CCAgenda-3/08/04Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In response to another question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Lowe said the University had made it clear it would willingly participate in any required improvements that would arise from redevelopment of the area, but it would not help fund improvements to existing infrastructure. Mr. Kelly noted that, regarding parity across the city, the City had funded a transition manager for the River Road/Santa Clara area and could certainly fund the first transportation study as well. He strongly recommended the traffic calming study consider the nodal area. He agreed Agate Street was dysfunctional and averred a "little money" should be spent now in order to determine what options there were for improvement of the situation. He liked the idea of seeking out grants, but thought contingency money should be set aside should no grant options be available. Mr. Kelly remarked that, while the University was a great asset to the community, it also placed a great burden on the infrastructure of the City. He noted that an application for the construction of a new building could trigger a traffic impact analysis (TIA) which could ultimately require the University to participate in implementation of mitigation measures. Mr. Kelly reiterated his approval of the collaboration process and suggested such collaboration should be the norm. Ms. Taylor asked why Agate Street was considered to be dysfunctional. Gary McNeel, Traffic Engineer for the Public Works Department, responded that the street was partially dysfunctional in that if a person was destined for a point north and west of the University, Agate Street facilitated this. Beyond this, he asserted that people avoid it. He listed the multiple stopping points that interfere with the smooth flow of traffic and stressed that it did not function well as a minor arterial. Ms. Taylor contended it was functioning. She felt more development east of Agate Street would exacerbate the situation on the street and increase pressure on pedestrians. She did not think that the pedestrian traffic would willingly be channeled to a signalized intersection. Ms. Taylor suggested the University assume responsibility for a pedestrian overpass. Mr. Lowe responded that there was no mechanism in the City code to force the University to pay for improvements to Agate Street. Ms. Taylor supported funding the Agate Street study. Mr. Pap6 stated, regarding comments from Ms. Nathanson, that the neighborhoods to the east and south could be seen as examples of successful neighborhoods that abutted a university campus. Mr. Kelly related that a larger concern in relation to traffic on Agate Street expressed by the neighborhood was not the traffic on that particular street per se, but the traffic caused on side streets by people trying to avoid the traffic difficulties presented by Agate Street. B. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning the Citizen Involvement Committee and Amending Sections 2.013 and 2.350 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4856, an ordinance concerning the Citizen Involvement Committee. Mr. Taylor explained that this item was an administrative clean-up item for work done during the budget review. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 2004 Page 4 Work Session