My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 01/24/11 Work Session
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2011
>
CC Minutes - 01/24/11 Work Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/23/2012 11:28:07 AM
Creation date
3/3/2011 1:07:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Work Session
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/24/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mayor Piercy acknowledged that LTD was working to decrease the negative impacts of the route on <br />businesses and residents, but she did not want LTD's efforts in that regard to work against the goal of <br />achieving a viable public transit system. She was pleased to see that even with mitigation, the buses <br />would run on dedicated lanes 75 percent of the route, which was an improvement over both the Franklin <br />and Gateway EmX routes. <br />Ms. Taylor determined from Mr. Pangborn that the information generated by LTD was corridor - specific <br />and he did not know for how long the data would still be valid. <br />Referring to the committee and community recommendations, Mr. Clark noted the West Eugene <br />Collaborative (WEC) position that it was not an option to maintain West I V Avenue as it was currently <br />configured. The WEC envisioned that the road would be rebuilt as a different sort of thoroughfare and <br />that land uses in the corridor would fundamentally change. Currently, businesses along the corridor were <br />auto - dependent and thus dependent on the current road configuration. Mr. Clark also noted that the <br />Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce had pledged to work to ensure West I V Avenue businesses and <br />property owners were not adversely affected by the route. That raised the question of the larger vision for <br />West 11 "' Avenue and what would happen to those businesses. He acknowledged the issue was one for <br />the council to resolve. <br />Mr. Gillespie pointed out to Mr. Clark that the WEC had stated it was not an option to maintain the road <br />as a "congested" retail avenue. He said there was no intent to eliminate retail uses in the corridor. In <br />response, Mr. Clark pointed out that through the Envision Eugene process the City had looking at the <br />future of the corridor and there was discussion of multi -story businesses close to outside edges of the <br />core, which he interpreted as meaning that existing businesses along West l I 1 Avenue would change. <br />Responding to Mr. Clark, Ms. Ortiz said that was not what she heard "at all." She believed that LTD was <br />"definitely listening" to the affected businesses and attempting to address their concerns through <br />mitigation. She never heard anyone say that they were trying to eliminate those businesses, "change the <br />face," or replace the existing businesses with multi -story buildings. She believed that people understood <br />there was value in the businesses in place, although they were not thriving as they once were due to the <br />economy. She thought the EmX route would augment those businesses. Ms. Ortiz shared what she had <br />learned in Cleveland, saying that Cleveland had established kiosks in association with routes where <br />businesses could deliver products for pick -up by riders. <br />Mr. Eyster reported that several board members participated in a listening session facilitated by Bob <br />Chadwick to hear the concerns of the opponents to the West 11` Avenue route. He acknowledged the <br />risks that business owners faced from such projects and reported that a representative of "Our Money Our <br />Transit" had recently spoken about the extent to which LTD staff had gone to mitigate potential damage <br />to businesses. Staff had met individually more than 150 times with owners along the corridor. Mr. Clark <br />expressed appreciation for that. <br />Mr. Clark asked if the City's vision for West I V Avenue was one of a denser transit corridor with <br />different businesses than were in place now, or was it protect and maintain what was there. Mr. Zelenka <br />asked Mr. Clark what his vision was. Mr. Clark indicated he was inclined to the no build option at the <br />moment because of concerns that the system was too costly at this time and that the process was being <br />rushed through. He also felt it was important to consider how decisions from the Envision Eugene <br />process affected the question. Mr. Clark pointed out the council was talking about large -scale community <br />changes and he wanted to ensure that those change occurred in the context of a larger vision. He believed <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council January 24, 2010 Page 5 <br />Joint Work Session with Lane Transit District Board of Directors <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.