CC Minutes - 11/26/01 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chris Clemow, Balheizer Hubberd Engineers, 975 Lincoln Street, discussed the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) his firm prepared for the alley vacation, and concluded that the majority of traffic was internal, that there was some external traffic that created conflicts with the internal traffic, that bicycle and pedestrian trips would be displaced but that bicyclists and pedestrians would experience no increase in travel time because those trips could be accommodated on 11th or 13th avenues. Mr. Clemow maintained that the alley vacation would increase safety by eliminating conflicts between service vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians, and motorists using the alley. Phillip Farrington, Sartre Associates, 132 East Broadway, said the State statutes require the applicant to identify the purpose for which the alley would be used, and PeaceHealth had done so. He reiterated that the site plan requested by the City was not required by State law. In addition, the statutory notices requirements were met by the application. Mr. Farrington said that the staff had not explained how the vacation would prejudice or harm the public interest, or what public interest was compromised. He believed the public interest was served by coherent master planning for 1,800 future employees projected to work on the campus. Mr. Farrington concurred with the remarks of Mr. Clemow, noting that pedestrian traffic was generated by University students using the alley instead of the nearby sidewalk. That use created both a potential safety hazard in that the pedestrian traffic conflicted with internal traffic as well as a security risk. He noted further the alley had no amenities to support through pedestrian movement and was not identified in any adopted plan as part of the local transportation system for any mode. Mr. Farrington suggested that denying the application was to put a higher priority on maintaining cut-through pedestrian traffic in the alley than on the public interest inherent in preserving the jobs and functions that would occur on the campus. Jim Weston, 770 East 11th Avenue, Director of Facilities for PeaceHealth Sacred Heart Medical Center, discussed the hospital's concerns about security in the alley proposed for vacation. He noted concerns about vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian conflicts, and said that although the alley was owned by the City, the hospital had signed it, added paving marking, and mirrors, but the alley continued to be hazardous. If the hospital controlled the alley, it could limit access and mitigate the danger to employees. Mr. Weston further noted concerns regarding vandalism, graffiti attacks, and public urination, and the safety of equipment stored nearby. Michael Robinson, Perkins Coie LLP, 1211 Southwest 5th Avenue, Suite 1500, Portland, attorney-at-law, represented PeaceHealth. He discussed whether there was a public interest threatened by the alley vacation. He said that if, following a public hearing and the receipt of testimony, the council finds that the public interest was not prejudiced, appellate courts have ruled that the alley vacation shal! be granted. The public interest was not prejudiced because neither Oregon Revised Statutes nor the Eugene Code required that a site plan be submitted. Mr. Robinson said that the site plan was dependant on the alley vacation and master planning process. He said that there was evidence in the record that those using the alley would not be displaced or inconvenienced and had ample opportunity to continue their trips on facilities designed expressly MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 6 Regular Meeting