Laserfiche WebLink
information as possible on the idea itself, which stops short of developing any particular <br />alternatives. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman opined that community support for this project would depend on its scale and <br />impacts. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman spoke to the contamination issue at Alton Baker Park and asked how it would <br />impact building over that site. Mr. Boyatt replied that the contamination had been identified as an <br />issue and the details would depend on further investigation. Ms. Bettman asked if it would <br />dictate that there must be a partial clover leaf south of the river. Mr. Boyatt replied that ODOT <br />placed fill on the capped site as part of the detour structure and additional fill would most likely <br />be necessary for the replacement bridge. He added that unnecessary excavation must be avoided. <br />Ms. Bettman asked how the dedicated lanes of Bus Rapid Transit on Franklin Boulevard would <br />be impacted. Mr. Boyatt replied that that issue was not a cross-section detail that had been <br />reviewed; however, he opined that a design would be crafted that avoids dedicated lanes that must <br />be respected. Ms. Gardner added that any impacts against existing conditions must be mitigated. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman referred to Attachment B, Initial Concepts – Category 1 – Full Interchange – <br />Diamond 1, and asked for an explanation of possible boulevard treatments. Mr. Boyatt explained <br />that the treatments would be for Glenwood Boulevard, west of the interchange. Ms. Gardner <br />added that it was solely an issue to consider at a later time. Mr. Ray said that the concept of <br />Diamond 1 was that it would take away the freeflow movements of the current Highway 99 <br />ramps; i.e., instead of having freeflow movements near Oak Street, movements from the south <br />would veer to the signal and therefore speeds could be reduced. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Boyatt replied that if ODOT moved forward to <br />interchange area management planning, local approval would be necessary to continue forth with <br />the project. Mr. Kelly stressed that prior to a council vote it was essential that it be clarified if an <br />approval to move forward to pursue the project mandated a second approval phase following the <br />completion of the Facility Plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he would send any questions regarding the technical memos that were presented to <br />the council on this date to Ms. Gardner, who would forward them to the project management <br />team. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly questioned if alternatives to mitigate the potential cut-off of the Laurel Hill Valley <br />design have been pursued. Mr. Boyatt replied that the northbound freeway exit and the <br />southbound freeway on-ramp both provide connections to the neighborhood. The specifics of <br />design alternatives involving those connections have not yet been analyzed at this high level, but <br />would be investigated in detail during refinement planning as alternative designs were compared <br />and assessed. <br /> <br />Mr. Boyatt remarked that the area Mr. Kelly referred to was also currently accessible by the <br />Glenwood Interchange. Mr. Kelly pointed out that ODOT made it clear to the MPC in its <br />discussions regarding a permanent bridge and a full interchange that they will be separate projects <br />with two separate processes. Additionally, that ODOT, in its discussions, promised to build a <br />permanent bridge to avoid precluding ramps. He said if additional background on the <br />relationship between the bridge structure and the ramp structure was requested, Mr. Ray can <br />provide that information. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé asked where the potential “superfund” site was located. Mr. Boyatt replied it was the <br />site of the old Goodpasture Dump. Mr. Papé pointed out that the site may have some toxic waste <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 14, 2005 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />