|
<br /> ,...
<br /> 73S e
<br /> Ii il
<br /> I' I
<br /> :I II
<br /> I: 'u. J Council Chambers
<br /> I: Eugene, Oregon "
<br /> !; 'I
<br /> !; November 22, 1971 'i
<br /> "
<br /> I: I
<br /> I Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His Honor::
<br /> Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on November 22, 1971 in the Council Chamber, with the following ;~
<br /> councilmen present: Messrs. Teague, Mohr and McDonald; Mrs. Beal; Messrs Gribskov, Williams and "
<br /> ,
<br /> I
<br /> Hershner; Mrs. Campbell. !
<br /> ,:
<br /> I
<br /> " I
<br /> , PUBLIC HEARINGS
<br /> i; I.
<br /> I
<br /> i:
<br /> II A. Highway 126, Oakhill to 1-105 ( Minutes from Committee meeting of November 3, 1971 reproduced
<br /> "
<br /> it below.
<br /> A lengthy memorandum was previously distributed to Councilmen which outlined the history of
<br /> the proposed contract between the City and the State pighway Department regarding the exten-
<br /> sion of Highway 126. It is hoped the City, County and State can reach ,agreement so that the e
<br /> state may proceed wi th scheduling and financing of the first portion.
<br /> City Manager outlined the route of the proposal, while the Director of Public Works traced
<br /> the hi ghway and its in terchanges on a map on the wall. He commented about alternatives to
<br /> the proposal which might ,give better access to river frontage, or preserve park land which
<br /> will be enfulfed by the highway. He stated that the City Council, at its meeting of October
<br /> 26, 1964 had approved the proposed alignment of Highway 126 extension and requested that the I
<br /> " design of the facility include a frontage road along thenorth side of the freeway to provide
<br /> :, access to the park properties, which will be cut off from the existing north-south city
<br /> streets. Planning has proceeded since that time on the assumption that this was a firm
<br /> commi tment, although there have been some changes in the contract and concept details of
<br /> des:i:.gn. He explained various alternate proposals, and the problems of financing or topo-
<br /> graphy which would make them not feasible. He said the State has added provisions for
<br /> , si dewalks , frontage roads and, where possible, designed bicycle facili ties.
<br /> Public Works Director added that, because a major storm sewer system could not be constructed
<br /> until highway planning'was completed, the Highway Department will incorporate a floodway with
<br /> the pro] ect .
<br /> ': Mayor Anderson listed alternatives the Council has as: 1) Approve project as presented; ,
<br /> , 2) refer matter to Planning Commission for public hearing and recommendation; and 3) disapprov~1
<br /> 'I ,
<br /> the project. I
<br /> City Manager mentioned that the Plannigg Commission has scheduled discussion of this project
<br /> for its noon meeting of November 8.
<br /> " In answer to Councilman Williams, City Manager said there will be minor variations in the
<br /> alignment and design, but the question before the Council is whether to go ahead with the
<br /> final design. He explained to Mr. Mohr that this would not norm~lly go to the Planning
<br /> commission, but they were interested and wished to discuss it. .. I
<br /> "
<br /> Councilman Williams asked what the original basis was to want to build this extension at all.
<br /> Mr. Howard Buford of L-COG explained that something had to be done to handle traffic, or the "
<br /> ,
<br /> entire city would be destroyed. He explained various studies and projections made, the con-
<br /> clusions drawn, and how, after many months of study and negotiation, this proposal was pre- rI
<br /> sented. The only alternatives would be to increase the size of present city arterials to "
<br /> permit movement of greater numbers of cars.
<br /> I'
<br /> Councilman Mohr felt it might be better to suffer wi th slower driving than build the facili ty e
<br /> !, at all. He fel t the publi c wished to stop building freeways and accommodating the automobile. 1
<br /> - --
<br /> -
<br /> Mr. Buford explaIned, in answer to some Council questions, that the figures being used were
<br /> facts, not assumptions. It was necessary to take care of the projected load, rather than
<br /> attempt to swing people into another mode of travel. He submitted that, if the city stayed
<br /> with what it had, more air pollution would be produced, because of inefficient use of cars.
<br /> I Present streets would have to be widened, losing many trees and buiilldings. These decisions
<br /> would have to be made.
<br /> Mr. Williams did not believe, that by refusing to build the freeway, the people would be
<br /> : moved towards development of a mass transit system. As long as they had cars available,
<br /> they would use them~ He really felt there were few options, with the state of today's ,i
<br /> i mass transit.
<br /> I
<br /> ,
<br /> Director of Public Works explained that the intent was to take the traffic out of the I
<br /> heart of town, and with completion of the Washington-Jefferson extension, all the traffi c
<br /> would be dumped on 6th and 7th.
<br /> !
<br /> Councilman Teague felt this was an opportunity to plan for the future. He fel t there
<br /> 'I were several traffic spots now that caused real problems, and that this should be a
<br /> consideration.
<br /> Mr. McDonald agreed, but he was concerned too that perhg.ps traffi c had not increased
<br /> .' as rapidly as had been forecast. Mr. Buford pointed out that, not only had the traffi-c I
<br /> I e
<br /> i.ncreased as forecast, but even more rapidly.
<br /> ~ 11/22/71- - 1
<br />
|