Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/13/1986 Meeting ". e ~ M I NUT E S Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session Eugene Community Conference Center--Studios Band C March 13, 1986 5:15 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Mayor Brian B. Obie; Richard Hansen, Jeff Miller, Freeman Holmer, Emily Schue, Roger Rutan, Ruth Bascom. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Debra Ehrman, Cynthia Wooten. STAFF: Mike Gleason, city manager; Dave Whitlow, assistant city manager; Christine Andersen, Public Works Director; Bert Teitzel, Sandra Gleason, Public Works/Engineering; Nathan Duke, Mike Weishar, Public Works/Transportation; Kirk McKinley, Planning; Russell Mecredy, Citizen Advisory Committee; Jim Gix, regional engineer. Carole Donigan, KMTR; Jim Boyd, The Register-Guard. MEDIA: Mayor Obie opened the meeting. The Mayor asked staff to include in this session a review of the River Road/Santa Clara Refinement Plan, which is the subject of tonight's hearing He also asked members of the delegation to report on their recent visit to Washington, D.C. I. 6TH/7TH EXTENSION PROJECT UPDATE Mr. McKinley presented the staff report on the 6th/7th Extension Project. He said the purpose of tonight's update was to review all the east end options that would be included in the supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Mr. McKinley also said because the State was proceeding rapidly on preparing the Supplemental Report that it was important that the council present any additional alternatives or issues at tonight's meeting. Mr. Rutan said he thought all alternatives already had been included, and additions would require redrafting the EIS, which had been rejected. Mr. McKinley said staff was developing a supplemental EIS, which would examine right-of-way and cost impacts on the east end. He said if new alternatives were presented now, they might require redrafting the EIS, depending on how much the alternatives differed from present plans. Mr. McKinley reviewed the updated timeline (March 13, 1986, memo) and the summary of alternatives and preliminary cost estimates that had been distributed. He added that only the east end of the project, from Seneca to Highway 99 or to Garfield, was under discussion. MINUTES--City Council Dinner/Work Session March 13, 1986 Page 1 e He said the timeline had been developed after meetings between City and State staffs, and a supplemental environmental report was scheduled to be issued in mid- to late April. Mr. McKinley said a public information session, similar to the one last fall, would be conducted after the report was issued. A City Council hearing would be held in early June, he said, with State staff making a presentation on results of the report. In July, the Oregon Department of Transportation would issue a hearing study report, which Mr. McKinley explained would include a recommended alignment for the entire project. He said the City Council in late July would be asked to call for a November 4 election. e Mr. Weishar described the routes under consideration. He said some minor adjustments had been made to alternate #1 at grade, and he reviewed the costs, advantages, and disadvantages in the summary. He noted that two at-grade railroad crossings currently served about one train per day, and while the other crossing was not now in use, Goodwill had expressed some interest in possible future use. Mr. Weishar said alternate #1 elevated would require an extra lane to allow trucks to accelerate up the ramp, so the westbound roadway would be elevated above southbound Highway 99, beginning east of Pay IN' Pak. Mr. McKinley added that the Citizen Advisory Committee had suggested lessening right-of-way impacts by installing concrete walls, but costs for the ROWand for the wall would be about equal. Mr. Weishar reviewed the advantages, disadvantages, and costs in the summary, adding that local access would occur at 5th Avenue. Responding to Ms. Bascom's question, staff said the Willamette Company still would be affected. Mr. Weishar reviewed alternate lA at grade. He said proximity of the two intersections would mean cutting off access to 5th Avenue from Highway 99, so Wilson Street would be extended to provide an entrance to 5th Avenue. Mr. McKinley said the Citizen Advisory Committee had suggested moving the access entrance, but intersections then would be too close together and would pose safety problems. Mr. Weishar reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of alternate lA at grade. Mr. McKinley noted an additional advantage of the route was that it would provide a convenient connector for eastbound traffic turning north onto Highway 99, while all other alternatives would require traffic to travel to Garfield before turning north. He added that the connector route was considered to have low demand. Mr. Hansen asked why it was necessary to cut off 5th Avenue access. Mr. Weishar said the angle was not a safe one for intersections and Conger Street would be quite close to the intersection. Mr. Hansen asked whether the angle could be changed. Mr. Weishar said avoiding businesses to the north presented a limitation, and he added that curves would be made more difficult to negotiate. Mr. Obie asked how access would be provided to the area beyond the cul-de-sac. Mr. Weishar said a Tyinn Street extension would be built. Mr. Weishar also said the State was considering leaving open the intersection at 5th and Seneca on all alternatives, instead of installing a cul-de-sac, but he added that no left turns out would be permitted. He said alternate lA at grade had not been included in the EIS before. e MINUTES--City Council Dinner/Work Session March 13, 1986 Page 2 e e e Mr. Miller noted that alternate lA at grade was the least expensive option, and he asked whether 5th Avenue could be made into an overpass or underpass to enhance traffic flow without involving a major expense. Mr. Weishar said an over- or underpass would require additional space, and he added that Conger Street would have to be dealt with, which might be quite costly. Mr. Gleason noted that required slopes would mean a greater impact. Mr. Miller asked whether signalization could help. Mr. Weishar said that could be done, but staff wanted to avoid signalization in that area. Mr. Obie asked how many businesses in the area would be affected. Mr. Weishar said the area contained four large industrial buildings, but he was not sure of the number of businesses. Mr. Obie said that impact could be examined further, adding that drive time for trucks might be improved substantially. Responding to Ms. Bascom's question, Mr. Weishar said access to businesses on 5th Avenue from town would be via Tyinn Street shown on the map. Mr. Weishar reviewed alternate lA elevated, which he said also would go over southbound Highway 99 because of the truck problem. He said the major advantage was elimination of all but one intersection before Seneca, and the major disadvantage was the lack of access into the area from the east and from the north. He also described costs, saying some of the cost for that option would be for construction of a Tyinn Street. Mr. Weishar described the 5th/7th Couplet option. He said staff analysis indicated a need to widen and rebuild the streets to accomodate traffic loads, adding that four lanes probably would be needed for the mix of local and through traffic. He reviewed the advantages, adding that while no businesses would be displaced, operations of some could be hampered or affected. He also reviewed the disadvantages in the summary. Mr. McKinley said impacts had been discussed, but no ROW costs were available yet. Mr. Rutan said he had understood that the council previously had finished looking at alternatives for the EIS, adding that he had not thoroughly examined the alternatives presented today. He said the complexity and implications of the project were difficult to review so quickly. Mr. Gix said all the alternatives being presented today had been identified in the original EIS. He added that alternate lA had not been addressed in the same detail as others, and some councilors had been uncomfortable about that. He said the supplemental EIS could address and identify alternatives within the same corridor or considered previously, and while the options being presented were not the only ones, they were considered by staff to be the most feasible. Mr. Gleason said the supplemental process now was occurring and technically did not include the City Council, but the council specifically had requested a review. He said any radical changes at this point could require going through another supplemental process or EIS. Mr. Rutan said he did not want to hold up the process, but he thought the information should have been available before todayls meeting. Mr. Obie said he thought an opportunity should be provided for councilors to respond, and he asked whether staff preferred to put that on a future agenda. Mr. Gix said some suggestions could be incorporated in looking at design solutions without resolving details at this step. MINUTES--City Council Dinner/Work Session March 13, 1986 Page 3 - Ms. Schue asked who was responsible for deciding the final route. Mr. Gix said staff proposed a joint hearing with State and City Council representatives. He said the alignment decision would then be a product of the study report, along with advice from the City and from State staff. He also said he did not expect a decision with which the City would be uncomfortable. Mr. Obie asked whether all of today's options would be included in the hearing. Mr. Gix said the hearing would be a supplemental hearing on only the east end of the project. He said all options eventually became a common route, so testimony would be taken only on the five options in the area from Seneca to Garfield. He explained that additional information now meant additional businesses could be affected, so additional testimony had to be taken. Mr. McKinley said a City Council review and discussion could be scheduled after the hearing, and a recommendation could be made to the State in late June. Mr. Hansen asked whether option lA elevated had included consideration of elevating 6th Avenue or Highway 99. Mr. Gix said that probably had not been considered, because only one route could be elevated, and elevation of another route would mean that advantages to the extension would be lost. Mr. Gix said another consideration of alternate lA was that the intersection at Highway 99 would operate at service level D, which would require an exception to design standards. He added that other intersections in the area operated at the same sub-standard level. e Mr. Hansen said he supported proceeding with alternate lA elevated, because it avoided many of the problems of alternate 1 elevated. Mr. Gleason said going beyond the hearing date would not allow time for an analysis of impact, so any suggestions should be made in the next couple of days. Mr. Miller said alternates lA and lA elevated looked appealing because of costs and lack of business impacts, and he asked whether any other approaches could be used to mitigate the impact of the intersection if the route was not elevated. He also suggested testing the routing of 5th Avenue to determine impacts of installing a cul-de-sac, signalization, and rerouting. Mr. Gix said some design possibilities did exist, including a potential off-ramp into 5th Avenue. Mr. Gix also said he did not think the service level of the intersection would be a bad problem, and he added that the level should not deteriorate through the design life. He said any changes probably would affect businesses, but further examination could be made without significantly affecting the timeline. Ms. Bascom asked about elevating lA only for a short distance over 5th Avenue. Mr. Gix said a short structure was difficult to build and required a great deal of space for clearance and approaches. He said that could be considered, but the structure probably would be about half as large and cost probably would be in between those of other options. - MINUTES--City Council Dinner/Work Session March 13, 1986 Page 4 e Mr. Holmer said he liked lA, but the 5th/7th couplet might be the most cost-effective alternative because of lower costs and enhanced service. He added that he planned to listen closely to the testimony on that subject. Ms. Schue said she was willing to allow the process to continue, adding that she thought the elevated options had a lot to recommend them. Ms. Bascom said she was concerned about railroad crossings, adding that she thought those were being avoided. Mr. Gix said avoiding crossings was the best solution, but the ones still listed would not be main line crossings, and safety could be addressed through rules, hours of operation, etc. Mr. Obie thanked staff for responding to concerns. II. BRIEFING ON RIVER ROAD/SANTA CLARA REFINEMENT PLAN PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Whitlow said although no action was scheduled, a quorum of councilors was necessary to conduct tonight's joint public hearing on the River Road/Santa Clara Refinement Plan. He asked which councilors planned to attend. Mr. Rutan said he was excused. Ms. Schue said she had some revisions, but she had not received the document for the hearing. Mr. Whitlow said he would check with Planning staff about the document. Ms. Schue said it was helpful to have the document when hearing testimony. e III. REPORT FROM WASHINGTON, D.C. DELEGATION Mr. Holmer said he thought the delegation was becoming more professional. He reported that members had met with staff the night before, and both Oregon senators had attended the breakfast briefing. Mr. Holmer said the list of priorities--the airport, tax reform, Community Development Block Grants, and municipal liability problems--had been presented. He also said Senator Bob Packwood had addressed the tax measure and Senator Mark Hatfield had discussed the budgetary situation in Congress. Mr. Holmer added that members had been busy all day on both Thursday and Friday and also had met with key staff members in various places. Mr. Rutan said he agreed with Mr. Holmer's comments and added he thought members had done an excellent job of representing the community. Mr. Rutan said he had addressed the Airport concerns at the breakfast meeting and his presentation had emphasized a local, state, and federal partnership in building a regional facility. He said he had specifically thanked those participating in the project so far, as well as discussing project design and additional investments made by the City. He said most people had been fairly familiar with the project, except for some people at FAA and the Department of Transportation. He said he was confident more in-depth contacts had been made than in the past, because of maturation and advance staff assistance. e MINUTES--City Council Dinner/Work Session March 13, 1986 Page 5 e e - Mr. Rutan also said he had come away with a better understanding of how the project could be orchestrated, adding that the senators continued to be very supportive. He said he thought it would be wise to continue the coordination by federal lobbyists, although he noted that the most effective lobbying probably was done by elected officials and city councilors. He added that an opportunity might be provided for someone to return and to continue the process. Mr. Obie asked whether the effect of Senator Packwood's tax measure on the airport had been discussed. Ms. Bascom said she had discussed the impact of the bill on the City. She said the principal change of concern to the City was to restrictions on municipal financing, and those problems had been taken care of. She added that Senator Pete Wilson (California) had characterized Representative Rostenkowskils version of the bill dealing with municipal bonds as, "dropping the ham to pick up the wienie. II Mr. Holmer added that Sen. Packwood's briefing had been quite thorough. Mr. Obie said, based on information he had received from Sen. Packwood's office, he expected no negative impact from bonds. Mr. Miller said he had found meeting with legislators to be helpful, and he added that members had received reaffirmation of Sen. Packwood's support for continuation of last-quarter revenue sharing payments. He said a philosophical problem existed between the House and the Senate on CDBG funds. Mr. Miller said he had explained the problem with replacing those funds, and legislators had been sympathetic. He also said he had received assurances from the House side that CDBG funds would continue, although he was unsure of the level of funding. He said elimination of UDAG, for which the City was ineligible, also was a possibility, but some level of CDBG could be expected for some years to come. Mr. Holmer said no help had been received on municipal liablility, but he added that the National League of Cities Fair Committee had taken under advisement one of the major problems, namely that the City was protected under state law to a limit of $300,000, but that civil rights or environmental cases could be tried in federal courts, which extended liability into the millions. He said the league of cities appeared interested in dealing with that issue, and he reported a good turnout at the reception Thursday night. Mr. Holmer also praised the hotel and said he thought arriving early had been an excellent idea. Mr. Miller said he had found the workshop on pUblic safety to be quite useful, adding that it had included many creative ways to increase safety without hiring more police officers. MINUTES--City Council Dinner/Work Session March 13, 1986 Page 6 - , Ms. Bascom said she thought the visit meant that councilors were gone for too long. Mr. Obie said he thought it was important to arrive early enough that staff and legislators were fresh. Ms. Bascom said the reception had been about as well-attended as before. Mr. Rutan said he found it better than last year, but he thought it still needed improvement. Mr. Obie thanked members of the delegation for taking the time to attend. The meeting was adjourned at 6:43 p.m. v~- Micheal D. Gle~ Ci ty Manager (Recorded by Leslie Scales.) LS:ky/1995C MINUTES--City Council Dinner/Work Session March 13, 1986 Page 7