CC Minutes - 11/14/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Suskind replied that 24” x 36” diagrams designed around different themes–which would be of interest to the community and based upon the facts to be presented by Mr. Boyatt–would be made available to the community at the scheduled public meetings. Ms. Bettman then spoke of the historical process around the interchange and asserted that ODOT originally agreed to receive approval from local jurisdictions prior to developing a project that may not enjoy community support later on. Mr. Boyatt clarified that the approval being sought at this time from local jurisdictions was to move forward solely with the facility planning process. He added that following that process, it was hoped that ODOT would adopt the plan for the State system and then have the local jurisdiction adopt a facility plan into the transportation system plan which would provide an opportunity for the council to review the project once again. Mr. Boyatt stressed that it was the intent of ODOT to provide as much information as possible on the idea itself, which stops short of developing any particular alternatives. Ms. Bettman opined that community support for this project would depend on its scale and impacts. Ms. Bettman spoke to the contamination issue at Alton Baker Park and asked how it would impact building over that site. Mr. Boyatt replied that the contamination had been identified as an issue and the details would depend on further investigation. Ms. Bettman asked if it would dictate that there must be a partial clover leaf south of the river. Mr. Boyatt replied that ODOT placed fill on the capped site as part of the detour structure and additional fill would most likely be necessary for the replacement bridge. He added that unnecessary excavation must be avoided. Ms. Bettman asked how the dedicated lanes of Bus Rapid Transit on Franklin Boulevard would be impacted. Mr. Boyatt replied that that issue was not a cross-section detail that had been reviewed; however, he opined that a design would be crafted that avoids dedicated lanes that must be respected. Ms. Gardner added that any impacts against existing conditions must be mitigated. Ms. Bettman referred to Attachment B, Initial Concepts – Category 1 – Full Interchange – Diamond 1, and asked for an explanation of possible boulevard treatments. Mr. Boyatt explained that the treatments would be for Glenwood Boulevard, west of the interchange. Ms. Gardner added that it was solely an issue to consider at a later time. Mr. Ray said that the concept of Diamond 1 was that it would take away the freeflow movements of the current Highway 99 ramps; i.e., instead of having freeflow movements near Oak Street, movements from the south would veer to the signal and therefore speeds could be reduced. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Boyatt replied that if ODOT moved forward to interchange area management planning, local approval would be necessary to continue forth with the project. Mr. Kelly stressed that prior to a council vote it was essential that it be clarified if an approval to move forward to pursue the project mandated a second approval phase following the completion of the Facility Plan. Mr. Kelly said he would send any questions regarding the technical memos that were presented to the council on this date to Ms. Gardner, who would forward them to the project management team. Mr. Kelly questioned if alternatives to mitigate the potential cut-off of the Laurel Hill Valley design have been pursued. Mr. Boyatt replied that the northbound freeway exit and the southbound freeway on-ramp both provide connections to the neighborhood. The specifics of MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 14, 2005 Page 6 Work Session