05/14/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to s'ubstitute for the motion authoriza- tion to purchase the Mathers property subject to majority approval by individual Council members of the legal opinions. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, Council- men Williams, Hershner, Wood, and Mayor Anderson voting aye; Councilmen Beal, Campbell, and Murray voting no; Councilmen McDonald abstaining. Councilman Hershner asked whether the City Attorney's opinions would be made a part of the Council record. Manager replied they would by reference, and that copies would be ,retained in an opinion file in the City Recorder's office. S. First Avenue/I-105 Connections - Copies of staff report were previously furnished . Council members covering meeting between City and State Highway Division staffs to 'discuss whether alternative solutions to closing the First Avenue connectors would be sufficiently acceptable to justify a request for renegotiation of the existing City/State contract. Also distributed to Council members previously were copies . of a report from Whiteaker Community Association, letter from Eugene Downtown . Association, and letter from Wilson Investments located at Roosevelt Boulevard and Highway 99 North. Manager introduced Bob Royer and Bill Cranford of the High- way Division staff and Howard Buford, transportation planner for LCOG. e Manager reviewed the City staff memo which basically states the staff's position that there exists a firm contract with the State Highway Division, County and Federal government on construction underway on I-105 extension to 6th and 7th, and so long as that contract is valid staff position would be to live up to its terms which include disconnection of the 1st Avenue ramps upon opening of the extension, scheduled for mid-June. Both City and State staff people feel the safest alternative is carrying out the contract as origina1yy provided and discon- nect the ramps. ,- There was exploration at the staff meeting of implementing Plan 2H as shown in the Highway Division report (provision for an acceleration lane at an estimated cost of $350,000 by widening the bridge where the temporary northbound on-ramp meets the main freeway). Staff consensus was that it would be a marginal facility from I a safety standpoint; that it could be implemented if modification of the existing I contract is approved by the Secretary of Department of Transportatioll; that an estimated expenditure of $350,000 would be necessary if it is implemented to up- grade the northbound on-ramp from 1st to I-10S; that while awaiting approval and construction,improvement adjustments to the overhead facility would have to be made to move northbound traffic into the inside lane to allow traffic from the -on-ramp to feather into the outside lane. In that interim period the overhead capacity would notme~!.~_ak hourt!~1!Iands ~r~!!ultin~. in congestion and high potential for rear-end accidents. Request for te:rtporary ~se oi/..lternate'2~ if decided upon, would be transmitted to the Highway Commission and with their approval, to the Transportation Secretary. If the Highway CommissiOll approves, . there is a possibility of 50/50 sharing of costs with the State; possibility of Federal sharing is very remote. City Attorney's office has indicated they do not Ifeel an election is necessary to proceed with such a program. The local Federal , : office could be asked in the meantime to give permission to continue the connection: ; of the ramps and also open I-lOS to 6th and 7th in mid-June. I. , If the request is disapproved by the Secretary of Transportation there would be no choice but to comply with the existing contract and remove the ramps. If it is approved the anticipated life of the temporary facility would be about ten years or until an extension of Highway 126 is developed at some location between the River and the railroad tracks. Engineering staffs see no way to continue use of . the ramps together with an extension of 126. Present projections of traffic . volumes indicate that extension should be constructed as soon as possible. However, . the local Charter amendment makes a difficult situation since it requires vote of the public before the City can enter into a contract to proceed with construction, and it doesn't seem reasonable to submit a project for approval prior to development of an environmental impact statement. That is the responsibility of the State High- . way Division who are not inclined to work on an impact statement without knowing what the electorate will do with the project subsequent to the statement. There is little possibility that work on a statement could be started before a year from now, if then. Both State and City staffs feel very strongly that there is critical need for updating of ESATS and its adoption. .' Manager continued that improvements to 6th and 7th and Blair to make them better able to accommodate traffic now using 1st and shifted to 6th and 7th with the opening of the I-105 extension are estimated at about $725,000. Costs originally were to be shared 75% State, 25% City; whether that formula would still apply is not known. !:.~ -:; ,~ Councilman Wood referred to the City's responsibility for removal of the ramps should the temporary alternate be disapproved and noted there was no cost mentioned. J'!~nager sa~~~ .~!!~~I?:.~9rm.~~~~C:12- rec:ei ved wasJ::!!at. if the removal resul ted in addi- "1.-< l4t9 5114/73 - 9