Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes - 06/16/04 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall June 16, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Gary Pap& His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Recommendations on a Eugene Civic Center Vision Mayor Torrey thanked the members of the Civic Facilities Visioning Committee for their service on the committee. City Manager Dennis Taylor said it was his pleasure to formally present the vision adopted by unanimous consent of the Civic Facilities Visioning Committee. He related that what would be presented was the vision that the committee came up with for recommendation as well as the policies that inform the committee members. He asked Eric Gunderson from WBGS Architecture and Planning, PC, to present the report. Mr. Gunderson reported that the committee had done a great deal of work in the four months it had met, including review of the results of the design charette, identification of partnerships that could be formed in the Civic Center, estimation of space needs of all of the partners represented on the committee, and a review of alternative locations. The committee developed a set of major policy principles to guide it and the principles formed the basis of the adopted recommendation to the council. He said the members prepared a conceptual drawing to illustrate how those principles might be applied downtown. He stated that the committee also looked at how the buildings could be sequenced and looked at financing options for how the work could be accomplished. Mr. Gunderson summarized the policy principles, which sought to provide better government services and have a major impact to the downtown area, and highlighted them. He discussed the consolidation of government functions. He noted that government facilities were scattered in a wide variety of buildings over a multitude of sites. He underscored that consolidation was a key guiding principle as committee members wished to increase efficiency and service and to be able to provide citizens %ne-stop shopping." Mr. Gunderson noted that the designation of 8th Avenue as a ~Great Street" was a key goal of the Downtown Plan. He pointed out, on the illustration in Attachment B: Mayor's Civic Facilities Visioning Committee; MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 16, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Report and Recommendations, the suggested redevelopment of 8th Avenue with street trees, repaving, possible widening, as the connector between the downtown and the courthouse district. Continuing, Mr. Gunderson related that the enhancement of public open spaces had been a consistent feature of many of the ideas that had arisen from the design charette. He said the park block area would be connected via 8th Avenue to the courthouse area, dubbed "Cannery Square." Mr. Gunderson reported that the committee had considered the development of partnerships between entities such as the Eugene Police Department (EPD) and the Lane County Sheriff's Office (LCSO). The suggestion had been made that the Shedd Auditorium, run by the Oregon Festival of American Music (OFAM) could be approached to partner in the development of an adjacent parking garage. Mr. Gunderson gave a brief overview of the latter three principles, which included public safety services, the provision of adequate parking, and the utilization of cost-effective development approaches. Glen Svendsen, Division Manager for the Central Services Department Facilities Division, introduced the six members of the committee who were present. Mr. Taylor said it had been his honor to have served as chair of the committee and that he hoped to receive direction from the City Council on how to proceed. Ms. Nathanson arrived. Mayor Torrey called for council comments and questions. Mr. Kelly commented that there was a "lot to like" in the vision and he expressed appreciation for the hard work the committee had contributed. He approved of the collaboration and the collocation that was being considered as it indicated to citizens that the City sought to be more efficient. He thought a 20-year or 16- year horizon was too short and questioned whether, through the natural growth of the community and services, the space needs should be projected for a longer period. He acknowledged, however, that the council had before it policy principles and not a motion to endorse a specific strategy. Mr. Svendsen said the policy principles would be guiding the development of more specific plans further on. Mr. Kelly asked staff to affirm that the action sought was only approval of the policy principles. Mr. Svendsen responded that the policy principles were the basis for future plans. Mr. Kelly expressed dissatisfaction with this response. He felt the council needed to have a clear idea of whether the vote at the present work session would set strategies in motion. In response to another question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Svendsen stated that the 1 O-year time horizon resulted from the council's direction to staff to make the horizon shorter than 20 years. He added that, though projecting longer than 20 years was difficult, the entire project would more likely have a 50-year horizon. He noted that one concept of the project was to develop buildings that could be added on to. Referring to page 5, Ms. Taylor commented that the assumption was that only timing and financing were yet to be determined. She approved of the policy principles, though felt hesitant about collocation. She did not think that the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB), for instance, would want to collocate with the City as it already had its headquarters. She supported Option 2 because she wanted more public input prior to MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 16, 2004 Page 2 Work Session proceeding with any plans. She thought input from charette participants had not been adequately consid- ered. Mr. Meisner conveyed his appreciation for the committee and its members. He said that prior to collaborat- ing with other government entities he wished to ensure that the government functions that were in the Atrium Building and the Pearl Street Public Works building, among others, were consolidated into the new civic center. Mr. Meisner wished to find all means possible for the City to make a substantial down payment toward a civic center. He wanted to guarantee to the public that the City was paying for the project in the most efficient way possible and in a way that minimized the need for new public revenues to the greatest extent possible. He welcomed more public input, but thought it should be focused on specific points in order to facilitate effective commentary. Mr. Poling also thanked the committee for its work. He noted that the Oregon Department of Transporta- tion (ODOT) projected out 25 years and asked if there was a ~magic number" staff was looking for. Mr. Poling stated, in addressing the policy principles, that this was a good example of how the City could show efficiency in government. He agreed with Mr. Meisner that the City needed to house its own functions before partnering or collocating with other government entities, though he thought some consolidation could save the City money. He felt the civic center would be a tool to redevelop the entire downtown area. Mr. Poling interpreted Option 1 to indicate that the policy principles would guide planning. He called it a tool to be used for the next step. In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Svendsen stated that the language regarding parking intended that it be located in the vicinity of the civic center and not specifically in the building itself. Ms. Nathanson felt the criminal justice system did not work as a system. She said when she saw public safety services included in the building and that there were possibilities for partnerships, she felt it important to look at the possibility of a criminal justice or public safety services center in which there would be collaboration for provision of services. She thought some State services could be located at a shared facility. She did not think that between now and November 2004 there would be adequate time to explore collaboration between entities such as the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG), Springfield, and Lane County on such a consolidation of services. She thought short-term collaborations would work. Ms. Bettman also thanked the committee and the participants in the initial charette. She asked if the committee had an opportunity to view the tape of the City Council discussion of the civic center. Mr. Taylor replied that they had not done so. Ms. Bettman said her highest priority was to have a rebuilt City Hall and Police Station. She also agreed with Mr. Meisner that the City should do its best to minimize the need for public revenues. Ms. Bettman felt the action the council was about to take was very significant and should not be taken lightly. She liked the vision generally and liked the policies generally, but questioned the underlying assumptions of the first and fifth policy principles. She noted there had been disagreement among the council on whether or not to collocate. For instance, while she supported the inclusion of the EPD station, MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 16, 2004 Page 3 Work Session she was uncertain as to whether the LCSO should locate there. She commented that, should other government agencies, such as the LCSO, collocate in the new civic center, other buildings would be left vacant in the downtown area. She questioned whether that assumption had been substantiated with data. Mayor Torrey emphasized that the action would only approve of the policy principles. His intent, should the motion pass, was to ensure that staff knew that it did not have permission to move on anything prior to bringing it back to the City Council. He also noted that any funding would be subject to the public hearing processes. He felt no councilors had said the intent of this was %ad" but he had heard some councilors comment on pieces of it. He stressed that the question before the council was whether, in general, conceptually, did the council support the direction the vision had suggested the City should take. Mr. Kelly said he would like to see the potential expansion of the buildings diagrammed. He also expressed concern that the potential for residential development on 8th Avenue would be eliminated by this document. He liked the concentration of civic facilities, but felt some residential development would enhance the area. He suggested there be another policy principle that took this into consideration. Mr. Kelly felt the discussion on collocation could be premature, as it needed to be ~fleshed out." Ms. Taylor opined that the comments indicated more thinking on the subject was needed. She reiterated that more public comment was needed as well. Ms. Taylor supported the idea of a criminal justice center, but felt it may be too soon to approach the idea on a ballot measure. Ms. Nathanson commented that the space should primarily be for the public and, therefore, it should not be interpreted that consolidation of City services should not include such things as records storage to the exclusion of more necessary public services. Ms. Nathanson disagreed that 8th Avenue could be a ~dead" street. She did feel that measures should be taken to orient buildings so that, when closed, the downtown blocks on the street did not feel intimidating and people felt free to walk between the downtown area and the river after dark. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Taylor stated that a proposal would be brought before the council in July to address the community safety provisions with a financing plan that could include components that improved the parks or components of the ~Great Street." He welcomed council input for this in the July work session. Mr. Svendsen added that several financing options would be brought before the council. Mayor Torrey called for a second round of comments. Ms. Bettman liked the vision, but thought it would not pass at the ballot box. She felt this would lose ground. She opined that it had not been orchestrated in such a way that would enable a win. She recom- mended that the City determine whether or not it would consolidate with Lane County, because this made a big difference in the size of the building, what it looked like, and what it would cost. She noted the County had not had good luck with bond measures. She suggested that telecommunications tax fund could be dedicated to the two facilities so that the money went toward the vision. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 16, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to accept the report and hold a public hearing prior to adopting the policy principles. Mayor Torrey suggested the public hearing be scheduled for July 12. Ms. Taylor conveyed her support for the motion. Mr. Kelly liked the siting along 8th Avenue and thought the amount and location of parking was appropriate, the restoration of the northwest Park Block, and he hoped that Farmer's Market people would be at the table to discuss what they though should happen. Ms. Nathanson supported the motion. She asked that the public hearing be more specific. She suggested collaboration and collocation should be part of the hearing topic. Mayor Torrey recommended giving specific elements of the vision to the public and asking citizens to comment on them. Ms. Nathanson said the public hearing would be more valuable if it asked the public what the civic center meant to them, whether they wanted to consolidate, and how they felt the vision for 8th Avenue should proceed. Mr. Meisner opposed the motion. He felt it was narrowing the focus too much and that the question that needed to be asked whether they, over the course of the next 20 years, wanted to plan for a civic center. He thought they should be asked %ig questions," such as whether they wanted to share quarters with other jurisdictions. Ms. Solomon opined that the motion in the packet would have been completely appropriate. However, she indicated she would support the motion on the table. Mr. Poling supported the motion. Ms. Taylor hoped charette participants would participate in the public hearing. Mr. Kelly asked if a display ad for the public hearing with bulleted questions for consideration could be placed in The Register-Guard. Ms. Solomon pointed out that there had been a public process to date which included input from citizen committee members and the design charette. She felt this was a redundant action that said to the public ~we did not hear what we wanted to hear." Ms. Nathanson commented that often people do not become involved until they feel encroached upon. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 16, 2004 Page 5 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: Hospital Property Update Mr. Taylor called attention to the letter from the Chief Executive Officer of McKenzie-Willamette Hospital indicating the hospital's preference for the EWEB site. He asked Planning and Development Department Director Tom Coyle to speak on the item. Mr. Coyle reported that representatives of EWEB, McKenzie-Willamette Hospital, and the City of Eugene had met on an ongoing basis to address many of the issues associated with the development opportunity on the EWEB site. He noted the issues, some of which relate to development issues, zoning and land use issues, and transportation issues. He said three critical components for the development opportunity had emerged. One of these was time, as the hospital felt a strong need to expedite relocation. Another issue was cost, predominantly a buyer and seller issue. He related that the third element was the issue of access as it was critical to the function of the hospital. He stated that the proposal for the access had been the extension of Patterson Street with an underpass to the EWEB property and the extension of Agate Street north of the Riverfront Research Park accessing from the south. The third access point, from 4th or 5th avenues did not need improvement. Mr. Coyle stated that subsequent to City Council direction on the access proposal, staff would develop a cost estimate and a budgeting plan for the review of the council. He added that the City would speak to its partners on shared costs. For the present meeting, he said access would be the primary issue. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the work that the City staff and staff-members from EWEB and McKenzie-Willamette Hospital had done. He did not think the recommended motion indicated that the City was thinking in terms of shared cost. He felt it said the City would pay for it. Mr. Taylor cited a number of funding mechanisms such as opportunities for State and federal grants, County Road Funds, Stormwater User Fees, and the Urban Renewal District, among others. He explained that, should the City Council approve the suggested motion, staff would return with strategies for financing the transportation facilities for council consideration. City Attorney Glenn Klein suggested adding to the end of the motion the following: ~... assuming that a financing plan is prepared by staff and brought back before the council for approval." Mr. Kelly shared his remaining concern, that of the precise routing from Agate Street to the hospital site. He said he would be more comfortable looking at a more recent map for this, and looking at alternative routings. Mr. Taylor assured him that the most recent map of the area would be used by the designing engineers. Ms. Bettman averred that more options should have been brought before the council. She said the Senate of the University of Oregon was on record as being unanimously opposed to the alignment of Avenue A. She urged the council, given that this could be an issue and that timing was important, to consider another overpass closer to the other one. She opined the option before the council guaranteed opposition and suggested the language of the motion provide more flexibility. Ms. Nathanson expressed her willingness to support moving forward on location of a hospital in the downtown area of Eugene. Noting that the hospital was not the only entity investing in the area, she asked MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 16, 2004 Page 6 Work Session which option for access was helpful or not helpful on the ability of the other properties to be redeveloped. Mr. Coyle responded that looped access to the EWEB property would assist in opening access to the downtown property. He said the improvement would %ure" the access problems created by the railroad tracks. Ms. Nathanson commented that she was always interested in opportunities to achieve multiple objectives. Ms. Taylor was concerned about the expense to taxpayers. She also opposed any further degradation of the river front. She reiterated her unhappiness with work done to the bike path by the Riverfront Research Park and the underpass that had been built there. Mr. Meisner asked to what degree transportation improvements for the hospital would undo transportation improvements to the courthouse area. He commented that he had heard some willingness on the part of the council to do so. Mark Schoening, City Engineer, stated that the improvements aligned with the two projects would be complementary. He said the courthouse improvements would change a little in the Patterson Street underpass. Mayor Torrey hoped the motion would include the two streets the hospital had asked for as well as an alternative for the Agate Street access if that would help the City Council toward affirming the improve- ments. He stressed that he did not want the City Council to risk its top policy objective of the year, that of siting a hospital, and that he did not want the hospital to relocate in Glenwood or Springfield. He was anxious to give staff the opportunity to continue the negotiations and anxious to hear how McKenzie- Willamette/Triad Hospital responded. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to authorize the City Man- ager to inform McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center that the City is will- ing to undertake construction of two transportation projects if Triad con- structs at the EWEB site a hospital with a value not less than $85 million. The exact new route from Agate Street to provide access to the property from the east will be determined through further discussions between the City, Triad, and the University of Oregon and brought back to the City Council for approval and a financing plan will be prepared and brought back to the City Council for approval. Mr. Kelly voiced his support for the motion. He recognized that the access would likely need a component north of the railroad tracks. He commented that there was no perfect solution when siting a large redevel- opment project in the middle of a City. Ms. Bettman clarified that the motion assumed agreement on the Patterson Street overpass. She advocated for expeditious planning for the financial component. Ms. Nathanson expressed concern that the motion did not fully encapsulate the proposed access improve- ments. Mr. Klein said the council could indicate its support for the Patterson Street overpass with nods of the head, adding that the motion meant to inform the hospital of the intent of the City and did not specifically initiate any projects. The councilors indicated their agreement that the Patterson Street overpass be included in the motion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 16, 2004 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Nathanson thought there should be collaboration between the University of Oregon and the City, as the University would benefit from this development as well. Mr. Klein said a timeline would be different depending on whether the route through the Riverfront Research Park was altered, as such a change would require a further land use process. He stated that staff would present two timelines. The motion carried unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 16, 2004 Page 8 Work Session