currem 8th Avenue.
elements, such as street arid sidewalk improve- The street improvements could include wider tral:
merits, additional park space and a parking struc- tic lanes, bike lanes, additional trees and ameni-
ture. Some of these options are described below ties, and wider sidewalks.
and none of them are included in the initial cost
estimate. Park Blocks Improvements: The project might
include relocation of parking l¥om the County's
City Hall: The estimated building area for a new butterfly parking garage to another area, arid rede-
City Hall is approximately 280,000 square feet. velopment of a portion of that block into addi-
The cost has not been updated for several years tional park area. The increased park blocks could
and would be affected by thc level of consolidation be used to expand the area available for Saturday
that's achieved in the facility. This facility could Market.
also provide potential oppotlunities for co-location
or joint use with other government or non-profit Land Purchase: If the facilities are located on
agencies, as well as additional green or open space non-City owned property, the budget will need to
Ibr citizens to enjoy, include the cost of pm'chasing land.
Social Service ~tgency Lease Space: The City Demolition/Site Prep/7?elocation Costs: Depend-
could build subsidized lease space for certain key ing on the proper~y chosen for the civic center or
social service agencies that have a high degree of police building, there could be demolition costs,
contact and interaction with the police. This could environmental remediation, or other site prepara-
result in operating efficiencies for both the City tion costs. There might also be a cost for relocat-
police and thc County Sheriff's office, lng an existing business or t~cility.
Civic visioning Committee - Report and Recommendations June 2oo4 Page B-3
Back-up 911 Center: The City has been looking such things as bond offcring documents, credit
for opportunities to locate a back-up 911 center rating update, bond counsel and financial advisor
that could serve in the event that the 2nd and fees, and so on.
Chambers primary location is unavailable fbi' any
reason. Other Government Agency Space: Other govern-
ment agencies might be interested in an opportu-
Telecommunications/Technology Projects and nit3' to co-locate at the civic center site or to build
Equipment: New City technology related projects a joint use facility.
and purchases could be funded fi'om the City's
telecommunications ice funds.
Green Building Issues: The project could include
additional green building features designed to
reduce environmental impacts and decrease opera-
tions and maintenance costs in the futm'e. It could
also include certification under the US Green
Building Council's "LEED' program. Added
energy savings features could qualify for energy
tax credits.
Other Furnishings, Fixtures & Equipment:
Computers, furniture, and other kinds of furnish-
ings, fixtures and equipment that are not perma-
nently attached to the facility cannot be funded
with General Obligation bonds.
Transition Costs: During construction, it might
be necessary, to relocate some functions from their
existing locations into rental space, which would
cost more than thc operations and maintenance
costs now being paid for occupying City Hall.
There will also be costs to move functions fi'om
the old space into a new building.
Bond Issuance Costs: If the facility is funded in
part with bond proceeds, a cost factor for bond
issuance costs must be included. This will cover
Civic Visioning Committee - Report and Recommendations June 2004 Pa§e g-4