Courthouse District CONCEPT PLAN Final Report Approved by the Eugene City Council July 31, 2002 PROJECT STAFF City of Eugene Planning and Development Tom Coyle Jan Childs Mike Sullivan Nan Laurence (Project Manager) Kurt Yeiter Ken Guzowski Neil Bjorklund Patricia Thomas Allen Lowe Jim Croteau Brenda Schmidt Ron Funke Mark Tritt Amy Janisch Jackie Dowell Public Works Transportation Tom Larsen Dave Reinhard Chris Henry Public Works Engineering Bud DeSantis Gale Mills Mike Shields Michelle Cahill Public Works Facilities Mike Penwell Department of Parks / Planning Andrea Riner Fire / EMS Department Ruth Obadal PROJECT PARTNERS Community Workshop Participants Eugene Water and Electric Board Deborrah Brewer University of Oregon Riverfront Research Park Diane Wiley General Services Administration John Kvistad John Bland U.S. District Courts Judge Michael Hogan Libby Barber Don Cinnamond Suzanne Porto Craig Starr Morphosis Architects Tom Mayne Kim Groves DLR Architects Kevin McCain Oregon Department of Transportation Tom Boyatt DOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATE COMMITTEE City Councilors Bonny Bettman Scott Meisner Nancy Nathanson Planning Commissioners Jon Belcher, President Adell McMillan, Vice President Mitzi Colbath Art Farley John Lawless Anne Marie Levis Charles Rusch URBAN DESIGN TEAMS Jim Tice Tice Architecture + Urban Design Anita Van Asperdt A. Van Asperdt, PC Landscape Architecture and Urban Design David Dougherty Dougherty Landscape Architects, Inc. Jim Stickley Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC Bart Johnson University of Oregon Eric Hovee E.D. Hovee & Company Monica Anderson Balzhizer and Hubbard Don Peting University of Oregon David Pinyerd Historic Preservation Northwest Douglas Beauchamp Lane Arts Council Transportation Design Consultants Troy Russ Gladding Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Beth Wemple Kittleson & Associates Acknowledgments Conceptual Images and Illustrative Plans Anita Van Asperdt, David Dougherty, Jim Tice Photographs Ron Funke (unless otherwise noted) July 31, 2002 Final Report ?... a landmark building and destination points... a great street lined with civic uses... an active, vital public waterfront... a downtown once again connected to the river.? Courthouse District CONCEPT PLAN Table of Contents Introduction................................................................................................... 1 Urban Design Concept ................................................................................. 5 Land Use Element ....................................................................................... 11 Landscape and Water Element .................................................................. 17 Transportation Element .............................................................................. 25 Implementation: Key Next Steps ................................................................ 31 Appendix ..................................................................................................... 35 Grates from Agripac Cannery Photo by A. Van Asperdt Chapter 1 Introduction The Courthouse District Concept Plan envisions a vital new neighborhood on the east end of downtown Eugene, with a landmark building, a mix of uses, and a connection to the Willamette River. From the construction of the millrace in 1852, to the design of the new Federal Courthouse in 2002, this area has seen 150 years of urban transformation. The concept plan for this area builds on its history, while guiding a transformation into the district envisioned for the future. In 2001, General Services Administration selected the former Agripac Cannery property as the site for a new Federal Courthouse. The groundwork for a new Federal Courthouse in downtown Eugene was laid by the Downtown Vision effort in 2000. During this year- long project, citizens and civic leaders worked inten- sively to craft a vision for the future of downtown. This area of downtown, with its aging industrial structures and underutilized land, was seen as a key redevelopment opportunity. 8th Avenue was envi- sioned as a great civic street, lined with important public buildings - City Hall, the Lane County Court- house, the new Federal Courthouse - leading from the heart of downtown to the river. The City has long desired a connection between downtown and the river. Planning documents and reports over the past 30 years have addressed this goal of reconnecting the city to the river, our greatest natural resource. The Federal investment in the courthouse building has created a significant oppor- tunity for the city to work in partnership to make this connection, and to stimulate a vital new district, between the core of downtown and the river. This opportunity is amplified by the Eugene Water and Electric Board?s timely discussion of a phased reloca- tion from its riverfront site. Downtown Vision diagram. EWEB Plaza along riverfront. The challenges and the possibilities now facing this area are tremendous. This is the community?s best opportunity to realize the vision for this area of downtown... a landmark building and destination points... a great street lined with civic uses... an active, vital public waterfront... a downtown once again con- nected to the river. Description of Area The Courthouse District Concept Plan focuses on an area generally encompassing the sites surrounding the new Federal Courthouse. This area includes the remainder of the original Agripac Site, (owned by Chiquita before pur- chase by the City in 2001), surrounding blocks to the south (Broadway Block) and west (cur- rently the site of International House of Pan- cakes, and Oregon Central Credit Union), north (5th Street Public Market area) and the water- front (EWEB yard area). This area is intended to be inclusive, rather than exclusive, to character- ize this new district, and to set out some basic guidelines for its development. Purpose of the Concept Plan The Concept Plan seeks to provide a guiding concept for the character of the Courthouse District, including planning principles and design parameters for future development and public investment in this area. Similar to the Down- town Vision, the Concept Plan is intended to be both aspirational and pragmatic. The Concept Plan suggests general strategies for accommo- dating more visionary elements, such as the Millrace, and identifies key next steps to imple- ment in the near future, such as transportation. The Concept Plan also provides the basis for developing initial work and facilitating key decisions regarding coordination with the new Federal Courthouse. Page 2 Courthouse District Concept Plan study area. EWEB Willamette River Mill Street Broadway 8th Avenue Millrace High Street Courthouse Site Key Questions a71 What do we want to see or experience in this area in 30 years? a71 What do we need to put in placenow to allow that vision to come about? a71 What elements do we need to accommodate in the future? Planning Commission and City Council Review Planning Commission held a series of discussions on this Concept Plan between June 2001 and July 2002. In January 2002, City Councilors Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner and Bonny Bettman were appointed by Mayor Torrey to join the Planning Commission, creating the Downtown Plan Update Committee. This Concept Plan is based on the recommendations from that Committee. The Concept Plan was reviewed by City Council on July 17 and July 31, 2002, and approved with revisions on July 31, 2002. A copy of the minutes of the July 31, 2002 City Council meeting is included as Appendix A to this report. Citizen Involvement Involvement of members of the community has been a fundamental part of this project. Three intensive community workshops were held in August, September and November 2001 to develop and refine emerging design concepts. Each work- shop was three hours long, and was attended by an average of 80 citizens. This project built upon previous city efforts, includ- ing the Downtown Vision workshop on June 24, 2000, as well as a design charrette sponsored by the Southwest Oregon Chapter of the American Institute of Architects in December 2000. City staff and consultants coordinated closely with representatives from EWEB, University of Oregon Riverfront Research Park, and the Federal Court- house team, including the General Services Admin- istration, the U. S. District Courts and Morphosis Architects. Page 3 Courhouse District Concept Plan Citizen Workshop, August 2001. Photo by Troy Russ Page 4 Courthouse District Downtown Context. EWEB Courthouse Site Relationship to Other Plans & Studies The Courthouse District Concept Plan addresses one of the high priority Key Next Steps from the Downtown Vision, completed in November 2000. City Council approved funding for the development of a Concept Plan for the area surrounding the new Federal Courthouse as part of a Greater Downtown Vision Implementation Work Plan on April 9, 2001. (See Appendix B.) This Concept Plan will be folded into an updated Downtown Plan, with subsequent Metro Plan amendments and zone changes. Chapter 2 Page 5 Urban Design Concept The Courthouse District Concept Plan provides a framework for the development of the area around the new Federal Courthouse. The concept plan was guided by four main goals that were established for this project. The goals address the relationship of this emerging district to existing areas in downtown. Existing Conditions Currently, this area is characterized by isolated uses and missing connections. The millrace goes under- ground at the southern end of Ferry Street. Significant local and through traffic isolate this area from the rest of downtown. The waterfront is owned and used by EWEB, with little public access except along the bike path and around the EWEB fountain. Surface parking lots, storage facilities, and other underutilized properties predominate along 8th Avenue, east of Mill Street. Existing conditions on 8th Avenue, looking east. Project Goals a71 Create a special place around the new courthouse. a71 Connect to the core of downtown. a71 Contribute to the vitality of the core of downtown. a71 Connect downtown to the river, in a memorable and accessible way. Page 6 Urban Design Concept Plan The Urban Design Concept Plan builds upon the rich history and present opportunities facing this site.The Concept Plan is based on three key elements, Land Use, Landscape and Water, and Transportation. Each of these interrelated elements reinforces the transformation of this industrial area into a special district, and provides numerous connections between this area, downtown, and the river. Riverfront area development and street function and locations are to be determined, based on the principles on page 13. A subsequent planning effort, coordinated with EWEB, will focus on this area. Urban design concept. The Concept Plan envisions a pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use district. Key components include: a71 8th Avenue, the civic street, leads from the Park Blocks at the heart of downtown to the river. a71 The historic alignment of the Millrace provides a threshold into this special district. a71 A special place at the intersection of 8th and Ferry, Cannery Square, commemorates the industrial history of this area and unifies the new public and private mix of uses. a71 A new Millrace flows through the district, providing a pedestrian path to the river. a71 Riverfront development creates a people place, an active waterfront. a71 An ecological focus including special stormwater cleaning and collection char- acterizes this district. This Concept Plan does not represent a detailed design for this district. It is a diagrammatic framework to guide future development and public investment. Significant planning and design work, public participation and policy recommendations will need to continue for this area. Page 7 Transportation Land Use Urban Design Concept Plan Landscape and Water The three key elements of the Urban Design Concept Plan. Page 8 Illustrative Plan This illustrative plan depicts land uses, transportation, landscape and water elements adjacent to the Federal Courthouse block. Cannery Square and a conceptual Millrace configuration are also shown. In this plan, the Millrace engages the buildings in the Broadway block, and serves as a gateway into the Courthouse District. Cannery Square provides a public place, the center of the new District. As noted, riverfront area development and street function and locations are to be determined, based on the principles on page 13. Illustrative Plan (existing buildings are shaded). Key Next Steps 1. Review by City Council Based on the recommendation of the Downtown Plan Update Committee, this Concept Plan was forwarded to City Council for discussion and action. The Concept Plan was reviewed by City Council on July 17 and July 31, 2002, and approved with revisions on July 31, 2002. A copy of the minutes of the July 31, 2002 City Council meeting is included as Appendix A to this report. 2. Incorporation into Downtown Plan Update Based on the action of City Council, this Concept Plan will be folded into an update of the Downtown Plan. Significant additional planning work is anticipated, including the development of a new zone, a Great Streets overlay, and development concepts for the EWEB riverfront. 3. Coordination With City Staff Close coordination with staff from other city departments, particularly Public Works Transportation, Engineering and Parks Planning is required to ensure that the elements of this Concept Plan are integrated into ongoing and planned work programs. Page 9 Illustrative view of entry to new Federal Courthouse. Image by Morphosis Architects. A New Federal Courthouse For Eugene Site: 4.5 acres at the corner of East Eighth Avenue and Mill Street, formerly part of the old Agripac cannery. Building tenants: The 278,400-square-foot building will house four U.S. District courtrooms and two U.S. Bankruptcy courtrooms, chambers for six judges, congressional offices, and space for U.S. marshal, probation and pre-trial services, federal prosecutors, court clerks. Building features: Expansive stairway entrance with massive columns, a waterfall leading to security en- trance, two levels of offices that create a base for three separate, irregularly shaped third-floor pavilions, each holding two courtrooms. The pavilions will be spaced to reflect the peaks of Three Sisters. Cost and construction: $70.4 million for the building, $1 million for art. Construction starts around March 2003. Occupancy projected for September 2005. Project design: Morphosis Architects of Santa Monica, Califor- nia, and DLR Group Architecture of Portland designed the structure over 18 months under a $4.5-million federal contract. Bill Bishop,The Register-Guard, May 16, 2002; Image by Morphosis Architects. Page 10 Chapter 3 Land Use Element Land Use Concept The overall land use concept for this area is to achieve a balanced mix of uses, bringing daytime and after hours activities to the district. The mix of uses in- cludes commercial (office and retail), residential and civic, in addition to public open space and recreational areas. Three special public spaces are envisioned within this district, the Millrace, Cannery Square and the riverfront. These general land uses are depicted on the land use diagram. Existing Land Uses Existing land use in this area is mixed. Existing uses south of 8th Avenue includes residential, industrial, and a wide variety of small scale commercial, such as fast food restaurants, a gas station, a martial arts academy, and two hotels. Uses on the north side of 8th Avenue include the Chiquita industrial complex and the EWEB?s storage yard and other utility func- tions on the north side of the railroad tracks. Metro Plan Designations and Zoning This area is designated in the Metro Plan for indus- trial (predominantly north of 8th Avenue) and com- mercial uses (south of 8th Avenue). The zoning within the Courthouse District is PL Public Land on EWEB, I-3 Heavy Industrial on Chiquita, I-2 Light- Medium Industrial and Community Commercial on the Broadway blocks. As part of the Downtown Plan Update, a new zone will be created and applied to the properties within the Courthouse District. A Metro Plan amendment will be required for any rezoning. Page 11 Chiquita industrial complex. Photo by A. Van Asperdt Land Use diagram. Riverfront area development and street function and locations are to be determined, based on the principles on page 13. Proposed Land Uses General Land Uses A mix of uses, either within one structure or within a block is proposed for the Courthouse District. Those uses which promote pedestrian activity, such as restaurants and shops, are strongly encouraged on the ground floor. Office commercial or residential is encouraged for upper floors. The proposed mix of commercial, residential and civic uses is not yet specific in terms of the ratio of the mix, or the densities required. Parking also needs to be planned for and accommo- dated as a land use within this district. Not all park- ing required to serve this area needs to be within the Courthouse District; the development of parking in other areas of downtown which are easily accessible to this district is strongly encouraged. The City is currently in the process of conducting a parking study, to determine appropriate locations for struc- tured parking to serve the Courthouse District as well as other development areas downtown. The parking study will be incorporated into the Central Area Transportation Study and will be considered as part of the Downtown Plan Update. The University of Oregon is currently engaged in a feasibility study for a new basketball arena. Based on the outcome of that study and further action by City Council, an arena may be considered as an appropri- ate use within the Courthouse District. Special Places Cannery Square Cannery Square is envisioned as a public square at the intersection of 8th Avenue and Ferry Street. The illustrative plan depicts a possible configuration, with all four corners allowing designed to accommodate a public open space. Page 12 Metro Plan designations. Existing zoning. Cannery Square provides an urban focal point for the new district, and commemorates the importance of the Cannery to local history. Cannery Square is in- tended to reinforce the Park Blocks in concept, and the role of 8th Avenue as a Civic Street. Specific designs for Cannery Square will be coordinated the architect for the Federal Courthouse and with the developers of the remaining three corners. Riverfront Design Principles The configuration of development and the specific land uses proposed for the riverfront are not yet resolved. It is anticipated that close coordination with EWEB as well as additional planning work, environ- mental analysis, and public review will be required for broad agreement on the development potential for this area. Four principles have emerged to guide this future planning work: 1. The riverfront is to be a people place: active, vibrant, accessible, multi-use. 2. Development on the riverfront is to incorpo- rate a viariable setback, deeper where environ- mental or habitat issues are more critical, shallower in other areas. 3. Development on the riverfront must incorpo- rate appropriate building and site design techniques that address environmental concerns. 4. The development on the riverfront, open space areas, the riparian setback, the Millrace outfall, all of these areas should incoprporate an educational aspect, so that the riverfront is a sort of outdoor classroom, teaching us about our river, our history and our city. Page 13 Bikepath along riverfront and EWEB headquarters. Illustrative detail showing Cannery Square. 8th Avenue Ferry Street The New Millrace The Concept Plan accommodates a new millrace as part of an open space and recreational amenity through the Courthouse District. The alignment and design for the millrace is not yet determined, although a portion of the millrace, or a similar water feature, is envisioned as part of Cannery Square, and at the intersection of Broadway and Mill. Historic Properties In addition to the Millrace and industrial character of this district, eight properties of historical importance have been identified. Information is included here on these structures because of the level of interest expressed by citizens and Downtown Plan Update Committee members in the possibility of adaptive reuse. The ranking refers to the city?s method of evaluating the importance of historic properties. Five of the structures are ranked as primary, due to historic associations along with architectural merit. Each of these properties adds history and character to this district, illustrating the story of Eugene in the last century. Adaptive reuse potential for the struc- tures must be assessed at the time of specific development or redevelopment proposals. At this time, these buildings are not subject to the historic sections of the land use code. However, any of these buildings can be moved to a more advantageous location, to accomodate development such the Millrace, or to create a grouping of historic properties. Development or redevelopment proposals that provide adaptive reuse of the primary historic structures will be encouraged by the city; demolition of the primary structures would be discouraged. If these buildings cannot be integrated with development proposed for the Courthouse District, they can be relocated and preserved for other uses. Page 14 Historic Preservation in the Study Area Agripac office, built in 1921 as the office for the Eugene Fruit Growers Association. This building is considered a primary resource by the city due to its exterior integrity and strong association with the industrial complex. This structure is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Walton house, now Moreno?s restaurant, built in 1868. This structure is considered a primary resource by the city specifically for its association with a family integral in the development of Eugene. Judge Walton was a prominent judge, and president of the board that created the University of Oregon. 602, 610, 620 East 8th Avenue, three residential structure built between 1906 and 1912. These three structures were built by a laborer at Midgely Mill and were later converted to apartments. These are good examples of worker housing located close to industry. 602 and 610 are ranked as second- ary historic resources due to extent of exterior alterations; 620 is ranked as a primary resource since it is in good condi- tion with a high degree of structural integ- rity. continued on page 15 Chiquita rooftops. Photo by A. Van Asperdt Development Guidelines Development guidelines need to be created for both the overall land uses as well as the special places or uses described above. Guidelines for development on the EWEB riverfront will be created as part of a future riverfont planning effort, to be coordinated with EWEB. EWEB?s own effort so far has resulted in a generalized land use concept, included in this report as Appendix C: EWEB Site - Possible Future Land Uses. The majority of development guidelines will be drafted in conjunction with a new zone for updated Down- town Plan. A ?Great Street? overlay is also anticipated as part of this future planning work, which will address Broadway and 8th Avenue, both considered ?Great Streets?as part of Downtown Visioning. These development guidelines will need to address building design, site design, and public improvements specifically for this district. Building design issues will include height, first floor uses, integration of historic builidngs, and suggestions for environmentally sensi- tive building design. Site design guidelines will include incorporation of enhanced stormwater facilities, and a circulation network that encourages walking, biking and transit use. Guidelines for public improvements will focus on stormwater facilities as a part of street and open space design, and the design of sidewalks and streetscape elements as an open space amenity. Historic Preservation in the Study Area continued from page 14 Abrams? Cider Mill, completed by 1883. Although this building has been extensively altered, it is listed as a primary resources particularly for its strong association with William Abrams, an important figure in Eugene?s early industrial history. Eugene Iron Foundry, in operation as the Gross Brother?s Ironworks by 1902. Subse- quent owners of this narrow building at the corner of Ferry and 8th included the Eugene City Ironworks and the Eugene Fruit Growers Association. Its front elevation has been altered; however, as a remnant of the foundry industry in Eugene, it is considered a primary historic structure. Steam Plant, completed in 1931. Steam is no longer generated within the historic structure, but from boilers located behind the structure. This structure is ranked as a primary resource due to its historical con- nection to the transition of power genera- tion from private to public. Page 15 Cider Mill on 8th Avenue Key Next Steps 1. Request for Proposals for City-Owned Triangle The City should issue a Request for Proposals for development on the city-owned triangle. City staff may first need to issue a Request for Qualifications, and meet with developers to assess the potential for this property. The RFP will include guidelines to ensure that the components of the Concept Plan, such as the new Millrace and the transportation alternative, are accommodated. 2. Coordination with EWEB / Waterfront Design Maintaining close coordination with EWEB is essential as their discussion of a phased relocation continues. 3. Coordination with Courthouse Architect A number of components of the Concept Plan require coordination of design work with the Courthouse Architect, specifically Cannery Square. 4. Initiate Metro Plan Amendments and Zone Changes Metro Plan amendments will be required to redesignate the area within the Courthouse District to a land use more in keeping with the uses proposed in the Concept Plan. Zone changes will be also required. Both of these planning efforts will occur as part of the Downtown Plan Update. 5. Create Riverfront Conceptual Design Public participation and investment to create a more fully developed concept for the riverfront is essential. A team of environmental experts and creative designers needs to be assembled, to balance the opportunities and constraints of the site and create an outstanding design for our civic waterfront. 6. Determine Appropriate Land Uses The land use concept in this Plan is very general. City staff need to propose a more specific mix of uses and desired densities for the district as part of the Downtown Plan Update. Page 16 The City will need to issue a Request for Proposals for the City-owned site. City-Owned Development Site Courthouse Site Riverfront with DeFazio Bridge. Landscape and Water Elements Overall Concept Special consideration of landscape and water rein- forces the urban design goals for the Courthouse District. This element focuses on four ideas: an urban neighborhood close to the river, a landscaped civic street leading from the Park Blocks to the river, the historic Millrace alignment encircling the new district, and a new Millrace bringing activity into the center. The design parameters for the riverfront are not articulated at this time; significant community discus- sion, planning and design effort is required before the riverfront concept is fully developed. For 8th Avenue, special plantings are envisioned to provide a visual and physical link from the Park Blocks to the river. This could include native shade trees or native plant massings to provide continuity along 8th and pedestrian amenities, as well as seasonal shade. The historic alignment of the Millrace creates an arc around the new District, comprised of both daylighted and piped sections of the Millrace. The urban design concept illustrates this arc as a specially planted area, marking the threshold into the district and making the Millrace location visible. Bringing the piped Millrace back to the surface and has been a long-held dream for many in this commu- nity. Creating a plan for reopening the Millrace was listed as a key next step in the Downtown Vision and has been discussed for the Courthouse District since the beginning of the project. The urban design Concept Plan includes a Millrace but remains flexible to address both environmental issues and implica- tions for desired development in this district. Chapter 4 Page 17 This illustrative view of the new Millrace shows urban paths and adjacent areas. A more natural, habitat enhancing corridor has also been discussed as part of the design for the new MIllrace. (Photo by John Lawless) Existing Conditions Currently, the ideas envisioned in the Landscape and Water Element are not in place. 8th Avenue does not provide a connection to the river, much less an inviting landscaped street. The Millrace flows at the surface east of downtown, through land owned by the University of Oregon and private owners. The Millrace flows into a culvert at the south end of Ferry Street, and remains in a pipe, six feet below the ground. The alignment of the piped portion is not visible until the outfall, on the EWEB property, just south of the EWEB Headquarters building. Of these ideas, the Millrace, at the heart of the Concept Plan, requires the most imagination. Millrace Possibilities A dream of daylighting the Millrace must address a series of interrelated, practical questions: Design Parameters Is this a Millrace for boats? How wide is it? Does it provide places to stroll and sit alongside? What places does the Millrace connect? What shape does it take? A Millrace designed as a recreational amenity does not recreate the historic Millrace, but reinterprets it. How does the Millrace design allow an understanding of this early layer of our city?s history? Environmental Impact How much land needs to be disturbed? How could the Millrace work with the existing topography, especially given the drop required to go under the railroad tracks? What is the potential impact on flood levels? Will salmon be affected? Are there opportuni- ties for stormwater cleansing or incorporating rainwa- ter from roofs? What is the regulatory context, including federal and state environmental agencies, and how might this affect design and timing? How might the Millrace function as an environmental teaching tool? Page 18 Existing Millrace near Patterson Street. Land Use implications What are the adjacent uses? To what extent does the Millrace displace other uses or development potential? How can the Millrace increase the value of nearby properties or stimulate development? What is the impact on the EWEB property, short and long term? Cost and Feasibility What are the key technical issues, such as getting under the tracks and roads? Where could a shoo-fly (temporary rail bypass) be located during construc- tion? Where would the money come from? How would the project be phased? What are the long term maintenance and cost implications. This Concept Plan does not propose a specific design in answer to these questions, but suggests design principles to accommodate a new Millrace as this district is developed. These principles have been developed through the significant community partici- pation and public review of the Concept Plan. Principles for the New Millrace 1. A daylighted Millrace must bring envi- ronmental benefits to the water flow- ing in the Millrace to the Willamette River. Stormwater runoff from city streets and parking lots flows unfiltered into the Millrace. Organic materials from ducks and other wildlife add pollutants and increase algae growth, resulting in oxygen-depleted water. Daylighting the Millrace, allowing more sun- light exposure, or slowing the flow, such as with a wider channel, intensifies the negative implications of these pollutants. The new design needs to look at possibilities to improve water quality both in the short and long term. One possibility might include using a mixture of rainwater and Millrace water in order to increase flow and aeration. Page 19 Diagram of existing topography indicating high and low areas of the riverbank, and plantings marking the alignment of the historic Millrace. 2. The Millrace should provide an urban amenity, an inviting pedestrian path through this area of the city to the river. The design needs to balance a number of potentially competing purposes, such as habitat or water quality enhancement with the goal of creating a place for people. Design details may bridge these different purposes, such as with artful plantings, or creative treatment of water quality improvement measures. Incorporating the steel grates from the Agripac building, for example, or designing aeration devices as a series of fountains could blend art and function and enhance the visible ecology of the district. These elements also bring people closer to the water. 3. The Millrace design should remind us of the industrial history of this area, and speak of our own time. The new Millrace will serve a different purpose and will be in a new location within the District than the original Millrace. The idea of the Millrace, however, tells the story of our history; weaving historic ele- ments into new uses adds richness and character to this district. A contemporary design takes us ?back to the future,? with a recreational, environmentally responsible Millrace that recalls our industrial past. 4. The new Millrace needs to become part of an integrated stormwater management plan for the entire court- house district. The Millrace has evolved into the city?s stormwater infrastructure. This function needs to be more consciously designed with specific environmental benefits in mind. Development in the district should be designed to retain as much water as possible to alleviate peak runoff, and to better clean the runoff before it enters the Willamette river. Incorporating ?green fringes,? along the Millrace, carefully chosen plants in a special soil-mixture can help remove runoff pollutants. Roof Page 20 Illustrative view of rainwater elements in sidewalk, along 8th Avenue. Illustrative view of bioswale within 8th Avenue. runoff can be retained in cisterns or pools. Bioswales in the streetscape can be designed to filter road runoff before it flows to the Millrace. Such bioswales can take on an urban character on streets such as 8th Avenue. Along 6th Avenue the bioswale can be a simpler design that separates the roadway from the railroad. 5. The Millrace design needs to be well integrated with surrounding develop- ment. The Millrace design should enhance pedestrian routes and provide ?people places? as an development amenity. The details of the actual Millrace design need to be worked out as development is proposed in the district, since the size and configuration of develop- able sites will be a key factor in encouraging the development envisioned in this concept plan. The design of the Millrace and pedestrian path under the railroad tracks at the north end of Ferry Street will need to addressed at the time that the design for the 6th Avenue Extension is developed. 6. The Millrace needs to create a threshold into the district and into downtown. Historically, travelers from east of downtown crossed a bridge over the Millrace to enter downtown. The design of the new Millrace needs to recreate a sense of a gateway to downtown. This may at some point be the actual Millrace, but in the short run may be a water feature such as a fountain. This feature should be located at the intersection of Mill Street and Broadway. The historic alignment of the Millrace traces a green ?arc? from the mill pond back to the river. Recreating the Millrace in this alignment, on the western side of the courthouse was considered, but was not techni- cally feasible. Instead, the Concept Plan shows this alignment marked through special plantings that recall the historic alignment and the existing piped Millrace location. This planting provides a gateway into the Courthouse District along 8th. The planting Page 21 A Brief History of the Millrace by Bill Bishop - The Register Guard, December 8, 2001 1852: Hilyard Shaw and Avery Smith dig a canal connecting two muddy sloughs, creating a millrace to power Shaw?s sawmill in an area east of the present-day Ferry Street Bridge. 1855: First gristmill built on the millrace. 1856: Eugene City Distilling Co. becomes the major industry, paying more taxes than any other while producing 70 gallons of whiskey per day at a time when the city?s population numbered about 200. 1870?s: Industries along the millrace include a furniture factory, tannery, cider and vinegar factory, woolen mill, gristmills, lumber mill, sash and door factory. Railroad development further spurs industrial growth. 1887: Eugene Electric Co. builds a 100- horsepower generator on the millrace. 1890: Boat rentals begin on the millrace. A flood destroys millrace intake on the Willamette River at Judkins Point near present-day Interstate 5 bridge. Flood also changes the course of the Willamette River to run in the current channel south of its former riverbed. The Peak By 1900: University of Oregon students adopt the millrace for romantic rowboat and comical canoe excursions. Homeowners along its banks install landscapes to capitalize on the waterway. City?s population is 3,236. 1910: Millrace owners Frank Chambers and George Midgley expand millrace capacity and clash with homeowners who claim the work is flooding their basements and destroying their yards. Some homeowners confront millrace workers at gunpoint. Years of legal battles commence. continued on page 22 scheme will need to be coordinated with the stormwater management concepts and with the architect for the courthouse. 7. The creation of a new Millrace is a long term vision. The Millrace construction will requires phasing, beginning with the portion from Cannery Square to the railroad tracks. Later phases would include from Broadway and Mill Street to Cannery Square, and from the railroad tracks to the river, and finally from the location of the pipe at the end of Ferry to Broad- way and Mill Street. The ultimate goal is a pedestrian accessible, connected flow of water back to the Willamette. A Continuing Vision for the Millrace These design parameters are intended to maintain support for a long-term vision for the Millrace. They serve as the basis of searching for funding sources, for design and study, as well as for eventual con- struction. They also serve to provide parameters for preliminary design, and to build consensus on this long held community dream. The Millrace story needs to continue. The power of the Millrace is no less its physical reality than its power to generate stories, as a part of Eugene?s past and vision for the future. 1913: The Anchorage, a popular campus hangout across the UO?s Villard Hall, begins renting canoes on the Millrace. Citizens form the Millrace Protec- tive Association with 100 members. 1915: UO holds its first Canoe Fete, a night parade on the Millrace, as part of Junior Weekend. 1916: Oregon Supreme Court rules on disputes over Millrace property easements, deciding maxi- mum canal width could be 50 feet and allowing retaining walls to be built on residential properties. The Evolution 1920?s: As electricity becomes more available, mills convert. The Millrace diminishes in importance as a power source. Simultaneously, its role as an aquatic park for UO students and city residents expands. 1922: Canoe rental business grows to have 50 canoes on the Millrace. Property owners have an estimated 50 more. 1925: To preserve Millrace?s idyllic character, citizens and students rally to stop plans for a dance hall on the shore. 1928: All mills have stopped using Millrace water power. Flood again destroys Millrace?s intake. 1938: UO buys land north of the Millrace to build a park and amphitheater. 1941: Canoe Fete is so popular, plans are drawn for 5,000-seat bleacher and stage. Larger develop- ment plans call for moving the Pacific Highway (now Franklin Boulevard) and the railroad tracks. But projects are halted by World War II. A series of floods again destroy Millrace intake. 1943: Highway and rail work completed. Millrace work is neglected. 1945: The Millrace becomes a dry channel. 1946: Eugene voters buy the Millrace for $50,000, but sale is disputed Court rules in 1951 that the city bought only the right to move water in the Millrace to generate power; property owners retain the right to install culverts and bury theMillrace. 1947: Millrace Protective Association reactivates to lobby at city budget hearings. City okays $20,000 for Millrace restoration; UO students raise matching funds. continued on page 23 A Brief History of the Millrace continued from page 21 Page 22 Key Next Steps 1. Millrace Study and Design Significant additional study is required for any Millrace design to address the design principles listed above.The new Millrace design will need to be conducted by a team consisting of a water quality expert, hydrologist, landscape architect, and urban designer. This team will need to provide a long term and short term plan for the entire watershed of the Millrace (old and new). In addition, careful coordination will be necessary with environmental regulatory agencies, such as the Army Corps of Engineers and the National Marine Fisheries Service. 2. Planting Scheme for 8th Avenue An appropriate planting scheme for 8 th Avenue needs to be developed and coordinated through appropriate city agencies. Landscape Guidelines for 8th Avenue will also need to be integrated with a Great Streets zoning overlay, anticipated as part of the work for the Downtown Plan Update. 3. Riverfront Landscape Design A planning and design team needs to be assembled to focus on landscape issues as part of an overall land use concept for the riverfront. (See also discussion of riverfront under Chapter 2, Land Use.) 4. Identify Revenue Sources Appropriate sources have not been identified. Cost estimates are extremely high; actual amounts will depend on phasing and design. In pursuit of funding the City should consider extending the Urban Renewal District (due to expire in 2005) in order to generate tax increment to fund some of the improvements envisioned in this Concept Plan. The City should also investigate the possibility to leverage Federal funds for the Millrace. A Brief History of the Millrace continued from page 22 The Decline 1949: To accommodate highway expansion in the Ferry Street Bridge area, the lower Millrace is confined to a 30-inch pipe buried six feet between Broadway and the Eugene Water & Electric Board complex on the river. The Anchorage closes down. 1950: UO demolishes the Anchorage and builds a new physical plant on the north bank of the Millrace. City?s population is 35,879. 1952: Millrace is described as ?a half-filled muddy slough, clogged with debris.? The 30-inch pipe at its end limits flow to 25 cubic feet per minute, a fraction of its estimated 350 cubic feet per second capacity half a century earlier. A portion of the flow is diverted back to the river through an outlet at the end of the UO?s duck pond on Franklin Boulevard, helping water quality on the upper half of the Millrace. 1955: Pumps proposed to increase flow in Millrace. UO?s Canoe Fete comes back to the Millrace. 1957: Pumps installed. First proposal made to connect lower Millrace to Amazon Slough to increase water flow, a proposal that would resurface periodically for 40 years. 1962: A volunteer group of Eugene architects draws up a plan to remove the lower Millrace from its 30-inch pipe, recreate the channel, install native landscape and walking paths. The Millrace is described as ?stagnant and smelly? because of limited flow through the piped lower section. 1965: Cost of proposal to reconstruct the Millrace as a pedestrian walkway from downtown to UO is estimated at $359,000. City Council balks at the expense. Little has been done to the sluggish channel for 20 years despite nearly continuous interest among citizen and student groups. Lack of water flow and lack of money to take action are perennial problems. 1967: City Council approves tying Millrace to the city storm sewer system. continued on page 24 Page 23 Page 24 A Brief History of the Millrace continued from page 23 1971: UO?s Canoe Fete abolished because of student apathy. The fetes begin again in 1973 and continue off and on. Students voice concerns about capsizing in the stagnant water, polluted by stormwater runoff and trash. 1974: Millrace is identified as the most unsani- tary place to swim in Lane County. Redevelopment of UO duck pond begins. 1988: Last remnant of original Millrace mills is torn down. 1990: Citywide observance of National Historic Preservation week focuses on Millrace history and restoration proposals. Stalemate over the Millrace is described as conflict between nostalgic-minded citizens and pragmatic-minded ones. Canoe rentals at the UO?s EMU topped 2,500 in 1989. 1996: Millrace boosters again propose connect- ing lower Millrace from 10th Avenue and Mill Street to Amazon Creek near 17th Avenue to create ?The Emerald Canal.? Project also would boost quality of Amazon channel water in summertime. As envi- sioned, the canal would feature waterfront shops, restaurants and apartments. Cost was estimated at $35 million. 2001: Chiquita Brands International sells its 8.7- acre property to the city for $4.1 million, making original Millrace industrial area available for new $70 million federal courthouse. Stage is set for redeveloping the area as a part of downtown with pedestrian links to the river. Designers consider possibility of resurrecting the lower Millrace channel as a link to the city?s history and to foster awareness of water quality and river ecology. Transportation Element Transportation Goals The key urban design goals for the project guided the development of transportation alternatives. Currently, the new courthouse area does not meet any of the four urban design goals for this project, primarily because of the isolation caused by the existing transportation facilities. In order to achieve the goals staff and consultants explored several alternative transportation concepts which have as a common feature some form of redistributing or ?unbraiding? the large volume of traffic that cur- rently flows along Mill Street and East Broadway. Existing Transportation Conditions The intersection of 8th and Mill is a critical point in the City?s transportation network. Local traffic going north or south overlaps for several blocks with the through east-west traffic from Highway 99. This large flow of traffic represents the accumulation of vehicles coming from the Ferry Street Bridge and 7th Avenue, converging on Mill Street and continuing south and east on Broadway to Patterson, or onto Franklin Boulevard. The reverse flow takes the Franklin and Hilyard traffic west and then north on Mill Street to about 8th, where it separates into the northbound bridge traffic and the westbound traffic on 6th. The resulting flow of about 45,000 vehicles a day on Mill Street at 8th creates a virtual wall be- tween the current downtown and the emerging courthouse district. Chapter 5 Page 25 8th Avenue and Mill Street, looking south. Broadway and Mill Street, looking north. Transportation Alternatives Staff and consultants evaluated numerous transpor- tation alternatives for this area. Each alternative looked at a different way of re-routing a portion of the traffic in order to reduce the ?wall? enough to allow a crossable intersection at 8th and Mill, while still addressing the need for a connection to the river. Based on the four urban design goals, staff developed a set of criteria for evaluating alternative transporta- tion concepts for the district: a71 Handling of traffic- including the Highway 99 and Ferry Street Bridge components of traffic moving through and around the site, as well as local access and circulation and accomodation of transit. a71 Pedestrian environment - including the quality of the crossing at 8th and Mill, the pedestrian experience of walking along 8th to the river, and the opportunities for improving the pedestrian environment along Broadway. a71 Urban Design - how the alternative fits with other goals for redevelopment of the district, including potential access under the tracks to the river, and the block structure and general access/visibility of the site. a71 Cost and feasibility - including long range costs, need for buying land, and required partnerships. After extensive analysis and thoughtful discussion, one alternative, 6th Avenue Realignment, emerged as the preferred transportation option for the Court- house District Concept Plan. This option appeared to present the most balanced alternative to addressing the four urban design goals. A more extensive discussion of the transportation alternatives consid- ered is included as Appendix D. Page 26 6th Avenue Realignment The main features of this option include: a71 6th Avenue extended along the tracks, with two one-way westbound lanes from Hilyard to 6th Avenue west of Mill Street a71 Pedestrian, bicycle and auto crossing of Mill Street at 8th Avenue a71 8th Avenue as a civic street, with two lanes of traffic, on-street parking and wide sidewalks a71 A bicycle lane or paths and sidewalks incorporated into the overall design a71 Some reduction in traffic on Broadway, providing an opportunity to reuse part of that roadway for other purposes, such as wider sidewalks or on-street parking. Additional features were also considered, such as a new pedestrian bridge across the Willamette at the end of 8th Avenue, but were not included in the Concept Plan. Transportation improvements that promote connectivity within this district will need to be included with this transportation alternative, such as an extension of Patterson Street between 8th Avenue and Broadway. Page 27 Illustrative diagram of 6th Avenue realignment. Phasing These infrastructure improvements would need to be phased for logistical and financial reasons, as well as coordination with the Oregon Department of Trans- portation. The most likely scenario includes the following phases. Phase I: Local Street Improvements (within 1 to 2 years) This includes improvements to 8th between Mill Street and the railroad crossing at Hilyard, as well as construction of Ferry from 8th Avenue north to the rail road tracks and along the tracks to a connection to 6th Avenue. Phase II: 6th A venue Along the Railr oad Tracks (within 4 to 5 years) The 6th Avenue Extension, the new westbound portion of Highway 99, needs to be constructed from Hilyard Street, continuing along the tracks and intersecting with the extension of Ferry Street, and continuing on to 6th Avenue. The pedestrian/Millrace path under the tracks would also be constructed in this phase. Additional improvements to the intersec- tion of Hilyard and Broadway may be required. Phase III: Improvements to Mill and Broadway (within 5 to 7 years) After the traffic has been relocated along the new 6th Avenue extension, improvements can be made to the intersection of 8th and Mill Street to add a signal and small pedestrian refuge and other related improve- ments. Improvements would also be made to Broad- way, such as widening sidewalks, adding street trees or on-street parking. Page 28 Mill Street and Broadway. 8th and Mill Street Crossing. Key Next Steps 1. Secure Funding for Schematic Design The City? equested funds to develop a schematic design for the preferred transportation alternative last spring. If successful, these funds would be available in late fall, 2002. The City will also need to secure funding for the construction of this transportation alterrnative. 2. Design and Construction for 8th Avenue and Ferry Street. The City? Federal lobbying effort also included a request for funds to design and construct the immediate improvements needed to provide access to the courthouse, specifically on 8 th and Ferry. The design needs to include streetscape details as well as stormwater facilities. 3. Coordination with ODOT Programming/schematic designs for the 6 th Avenue realignment need to be developed in close coordination with with ODOT officials. 4. Coordination with Courthouse Architect Street improvements to 8th Avenue and construction of Ferry Street need to be closely coordinated with the construction for the new Federal Courthouse. 5. Coordination with Union Pacific Railroad If a pedestrian railroad underpass, either with or without a Millrace, is to be constructed at the north end of the new Ferry Street, coordination with Union Pacific officials will be required. Page 29 Illustrative section through railroad tracks and 6th Avenue realignment. Page 30 Chapter 6 Implementation The implementation of this Concept Plan rest on future planning and public policy decisions. The Key Next Steps included below summarize the actions required to begin the long term process of trans- forming this area into the vibrant district envisioned in the Concept Plan. Key Next Steps: Urban Design Concept 1. Review by City Council Based on the recommendation of the Downtown Plan Update Committee, this Concept Plan was forwarded to City Council for discussion and action. The Concept Plan was reviewed by City Council on July 17 and July 31, 2002, and approved with revisions on July 31, 2002. A copy of the minutes of the July 31, 2002 City Council meeting is included as Appendix A to this report. 2. Incorporation into Downtown Plan Update Based on the action of City Council, this Concept Plan will be folded into an update of the Downtown Plan. Significant additional planning work is anticipated, including the development of a new zone and a Great Streets overlay. 3. Coordination With City Staff Close coordination with staff from other city departments, particularly Public Works Transportation, Engineering and Parks Planning is required to ensure that the elements of this Concept Plan are integrated into ongoing and planned work programs. Page 31 Key Next Steps: Land Use Element 1. Request for Proposals for City-Owned Triangle The City should issue a Request for Proposals for development on the city-owned triangle. City staff may first need to issue a Request for Qualifications, and meet with developers to assess the potential for this property. The RFP will include guidelines to ensure that the components of the Concept Plan, such as the new Millrace and the transportation alternative, are accommodated. 2. Coordination with EWEB / Waterfront Design Maintaining close coordination with EWEB is essential as their discussion of a phased relocation continues. 3. Coordination with Courthouse Architect A number of components of the Concept Plan require coordination of design work with the Courthouse Architect, specifically Cannery Square. 4. Initiate Metro Plan Amendments and Zone Changes Metro Plan amendments will be required to redesignate the area within the Courthouse District to a land use more in keeping with the uses proposed in the Concept Plan. Zone changes will be also required. Both of these planning efforts will occur as part of the Downtown Plan Update. 5. Create Riverfront Conceptual Design Public participation and investment to create a more fully developed concept for the riverfront is essential. A team of environmental experts and creative designers needs to be assembled, to balance the opportunities and constraints of the site and create an outstanding design for our civic waterfront. 6. Determine Appropriate Land Uses The land use concept in this Plan is very general. City staff need to propose a more specific mix of uses and desired densities for the district as part of the Downtown Plan Update. Page 32 Page 33 Key Next Steps: Landscape and Water Element 1. Millrace Study and Design Significant additional study is required for any Millrace design to address the design principles listed above.The new Millrace design will need to be conducted by a team consisting of a water quality expert, hydrologist, landscape architect, and urban designer. This team will need to provide a long term and short term plan for the entire watershed of the Millrace (old and new). In addition, careful coordination will be necessary with the environmental regulatory agencies, such as the Army Corps of Engineers and the National Marine Fisheries Service. 2. Planting Scheme for 8th Avenue An appropriate planting scheme for 8 th Avenue needs to be developed and coordinated through appropriate city agencies. Landscape Guidelines for 8th Avenue will also need to be integrated with a Great Streets zoning overlay, anticipated as part of the work for the Downtown Plan Update. 3. Riverfront Landscape Design A planning and design team needs to be assembled to focus on landscape issues as part of an overall land use concept for the riverfront. (See also discussion of riverfront under Chapter 2, Land Use.) 4. Identify Revenue Sources Appropriate sources have not been identified. Cost estimates are extremely high; actual amounts will depend on phasing and design. In pursuit of funding the City should consider extending the Urban Renewal District (due to expire in 2005) in order to generate tax increment to fund some of the improvements envisioned in this Concept Plan. The City should also investigate the possibility to leverage Federal funds for the Millrace. Page 34 Key Next Steps: Transportation Element 1. Secure Funding for Schematic Design The City? equested funds to develop a schematic design for the preferred transportation alternative last spring. If successful, these funds would be available in late fall, 2002. The City will also need to secure funding for the construction of this transportation alterrnative. 2. Design and Construction for 8th Avenue and Ferry Street The City? Federal lobbying effort also included a request for funds to design and construct the immediate improvements needed to provide access to the courthouse, specifically on 8 th and Ferry. The design needs to include streetscape details as well as stormwater facilities. 3. Coordination with ODOT Programming/schematic designs for the 6 th Avenue realignment need to be developed in close coordination with with ODOT officials. 4. Coordination with Courthouse Architect Street improvements to 8th Avenue and construction of Ferry Street need to be closely coordinated with the construction for the new Federal Courthouse. 5. Coordination with Union Pacific Railroad If a pedestrian railroad underpass, either with or without a Millrace, is to be constructed at the north end of the new Ferry Street, coordination with Union Pacific officials will be required. Appendix Page 35 Page 36 M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room?Eugene City Hall July 31, 2002 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: David Kelly, Gary Pap?, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Pat Farr, Betty Taylor, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION: Courthouse District Concept Plan Nan Laurence, Project Manager, was present for the item. Planning and Development Department Director Tom Coyle, Public Works Director Kurt Corey, Planning Division Manager Jan Childs, and Dave Reinhard and Tom Larsen of the Public Works Department Transportation Division were also present. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap?, moved to approve the draft Courthouse District concept Plan, with a revision to delete the reference to the arena on page 11 and add a sentence to the bottom of page 12 that would read as follows: ?The University of Oregon is currently engaged in a feasibility study for a new basket ball arena. Based on the outcome of that study and further action by the City Council, an arena may be considred as an appropriate use within the courthouse district.? Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Rayor, moved to amend the motion to modify the plan diagrams on page 6, 8, and 11 to remove the specific road drawn north of the tracks between 5th Avenue and the Riverfront Research Park and the specific shading of ?residential/ mixed use? north of the tracks, and replace them with a legend that says ?riverfront area development and street function and locations are to be determined, based on the principles on pp 13-14.? Mr. Kelly said that the amendment did not preclude development north of the tracks, but made the plan diagram consistent with the text. Ms. Taylor asked Ms. Laurence if the courthouse construction plan would be impacted if the council did not adopt the concept plan today. Ms. Laurence said no. Ms. Taylor said she thought the council was rushing unnecessarily to adopt the plan. She did not think the process had been adequately publicized, and the public was not aware of the proposal to extend 6th Avenue to parallel the railroad tracks. Ms. Bettman agreed with Ms. Taylor that the project was on an unnecessarily fast time line. She indicated support for the amendment as being more consistent with discussions held by the Planning Commission + 3 regarding the conceptual nature of development north of the tracks. Mr. Meisner confirmed with Ms. Laurence that the amendment would not preclude development north of the tracks. He indicated support for the amendment. Appendix A: City Council Minutes, July 31, 2002 Page 37 Ms. Nathanson said she would support the amendment with the understanding that the principles mentioned on page 13 were still endorsed by the council. Speaking to Ms. Taylor?s remarks, Ms. Nathanson said that slowing the plan adoption process may not stop the construction of the courthouse, but it could impede collaborative efforts between the City, the federal government, and other State and local agencies. Mr. Rayor supported the amendment for the reasons stated by Mr. Kelly. He believed that it would be prema- ture to identify development north of the tracks without further study and analysis. Mr. Pap? opposed the amendment. He said that people need to understand that there is development antici- pated and he thought the schematic did that well. Mayor Torrey said as long as the record was clear that it was the council?s intent that development would be allowed north of the tracks, he supported the amendment. Mr. Pap?, seconded by Mr. Rayor, called the question. The motion to cease debate passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. The amendment passed, 7:1; Mr. Pap? voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion to modify the fifth bullet on page 27 to add the following [italicized text added]: ?Some reduction in traffic on Broadway, resulting in the removal of at least one lane of traffic, thus providing an opportunity. . .? Mr. Kelly said that the amendment spoke to the design of Broadway and Ms. Laurence had indicated comfort with it. He said that the amendment would result in a more pedestrian-friendly street because of the lane removal. Ms. Taylor said she was inclined to vote against all the amendments because she thought it would make it easier for the council to proceed with adoption of the concept plan. Ms. Bettman supported the amendment, saying that it committed the City to the promise it made from the outset to diminish the right-of-way as the tradeoff for extending the State highway through the property. Mr. Meisner asked if staff found the amendment acceptable. Ms. Laurence said yes, with the understanding the City still has to work through the design issues with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Mr. Reinhard concurred. Ms. Nathanson opposed the amendment because it was too specific and tied the City?s hands to a promise it could not yet keep. The City had to work with ODOT on the final street design, and she preferred to leave the text more general because of that. Mr. Farr agreed with Ms. Nathanson that the amendment was overly specific. Mr. Pap? said he would also oppose the amendment because it meant the removal of one lane that could not be restored without council approval. Page 38 Mayor Torrey indicated he would oppose the amendment if the vote was a tie. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Farr, called the question. The motion to cease debate passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. The vote on the amendment to the motion was a 4:4 tie, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Meisner, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting yes; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Farr, Mr. Pap?, and Mr. Rayor voting no; Mayor Torrey cast a vote in opposi- tion, and the amendment failed on a final vote of 5:4. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the plan by adding the following sentence before the last sentence of last paragraph on page 14: ?Development or redevelopment proposals that provide adaptive reuse of the primary historic structures will be encouraged by the City; demolition of the primary historic structures would be discouraged.? Mr. Kelly acknowledged that a historic preservation plan would be premature at this time, and that the City did not control most of the potentially historic properties in question. At this time, the plan included no text related to use of the historic structures in the vicinity of the courthouse development site. He thought the inclusion of the sentence would allow staff to begin examination of how historic preservation might occur in the area. Mr. Kelly suggested that failure to adopt his amendment was a statement that Eugene had a past but did not care about it. Ms. Taylor did not think the amendment strong enough to accomplish anything, although it might be better than nothing. She reiterated that more discussion by the general public about this and other topics was needed before anything more happened. Ms. Bettman said the amendment gave the City an opportunity to preserve unique structures by allowing for an examination of historic preservation approaches in the area. She said that much of the public testimony related to historic preservation. Mr. Meisner opposed the amendment. Ms. Nathanson said the plan was not silent on the topic of historic properties. There were no specific mandates in the plan because the potentially historic structures in question were privately owned. She asked what it meant to encourage preservation; did it mean the City would expend staff to proactively pursue historic preservation to the possible detriment of other important planning and development activities? Mr. Farr agreed with the intent of the amendment to preserve as much of historic Eugene as possible. He asked if the historic structures had been designated. Mr. Carlson said none were designated. Mr. Farr asked if there was a process in place to do so. Ms. Laurence said that the structures had not been determined to be of such merit that they could be designated. Only one structure was eligible for listing on the National Register, and that was the Agripac general office, which was owned by the City. Mr. Farr indicated opposition to the amendment. Mr. Rayor thought the amendment added value to the plan. Mayor Torrey asked how the amendment would impact the demolition Request for Proposals. Mr. Carlson said it would not. Mr. Pap? suggested that what was historic was a matter of perception. He was concerned that the develop- Page 39 ment of the district not be held up by concern about structures that might or might not be historic. He preferred to identify a historic area and focus on and preserve that area. Mr. Pap?, seconded by Mr. Rayor, called for the question. The motion to cease debate passed, 7:1; Ms. Bettman voting no. The vote on the amendment was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner, Mr. Farr, and Mr. Pap? voting no; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Rayor voting yes; Mayor Torrey cast a vote in support of the amend- ment on the condition it did not affect the demolition contract, and the amendment passed on a final vote of 5:4. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend Millrace principle #2 on page 20 to state that part of the principle is to provide that pedestrians can walk along the edge of a water feature from Broadway and Mill Street to the river. Mr. Kelly said he was careful to use the phrase ?a water feature? in order not to presuppose the nature of the Millrace. He was merely attempting to codify as a principle what was shown in the diagram; that was, what- ever form the Millrace took, a person would be able to walk along it from Broadway and Mill Street to the river. Ms. Taylor indicated support for the amendment. Ms. Bettman supported the amendment as truth in advertising. She said the Millrace was key to the project and to completely minimize the feature was a mistake. Mr. Meisner opposed the amendment because of its mandate for absolute continuity. He said that the Planning Commission + 3 had discussed the need for flexibility in the Millrace?s width and character, and in terms of the fact it could at some point flow through a building. Ms. Nathanson agreed with the remarks of Mr. Meisner. Mr. Farr said he liked the idea in concept but shared Mr. Meisner?s concerns. Mr. Pap? said he resented the council attempting to remove the detail of the plans away from those better suited than the council to develop those details. He concurred with Mr. Meisner for the reasons stated, and suggested that safety could also be an issue dependent on the details of the design. The vote on the amendment was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner, Mr. Farr, and Mr. Pap? voting no; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Rayor voting yes; Mayor Torrey cast a vote in opposition to the amendment, and the amendment failed on a final vote of 5:4. Mr. Kelly thanked the council for considering his amendments, and expressed frustration he was unable to get assistance from staff two weeks ago to improve them. He said that the council had been unwilling to codify a reduction in the number of lanes on Broadway as speculative, even though it had no problem codifying that 6th Avenue would be two lanes. He was appalled that the council was not willing to guarantee that people could walk along the length of the Millrace. Mr. Kelly could not support the plan as a result. Page 40 Page 41 Ms. Taylor said that to be truly democratic, the City should allow for more time to let those without a vested interest provide input into the concept plan. She called for a broad public process. She was opposed to the extension of 6th Avenue and said it will serve as another barrier to the river. She said that concerns about the Millrace and historic preservation were also relevant to her opposition. Ms. Bettman indicated opposition to the concept plan because of the 6th Avenue extension. The City would decrease the value of its own property by enveloping it with two State highways. She questioned how residen- tial development could be accomplished successfully next to a State highway. Ms. Bettman said that it was possible the City could see an extension of both 6th and 7th avenues or a wider 6th Avenue in light of the lack of a firm commitment from ODOT. Mr. Meisner supported the motion. He noted that the Planning Commission + 3 voted not to consider an arena in the courthouse area. However, he did not object to the language being added because it allowed for explora- tion of the option with the acknowledgment that other sites were being considered. He hoped that the Univer- sity of Oregon considered building a new arena downtown. Mr. Meisner commended the work done by staff, in particular Ms. Laurence. Ms. Nathanson also supported the motion, saying the planning process included a wide variety of individuals with a broad range of expertise. She supported the concept plan because of its support for promoting new connections between downtown, the river, and the university, increased access to the river, the incorporation of the Millrace, and a new entrance to downtown. The plan created a new neighborhood with one very exciting building already proposed. She hoped there was more to come, and that the plan made such development feasible. Mr. Farr commended staff for developing text that kept the arena concept alive without locking it in. He wished the council would avoid leveling criticism at staff at the council meeting table. He apologized to staff. Mr. Farr reminded Ms. Taylor that the United States was a republic, not a democracy. Mr. Rayor supported the plan. He said that the key to the plan was the road design, which he thought facili- tated traffic movement through the area. Mr. Rayor said he did not think the site appropriate for an arena. Mr. Pap? also supported the plan. Speaking to Ms. Taylor and Mr. Kelly?s comments, Mr. Pap? said part of democracy was compromise, and noted that two of Mr. Kelly?s amendments had been adopted by the council. He suggested that the other two could be informally incorporated into the plan. Mr. Pap? said that the area in question was a very difficult area to plan for. He determined from Mr. Carlson that the recommended action regarding the arena was consistent with what the University of Oregon was asking the council to do. Mayor Torrey thanked the councilors who served on the Planning Commission + 3. He thought the plan a good outcome for the community. Ms. Taylor said that the concept plan would have long-range impacts on the City and it was ridiculous to rush it through. She said that the City did not have all the answers yet. She agreed that staff did a good job, but she did not think it was the final job. She pointed out that experts in the same fields had different opinions about the same issues. Many of those people had not yet had a chance to make comments on the concept plan. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Pap? that democracy was a matter of compromise and said he put forward his amendments in that spirit. However, he would be ?puzzled for a long time? why, when the Millrace was to be a central part of the plan, the council was unable to support the concept of a walkable Millrace. In response to Mr. Kelly, Ms. Nathanson noted her long-time interest in the Millrace and her support of the concept of the Millrace. However, she did not know that a contiguous Millrace from the Broadway intersec- tion to the Willamette River could be achieved. Her concerns about Mr. Kelly?s amendment was focused on its specificity. Mr. Farr said that the planning process had been relatively lengthy with many opportunities for public input. He pointed out that the council was adopting a concept plan with a great deal of flexibility. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson?s concerns about the specificity of Mr. Kelly?s amendment. Mr. Rayor thanked the General Services Administration, the University of Oregon, and ODOT. Referring to the public input received, Ms. Bettman said that she spoke to people who believed that their input about the plan was offered in vain. There was a community and council vision for the area, but what the council had before it was a new road project. That would dictate everything that happened in and around the site. She anticipated that the development patterns that resulted would resemble the development that typically bordered a State highway. The main motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap?, moved to direct the City Manager to prepare scoping for implementation of key next steps, including time lines and budget requirements, and incorporate the concept plan as part of the forthcoming Downtown Plan update. Mr. Kelly thanked staff and the Planning Commission + 3 for their hard work on the concept plan. He thought it contained much good work, but believed that the vision and chance for innovation had been taken out of it, which disappointed him. The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting no. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Carlson City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) R:\2002\Central Services Department\City Council\cc020731m1.wpd Page 42 Greater Downtown Vision Implementation Work Plan (Page 12, City Council Agenda Item Summary for Work Session on the Downtown Willamette River/Franklin Boulevard Visioning Project, April 9, 2001) Title: Redevelopment Concept for Chiquita/EWEB/Broadway Key Next Step: Create a redevelopment concept for the EWEB/Chiquita/Broadway sites. Include a connection along 8th Avenue across Mill Street to the river, a plan for reopening the millrace, a pedestrian connection from 5th Avenue to the river; possible reuse of the steam plant and preservation of visual and physical access to the river; initiate appropriate zoning and Metro Plan Amendments. Description: Staff will initially begin work on schematic designs for the Chiquita site to facilitate the design process for the federal courthouse project. This work will include the divisions of the site to create a courthouse development footprint, site access, on site circulation, clustering plan for full site build-out, millrace and other site amenities, infrastructure plan and desired uses. This work will be coordinated with the courthouse design team. Design work will also extend to the EWEB and Broadway sites. These sites will be addressed at a lower level of detail initially emphasizing the connections to the Chiquita site and the general character of adjacent development. Time Line: An urban design consultant will be hired to assist with overall design and a transportation consultant will be hired to develop alternatives for the 8th/Mill and Broadway/Mill intersections. Work would begin in April 2001. There would be a mid process review with Council. Final Council review would be scheduled for January/February 2002. Cost/Source: Staff and consultant work items are estimated to cost $237,000. These resources are available as a result of action taken in the FY ?01 SB #1 and carry forward from the Visioning project. Product: Schematic design for Chiquita and adjacent properties for Council review. Follow-up work would include an update of the Riverfront Urban Renewal District plan and a Metro Plan Amendment. Citizen Involvement: Public involvement plan to be reviewed by CIC. Public workshop, public drop-in session, displays during First Friday Art Walks. Staff will work directly with the Planning Commission during this planning process. Appendix B: Council Work Plan Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Appendix C: Possible Future Land Uses For EWEB Riverfront This diagram represents a planning document under consideration by EWEB. As of the date of this report, this diagram has not been formally adopted by the EWEB Board. Page 46 Appendix D: Summary Description of Transportation Alternatives In developing the Courthouse District Concept Plan, project staff and consultants developed and evaluated numerous transportation alternatives. All of the alternatives addressed the four main urban design goals, with an emphasis on creating connections between the downtown, the courthouse area and the river. However, each alternative balanced these goals differently, specifically in the trade-off between providing an intersection at 8th and Mill and relocating some of the traffic currently flowing through the area. At the January 16, 2002 City Council Work Session, staff presented three transportation alternatives, including Low Build, Fifth Street Connection (Local Street Option), and 6th/7th Realignment (the ?swoop?). In March, in response to the Downtown Plan Update Committee?s comments, staff and consultants developed a fourth alternative, 6th Avenue Realignment. In April, Jerry Diethelm, a profes- sor of Landscape Architecture at the University of Oregon proposed a fifth alternative, 8th Avenue / Broadway Concept. These five alternatives were evaluated against the following performance mea- sures: 1. Traffic Accommodation 8th and Mill intersection operation Corridor operation for Highway 99 travel Transit Accessibility 2. Pedestrian Environment 8th and Mill crossing 8th Avenue pedestrian experience riverfront access Broadway corridor 3. Urban Design Issues Millrace connection to river urban arena accommodation redevelopment potential 4. Cost and Feasibility Available land required partnerships potential cost Based on this evaluation, staff to the project ranked the alternatives in the following order: 1. 6th Avenue Realignment 2. 6th /7th Realignment (Swoop) 3. Fifth Street Connection (Local Street Option) 4. 8th Avenue/Broadway Concept 5. Low Build Option After extensive discussion, the Downtown Plan Update Committee voted to recommend the 6th Avenue Realignment as the preferred alternative. A diagram and evaluation of each of these five alternatives can be found in the materials presented to the Downtown Plan Update Committee on June 3, 2002, included as Attachment C-4 to the Agenda Item Summary for the City Council Work Session on July 17, 2002. Page 47