Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 09/30/09 Work Session M I N U T E S City Council McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon September 30, 2009 Noon PRESENT: Alan Zelenka, Mike Clark, Betty Taylor, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, George Brown. ABSENT: Chris Pryor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the Work Session of the Eugene City Council. She reviewed and revised the order of the agenda. A. WORK SESSION: West Eugene EmX Extension Update City Manager Jon Ruiz stated that City staff had spent much time with Lane Transit District (LTD) staff working on this key project. He stressed that staff was committed to continue working with LTD as the project moved forward. LTD Board President, Mike Eyster, said the region had made a long-term commitment to quality by reducing greenhouse gases and congestion, and ensuring that all residents had access to public transporta- tion. He stated that part of this commitment had been “crystallized” through the Transportation Plan, which had committed the region to a 62-mile build-out of a transportation spine. He recalled the City Council th motion, made in October, 2006, that asked LTD to make the West 11 Avenue area moving west of downtown the next route for the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project. The LTD Board had endorsed the City Council action and had initiated the studies that were needed to consider that area for the next route for EmX. He explained that the presentation sought to outline the public engagement process that had been completed to date, noting that it had been “considerable,” and to seek direction on the public engagement for the 60-day public comment period for the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and to provide direction on the Joint Locally Preferred Alternative Committee process. LTD Director of Planning and Development, Tom Schwetz, gave a Powerpoint presentation on the West Eugene EmX Extension Project, hard copies of which were provided to everyone present. He explained that there had been an update in the schedule; the draft EIS would be delayed approximately five months and would not be completed in January. He said the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) had requested more data to support the Travel Demand Forecasting model. He related that they had met with FTA representa- tives on September 25, and they had given the sign-off that the model was ready to use. He stated that the FTA had also requested an extended draft EIS review time – four weeks instead of two. He projected that the EIS would be released in mid-July. Mr. Schwetz touched on the challenges they had faced with public engagement, which included the difficulties inherent in trying to communicate the comprehensive nature of the environmental analysis and the struggle the general public had in understanding complex federal requirements. MINUTES—City Council Work Session September 30, 2009 Page 1 Mr. Eyster observed that though LTD undertook “heavy duty” public engagement, the process was so long that the public sometimes did not remember what had happened before. He said it was challenging to keep the public engaged over time. Mr. Schwetz highlighted the Range of Environmental Disciplines to be Addressed in West Eugene EmX Extension Draft EIS. He noted that the list was somewhat standard. th Mr. Schwetz stated that the option that would have traversed 8 Avenue had been taken off the table as a result of public input. He stressed that they were trying to avoid and minimize impacts of the project. He showed five slides with lists of the different public outreach events and opportunities LTD had engaged in. He noted that the design at this point was eight to ten percent complete. He underscored that they went through this process to get to that point so that they could have what the National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) experts referred to as the footprint of the project. Mr. Schwetz stated that they had been engaging the Title VI communities and had been successful in doing so. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, he explained that Title VI was related to race and poverty. LTD Board member, Greg Evans, added that it had been part of the Civil Rights Act. Mr. Schwetz highlighted the Expanded WEE Corridor Committee. Mr. Eyster added that they welcomed any recommendations the councilors might have of constituents who had an interest in participating. He underscored LTD’s desire to ensure it was an inclusive process. Mr. Schwetz reviewed the Quick Response Project, noting that they were being aided by design consultants from Cameron McCarthy Gilbert & Shiebe Landscape Architects. He showed a slide of the LPA Selection Process, which outlined the draft-decision making process for the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). He said LTD’s preference would be to hold a joint public hearing with the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) and the Eugene City Council in the winter of 2010. He related that LTD was proposing to form a Joint LPA Committee (JLPAC) that would include two to three members of each of the decision-making bodies, the council, MPC, and LTD Board, and would meet once or twice before deliberating the recom- mendation for the purpose of refining it. Mayor Piercy thanked them for the presentation. She remarked that she did not think the system could “come together fast enough.” She believed that every delay added to the challenges they faced. She expressed appreciation for the breadth of the outreach they had done. She felt it had been responsive to the community’s concerns. Ms. Taylor asked if public input would make a difference in the design, given that it was currently eight to ten percent complete. Mr. Schwetz said the input had made a difference in getting to this point. He explained that once the footprint was in place, they would conduct analysis on the eight to ten percent design, and once the LPA had been selected they would invest resources in furthering the design. He stated that public comment could make a difference at that point. Mr. Eyster related that as recently as one month earlier, LTD had changed the location of one of the stops on the new Gateway EmX line based on input from Springfield residents and business owners. In response to a question from Mr. Brown, Mr. Schwetz explained that transit mode split was a term used when the TransPlan had been put together to talk about the market share of transit. Mr. Brown asked if there was a way to verify that transit use had increased. Mr. Schwetz replied that they MINUTES—City Council Work Session September 30, 2009 Page 2 measured ridership with automatic passenger counts and surveys. He explained that the transit demand forecasting model utilized several pieces of software. Mr. Brown noted that he had seen the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City and LTD for the Franklin Boulevard project and wondered if there was one for this project. Mr. Schwetz responded that the IGA had been put into place once the construction had been initiated. He was certain that LTD and the City would enter into another IGA when construction began on the new project. Mr. Brown advised them to do more outreach to stakeholders, especially in the affected area. He suggested that councilors representing affected wards make contact with the area business owners. Mr. Eyster noted that Mr. Pryor had done just that. Mr. Poling asked how the delay would affect the funding. Mr. Schwetz replied that they had the ability to submit a small starts application for funding in January. Mr. Poling did not think people understood how funding from the FTA occurred. He asked if Mr. Schwetz could provide a summary explanation of the process. He also suggested that the JLPAC members not be those who overlapped, such as a councilor who was already a member of the MPC. He wanted to ensure that there were “many sets of eyes” on the LPA. He added that he had been impressed by the amount of outreach in which LTD had engaged. Mr. Zelenka commented that he hoped that LTD and the council could have more joint meetings. He said it was important to keep moving forward. He averred that this was as much about the service as it was about the future. He predicted that the system would eventually become Eugene’s light rail and this was a good way to prepare for this future. He felt it was a good idea to include the Metropolitan Policy Organization Citizen Advisory Committee (MPOCAC) in the public input process. Regarding the JLPAC, he said all three bodies would ultimately vote on the LPA and questioned the need to form a “subset” of the decision makers. Mr. Schwetz stated that the concept behind the JLPAC was to provide an opportunity to work through what they had heard to date and to help summarize it for all three of the bodies. Mr. Zelenka asked them to speak about the impact on the regular service the funding for the project might have. Mr. Eyster responded that they were mostly unrelated, though it seemed related in the eyes of the public. He said cuts would be inevitable and revenues were dropping with the economy, but the funding for the EmX was not related to it except for a “tiny little bit.” He felt they were constantly challenged to weigh “the future against the now.” He underscored that they should not dare to give up on the future to address the present. He stated that as the EmX was built out the whole system would begin to look very different. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Eyster stated that currently the local contribution to the EmX project amounted to seven percent of the cost. He added that LTD hoped to find ways to gain 100 percent funding for the project. Ms. Ortiz felt that LTD had done a good job in its public outreach efforts but commented that she did not know if it was “ever enough for our community.” She asked if they were modeling the public outreach work on the proposed West Eugene route on the work they had done on a Coburg Road route. Mr. Schwetz replied that they were trying to gain the breadth of representation that the Coburg Road process had included. He reiterated that they welcomed suggestions for additional stakeholders to include. MINUTES—City Council Work Session September 30, 2009 Page 3 Ms. Ortiz had attended several of the public forums in the beginning and thought they were well done. She thth said the Whiteaker Neighborhood supported the West Eugene route if it would traverse 6 and 7 Avenues and had indicated that they thought it would be an asset. She noted that the Residents for Responsible Rapid Transit (3RT) had been a very vocal group and asked if members could play a role in the outreach process. Mr. Schwetz responded that a 3RT member, Ilona Koleszar, served on the West Eugene EmX Extension Corridor Committee and that LTD staff had been to 3RT meetings. Mr. Clark thanked them for the presentation. He approved of what they had planned going forward. He noted that President Obama’s administration had put off the Federal Transportation Package for at least one more year. He asked if they would foresee a time that LTD might look for more support, should the economy not improve. Stefano Viggiano, Assistant General Manager for LTD, confirmed that the Federal Transportation Bill had expired that day. He offered his best guess for when they would see a new bill, was in approximately 18 months. He related that everything they had heard indicated that transportation was an emphasis area for the federal government, especially having to do with transit. He believed the long-term prognosis for transit funding was positive. He said without federal funding, it would be very unlikely they could move forward with the project. Mr. Eyster said when LTD representatives had participated in the United Front lobbying trip to Washington, D.C. the administration had been very interested in the EmX. He believed that what they were doing was very cutting edge in the country. He felt that in some ways it was being used as an example to illustrate to other communities a way to do transit transportation in a community of this size. Ms. Solomon also thanked LTD for the presentation. She asked if the Quick Response Project was intended to run concurrently with the preparation of the DEIS or if it was required by the DEIS. She asked for an example of what it was. Mr. Schwetz responded that the project was supplemental and not a requirement of the NEPA process. He related that he had approached the Department of Land Conservation and Develop- ment (DLCD) and asked them if there were some resources that could be made available to help them to work through issues with neighborhoods and businesses. He said the DLCD had introduced them to the Quick Response Project as a resource available to work through issues. Mayor Piercy thought the advertising space on the EmX buses could be one way to communicate to the public. She reminded everyone of the struggle the City of Portland went through when they were trying to build and establish the light rail lines. She pointed out that now the community would “fight over where the next line would be.” She stressed that light rail had brought a real economic benefit and had not taken anything away from the neighborhoods. She agreed that they needed to work both for the present and the future. She averred that Eugene was in leadership on the development of an EmX system. She also agreed that they should not overlap in the membership of the JLPAC. She shared Ms. Ortiz’s feeling that they probably could not do enough public outreach. Mr. Poling expressed concern, given that development of the line would not begin for another two years, th regarding all of the development and redevelopment that was occurring on West 11 Avenue. He said there were a lot of right-of-way concerns and strongly suggested that they work to combine the building codes with the project. Mayor Piercy concurred. She suggested that they consider instituting a “pause” in development that went into the right-of-way. Rob Inerfeld, Transportation Manager for the Public Works Department, stated that they were starting to MINUTES—City Council Work Session September 30, 2009 Page 4 take a closer look at this issue and had planned a meeting to consider whether the community really wanted development to be built out to the curb. Mayor Piercy thanked the members of the LTD Board for attending. B. WORK SESSION: Approval of Lease with Option to Purchase 858 Pearl Street for Network Charter School Executive Director of the Central Services Department, Kristie Hammitt, recalled that staff had brought a proposal to declare the building located at 858 Pearl Street surplus and to allow it to be sold to the council for approval during the previous spring. She reported that the City had placed the building on the market three months earlier and, to date, had received two offers that were well below the asking price. She said since then the City had been approached by the Network Charter School with a proposal for a lease/ purchase option, a two-year agreement that would provide $4,000 in rent plus 50 percent of any rental revenue they would receive from surplus office space in the building and an offer to purchase the building at the end of two years for $1.5 million. She said staff had asked that the school give an indication of whether it did intend to purchase the building after 18 months of occupancy. She stated that the lease to the school was as is. She related that the City had disclosed all of the information about the building and the school had agreed to be responsible for the costs associated with that. Mr. Ruiz noted that the business neighbors of the building had expressed support for the school’s tenancy in the building, as had the downtown police officers. Mr. Clark recalled that during the Budget Committee proceedings they had discussed surplus property. He had put a motion on the table to use any monies that came from surplus property toward additional police officers. He said he was still looking for when the council would have that discussion about what they would do with surplus properties to afford additional police officers. He hoped they would have the discussion before the end of the year. Mr. Ruiz said the money from the lease would have to be appropriated by the council. Ms. Hammitt stated that the first Budget Committee was scheduled for November, 2009. Mr. Clark responded that he had hoped that the council would address this in the current budget year and not Fiscal Year (FY) 2010. Mr. Zelenka agreed that the council needed to have a discussion about a building sale, but he thought they should wait until there was one that had a buyer. He believed that this lease proposal would not constitute a sale. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Ruiz stated that the City was not currently in negotiation for any property sales. Mr. Brown thought it was a great project and a great reuse of the building. He asked if the list of comparables that had been used in the appraisal was available. Ms. Hammitt responded that she would find out and provide it for him. Mr. Brown asked if the building deficiencies that had been discussed included that it was not built to current seismic standards. Ms. Hammitt was not certain. MINUTES—City Council Work Session September 30, 2009 Page 5 Mr. Brown understood the building was “well below” the current life-safety standard. He wondered if the City would have liability should the City experience an earthquake. City Attorney Glenn Klein replied that Mike Penwell, Facilities Division Manager, had information on this. He said the lease had not been drafted, but it would provide that the building was being leased as is and the City would not be held liable. Mr. Brown asked if a school could legally move into a building that was not built to the life-safety standard. Mr. Klein replied that he did not know. He understood that the school intended to make a number of changes to the building so that it could be used for school purposes. Mr. Penwell stated that the school was working with the Permit Information Center to ensure they met all of the requirements. He noted that the building on Pearl Street was better than the one the school was currently housed in. He clarified that the building was not unsafe. He said it was at least as good as much of the downtown building stock, adding that the City had done much to the building including seismic work since the report that Mr. Brown had read had been issued. He explained that seismic work had been done to the roof and to the connections of all of the walls. He noted that wood frame buildings tended to perform better in an earthquake. Mr. Brown said the report he referred to had given the building a seismic rating of 0.7. He asked if staff knew what the current seismic rating was. Mr. Penwell replied that the survey he referred to had been a “windshield survey” and not an actual analysis of the building. He said it was an analysis based on the age of the building and the building type; a detailed seismic analysis of the building in its current state had not been conducted. Mr. Brown commented that those were the figures that had been used to base the decision to move the police facility to the Country Club Road site. Mr. Penwell responded that the City Hall building had undergone detailed seismic analyses done on the actual building structure and a very detailed cost analysis. Mr. Brown reiterated that his concern was in regard to safety, but he did not intend to hold up the project. Ms. Ortiz noted that the school system had “a lot of old buildings” and she did not know their seismic capabilities either. She supported the project and was glad to see it moving ahead. She thought it was a good thing to keep students downtown, especially given that Lane Community College was considering a larger presence in the downtown area. Ms. Taylor believed that the groups the school was considering subleasing to would be moving from one building in the downtown area to another and this was “in a way” a disadvantage. She believed the downtown area needed the other buildings to be occupied as well. Ms. Hammitt responded that the details of the subleasing arrangements were not yet known. Ms. Taylor wondered why the proposal included that only 50 percent of the sublease payments would be conveyed to the City. She asked why the City would not receive a greater percentage. Real Property and Lease Manager, Emmy Jenson, replied that the school wanted to keep 50 percent of the money to help manage the building, including custodial maintenance and regular maintenance. Mayor Piercy understood that the school needed to vacate its current location. She said it was not that the school was being shifted from one place to another; it was that its former location was no longer available. She hoped they could consider this to be an opportunity to work with the school and engage the students there regarding downtown public safety. MINUTES—City Council Work Session September 30, 2009 Page 6 Ms. Hammitt commented that staff had discussed the expectations that the City had in regard to the students’ behavior with school director Mary Leighton. She added that she shared staff’s excitement in seeing the school’s proposal move forward. Mr. Clark agreed with the Mayor. He reiterated that the public safety issues downtown were not because of the youth there. He believed that the behavioral issues associated with some of the young people were learning opportunities and not public safety problems. He reviewed the Budget Committee motion he had cited earlier, noting that it had passed 13:1 and that it had directed the City Manager and staff to investigate the possibility of sales of surplus property and the use of proceeds to fund officers. He said other options included in the motion had included using the Eugene Water & Electric Board Contribution in Lieu of Tax (CILT) money and others, but the point had been to fund additional officers to keep in line with the public safety action plan to add them. In response to a question from Mr. Brown, Mr. Penwell said copies of the detailed studies made on the City Hall building had been provided to the councilors. Mr. Brown requested information regarding the work that had been done on the 858 Pearl Street building. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the Network Charter School for a two-year lease with an option to purchase the building at 858 Pearl Street, consistent with the terms expressed in the agenda item summary. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mayor Piercy adjourned the Council Work Session at 1:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz, City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—City Council Work Session September 30, 2009 Page 7