Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Chris Henry, Transportation Planning Engineer for the City of Eugene, clarified that the road was planned to be 64 feet from curb to curb and an extra four feet was included for a barrier on the inside and outside of the bridge. He assured Commissioner Fleenor that the bridge would include shoulders on both sides for emergency break-downs or emergency services and that the road would be striped for two lanes consistent with the interstate elsewhere. He cited, as an example, the bridge over the Santiam River as it had recently been constructed to a width that could accommodate three lanes if needed in the future but was currently striped for two. Commissioner Green requested that a copy of the written response to questions be provided for everyone. Commissioner Sorenson wanted to ask questions regarding the transportation implications of the decision. He related that lists had been made of projects that were to be done in the short-term and projects that were to be done in the future and asked where this project would fall on the list. Ms. O’Donnell responded that she would include the answer in the written response. Mr. Henry added that he believed the project had been identified for Oregon Transportation Improvement Act (OTIA) 2 and OTIA 3 funding by ODOT and had been included in the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP). He said it had not existed as an identified TransPlan project because it had not been known at the time that the bridge was broken. Councilor Bettman reiterated that she considered it a capacity project and asked, given this, why it did not include consideration for pedestrians and bicycles. Ms. O’Donnell responded that at this point what was being considered was a high policy question regarding whether or not the bridge replacement made sense and should be considered. She stated that those other considerations would be addressed at the time that the decision to propose striping the bridge for three lanes was made. Councilor Bettman asserted that this was actually bridge expansion and not bridge replacement. She repeated her concerns regarding the proposal referring to a replacement bridge and that it did not take into consideration the changes that would result from expansion to three lanes. She said the figures for the amount of fill in the river disregarded existing fill. She averred that all of the findings needed to be corrected. Councilor Bettman asked if both bridges would be identical. Ms. O’Donnell responded that the design work had not been completed to that point; the project was in the conceptual phase. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. O’Donnell clarified that what was under consideration at the hearing was not a Willamette Greenway Permit, which was a Type 3 Land Use Application. She explained that such an application would look at the bridge design and the impacts to riparian features. Councilor Bettman averred that the amendments under consideration did not predict the design of the bridge. Commissioner Dwyer understood from the preliminary design that the concept for the bridge was a cantilevered single pier bridge. Ms. O’Donnell responded that the Plan Options A and B submitted by ODOT indicated that they were considering a bridge with one pier in the water under both bridges, one pier in the water possibly for one or both bridges on the south shore, and both piers on land on the north shore. Mayor Leiken asked if the design of the bridge could accommodate ramps in the future. Ms. O’Donnell responded that if the record was left open the applicant could respond to this but staff was not looking at the design at this point. MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— June 24, 2008 Page 6 Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene and Springfield City Councils