CCAgenda-4/12/04Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

known for a long while that the University would need to develop the East Campus area. It had initiated the purchase of properties in that area as early as the 1950s. She related that, because the University had not developed the area, it had managed its properties as residences. She said the area had developed according to the University's internal policies and the City's SAS. She listed some of the buildings that had been designed and built in that area, and said all were carefully designed and placed in accordance with established policies. She reiterated the University's promise to develop property in an orderly way and reaffirmed its commitment to continue to do so. She supported adoption of the land use amend- ments. Andrew Orahoske, 1737 Orchard Street, commended the University and the City for the collaborative process. He expressed concern that amendments to the plan could be disregarded. He stressed the importance of following through and funding the traffic studies. He asked the City to consider liability issues, in that heavier traffic could lead to an increase in personal injury litigation. Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. Councilor Nathanson asked staff to provide comments on potential planning for a parking structure. She felt such a structure would be more efficient than on-street parking but wondered if it would be met with opposition. Councilor Nathanson remarked that traffic calming measures often shifted traffic from one street to another. She recommended careful consideration when thinking of such measures so that a street would not experience an unintended consequence. Councilor Nathanson questioned whether pedestrian overpasses really worked. She felt it was a great idea, but not worth it if it would not be ultimately used. Regarding the traffic studies, Councilor Nathanson asked when they would be brought before the council for budgetary consideration. City Manager Taylor responded that the ordinance before the council was to adopt the work from the 18-month process and, once passed, staff would have to come before the council with a proposal for the traffic studies. He noted that the current transportation budget included no increases or changes. Councilor Nathanson commended the collaborative process and complimented the plan that had resulted from it. Councilor Kelly applauded the work of the neighborhood and the testimony provided by those in attendance. He called the cooperation of the University and the neighborhood group "stunningly successful." He asked staff to look at the policy language presented by Trevor Taylor in his testimony and clean it up, if necessary. Councilor Kelly reiterated that the cooperative effort was predicated on the pursuance of traffic mitigation. He noted that the study of Agate Street was the only item that would need to happen in the near future. He recommended allocating the money for the study from the contingency fund. Councilor Bettman conveyed her appreciation for the collaborative process and for the neighborhood support for the plan. She asked if the City would be obligated to pay for any improvements the traffic studies would call out. Mr. Nelson responded that the City did not have the resources to conduct traffic studies and implement more traffic calming elements at this point. He commented that he heard from nearly all of the 19 neighborhoods in the City that traffic mitigation was needed. He was not prepared, for the present meeting, to address this in a meaningful way. MINUTES- February 23, 2004 Page 8