Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Croteau reviewed a change proposed to Policy 11 by Gregory McLaughlan (struck text <br />proposed for deletion; italicized text proposed for addition): Maximize h~ease the use of <br />alternative modes of transportation by improving the capacity, design, safety, and convenience of <br />the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation systems." He reminded the council of its <br />previous discussion and the concern voiced by councilors that the use of "maximize" would mean <br />people could argue that the City was not doing enough. <br /> <br />Responding to a request for clarification from Mr. Laue, Mr. Klein said that the word "maximize" <br />was problematic as it suggested that the City would do all it could to achieve the desired <br />outcome no matter the cost. It could be argued that to reach its alternative mode goals the City <br />should buy a bus pass for all residents, for example. Mr. Klein said that he was not really sure <br />what the word meant. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson likened the discussion to the council's discussion of the term "support" versus <br />"maintain." She pointed out that, even if the City bought all residents bus passes, it could not <br />force people to use one mode over the other so it could not really maximize alternative modes <br />use, and can only hope to encourage increased use. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner agreed with Ms. Nathanson. He said that the intent of the policy was to increase <br />alternative modes use to the highest degree possible, but he did not want to face a situation <br />where the City was sued because it did not do enough to satisfy the advocates of alternative <br />modes. <br /> <br />The council made no changes to Policy 11. <br /> <br />Mr. Croteau noted a change to Policy 13 proposed by Jon Belcher (italicized text proposed for <br />addition): "Focus future street improvements on relieving pressure on the City's most congested <br />roadways and intersections to maintain an acceptable level of mobility for all modes of <br />transportation while preserving the viability of residences and businesses." <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that while he understood Mr. Belcher's intent, he did not think the revised <br />language addressed what he wanted in terms of avoiding overpaving and overwidening streets. <br />He said that it could actually require added street capacity to do what the proposed revision <br />suggested. He said that revision could be the basis for a business owner to argue that a turn <br />lane or more street capacity was necessary to maintain business viability. <br /> <br />Mr. Torrey asked if the policy could be rewritten to limit the issue of "viability" to viability of <br />residences. He noted his concern about residents who live on minor arterials like Washington <br />and Jefferson streets. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs reminded the council that the Planning Commission was considering collector and <br />arterial streets through what was being termed the "nonlocal street plan." She said that staff had <br />done considerable work on the draft plan in response to testimony regarding collectors and <br />arterials received at a public hearing. Mr. Belcher raised the same issues through that process. <br />Ms. Childs anticipated that the issue raised by Mr. Belcher would be addressed by the nonlocal <br />street plan even if the council amended the policy in question. <br /> <br />Mr. Tollenaar said he was sympathetic to the intent of the revision but unable to support it. He <br />said that the policy focused on those projects that would be required to relieve pressure on the <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 2, 1998 Page 5 <br />5:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />