Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/09/1986 Meeting M I NUT E S e City Council Work Session Eugene Community Conference Center, Studios Band C June 9, 1986 5:30 p.m. @RESENT Brian Obie, Mayor; Richard Hansen, Cynthia Wooten, Freeman Holmer, Roger Rutan, Jeff Miller, Debra Ehrman, Ruth Bascom, councilors; Mike Gleason, City Manager; Dave Reinhard, Chris Andersen, Sandra Gleason, Bert Teitzel, Cathy Freedman, staff; Jim Boyd, Register-Guard; John Selix, KUGN. The mayor called the work session to order at 5:30 p.m. I. SUMMER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS UNDERWAY A packet of materials called "Transportation Issues," dated June 9,1986, was distributed. Ms. Andersen introduced the presentation by reporting that, since TransPlan is adopted, the implementation is being built into the work plan. The handout is a draft of the key transportation issues to be worked into the department-wide work plan which will be finalized in October. Ms. Andersen reported that the major construction projects underway during the summer of 1986 are: e 1. 6th and 7th Avenue Widening Project The 6th and 7th Avenue Widening Project is due for bid opening on June 12, according to Ms. Andersen; construction will begin in early July and will include only 7th Avenue from Garfield to Washington this year. During the summer of 1987, 6th Avenue will be completed. The City will do the contract administration for the project and expects a smoother communication system between the contractor and private property owners. Mr. Rutan asked why the project was being divided into two seasons. Mr. Teitzel explained that the volume of work will take two summers and that tearing up both streets would cause too much disruption. A public meeting was held with property owners, who chose the alternative of doing one street at a time. In response to Ms. Ehrman's question, Ms. Andersen said that two lanes of traffic will be kept open in order to provide access to business properties. These decisions are approved by the property owners involved. Mr. Miller asked if there were any way of rerouting traffic in a planned manner. Mr. Reinhard replied that the property owners wanted to minimize the spill- over onto 5th and 8th avenues. Some people will use alternate routes, but to specifically direct people away from 6th and 7th would run counter to the concerns expressed by the business and residential property owners. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 9, 1986 Page 1 e e e Ms. Andersen added that business owners want the route to stay on 6th and 7th. The media will give construction information, but the hope is that not too many people will use alternate routes. Mr. Miller asked if the traffic signals could be adjusted; Ms. Andersen said that this was not possible. Mr. Miller suggested that the streets be moni- tored so adjustments can be considered, and Ms. Andersen said that traffic counts could be taken on parallel streets. 2. Chambers Street Connector Ms. Andersen reported that the Chambers Street Connector is under contract for Phase I of the construction by Lane County. Ross Brothers Construction was the successful bidder. Phase I will affect the River Road area more than 6th and 7th avenues. In response to Ms. Bascom's question, Ms. Andersen said that the east/west portion of the project is part of Phase I, which is the structural portion, and includes the bridge. The area between 5th and 8th avenues will be a part of the State contract for 6th and 7th avenues. 3. Interstate 5 Improvements Ms. Andersen reported that several meetings with property owners have been held. The State has worked very closely with the property owners near Gateway and 1-5 who have businesses. So far the owners are happy with the access routing and signing planned for the project. The City will be referring the public to the State for detailed information. 4. Airport Parking Lot Mr. Hansen asked if the Airport parking Lot was being contracted out, and Ms. Andersen said yes. Mr. Teitzel replied that the plans for bids on the design and access roads will be ready in a few weeks. Ms. Wooten asked if this project was connected to the County funds under negotiation; that the County Commissioners would be making a final decision within 30 days. Mr. Hansen was concerned that the City was doing more than was approved by the council on the airport. The council has approved expenditure of the lottery and Federal money already received. Ms. Andersen explained that the project will be funded by those monies already received, but that if the County approves allocation of road funds for the airport, this part of the project would qualify as one for which those funds could be used. Ms. Bascom asked about the landscaping on 1-5 and Ms. Andersen replied that it was a two-year project; the landscaping will not be done until next year. Ms. Andersen reported that these construction projects total approximately $40 million for the area. Ms. Wooten asked what the City's indirect staff cost would be. Ms. Andersen replied that the 6th and 7th avenue widening costs were recoverable; there were no costs for 1-5; and because of the need to relocate the shop, the City cost for the Chambers Connector was approximately $400,000. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 9, 1986 Page 2 e e e II. TRANSPLAN IMPLEMENTATION 1. Ferry Street and Valley River Bridge Mr. Reinhard reviewed the goal, purposes, major steps in the process, and time required for both projects, which are included together in the process planni~g, but would be treated as separate projects, at different times. Ms. Ehrman asked why a Citizen Advisory Committee was required; Mr. Reinhard responded that the committee would consider the impact on businesses, the approaches, and the sidewalks. Mr. Holmer asked about dollars and Mr. Reinhard said that the Ferry Street Bridge is estimated at $20 million and the Valley River Bridge at $10 million: the City money would be between $300,000 and $500,000 for preliminary engineering studies. Mr. Reinhard said that it was the position of the staff that the alignment and right-of-way for the Valley River Bridge project be established quite soon, even though the project is fairly long-range. Mr. Obie expressed a concern about timing for the Ferry Street Bridge project because of its impact on the Riverfront Project, the Dome, Agripac, EWEB, and Chase Garden property. Mr. Reinhard replied that the Ferry Street Project would be scheduled before the Valley River Bridge according to the staff outline. In response to Mr. Rutan1s question, Mr. Reinhard said that the Ferry Street Bridge would have a project scope of five to 12 years, to be completed in the 19901s. Mr. Miller asked if there were an alternative plan to construct a bridge between Ferry Street and 1-5; Mr. Reinhard said that this was part of the analysis process, that the old bridge could be repaired and renovated, making a new bridge possible, or the old bridge replaced, making a new bridge unnecessary. The Ferry Street Bridge is structurally sound; however, the engineers say that it is functionally obsolete. Mr. Obie asked if the cost estimates and identification of funding sources could be moved up in the process. Mr. Reinhard said, yes, but probably not at the very beginning. Ms. Wooten asked about the relationship of right-of-way acquisition on River Road to the construction of the Valley River Bridge. Mr. Reinhard replied that projections indicate that with or without the bridge, five lanes will clearly be needed at the south end of River Road. Ms. Wooten questioned the need for acquisition now if the Valley River Bridge is a long-range (1992 and beyond) project. Mr. Reinhard replied that the current acquisition is the best way to insure low costs. Ms. Andersen also responded at length regarding the long-range needs on River Road. Mr. Gleason explained that when the land-use decision was made to choose West Eugene as a growth area instead of 1-5, River Road and Santa Clara were affected as well. Ten years out, with or without a bridge, five lanes will be needed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 9, 1986 Page 3 e e e Mr. Hansen asked where the pressure points would be if the Valley River Bridge were not built. Mr. Reinhard replied that Washington-Jefferson Bridge, the Delta Loop, and Valley River Interchange would be the focus of an alternative package which would include adding a lane each way on the Washington-Jefferson Bridge, a new ramp, and major improvements to the interchange. The total package would probably exceed $10 million and add stress to 6th and 7th avenues. The Valley River Bridge would move traffic to the Chambers Connector. Ms. Bascom commented that the Transp1an is clear about the need for the Valley River Bridge and that the need for right-of-way acquisition early in the process was clear as well. Mr. Obie commented that the Valley River Bridge would principally serve River Road, Valley River, and Goodpasture Island, and also access southwest Eugene. 2. Refinement Studies Mr. Reinhard defined the purpose of this portion of Transplan implementation, as provision for transportation planning refinements to the Transplan. The needs for refinement studies are in four areas: Central Area Transportation study (CATS); North Willakenzie; Willow Creek; and Riverfront. Mr. Obie asked about the Harlow Road overpass and interchange. Mr. Reinhard replied that the Transplan calls it an overpass and calls for improvements for the safety of pedestrians and bicycles. Mr. Miller asked if money is currently budgeted for the Refinement Studies; Mr. Reinhard explained that they would done on the work plan within the normal staff time and operating budget. In response to Ms. Wooten, Mr. Reinhard said that citizen involvement processes would be approved by the Citizen Involvement Committee. Mr. Holmer asked if the Central Area Transportation Study process included contact with users outside of the West University Neighborhood. Mr. Reinhard replied that the contact would be through public hearings and other organizations where they exist. Ms. Ehrman asked when the Wi11amette project between 11th and 19th would be completed; Mr. Reinhard replied that it was scheduled for completion before the Eugene Celebration. Ms. Wooten asked when the final decision would be made regarding the treatment of 12th and Wil1amette and was told that several alternatives are being reviewed, but no decision had been made. 3. Eugene Planned Street and Highway Right-of-Way Plan Mr. Teitzel reviewed the information. Mr. Miller had several questions regarding West 11th and major and minor collectors. Mr. Gleason said that Mr. Miller would be provided with the information he requested. 4. Street Standards Mr. Teitzel continued with a review of street standard specifications. Mr. Hansen asked what the typical width in older areas built in the 1940's and 1950's was in comparison with proposed widths. Mr. Teitze1 replied that many streets were 26 to 27 feet wide. Mr. Gleason pointed out that the MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 9, 1986 Page 4 - e e process is much different now; the standards apply principally to new development. Mr. Hansen asked if there were any provision for 24-foot-wide streets during redevelopment, when no further development was projected. Mr. Teitzel said that the standard would not insist on 28 feet in improved areas, especially when trees and other impediments were taken into consider- ation. Emergency Services requires a minimum of 20 feet. He assured Mr. Hansen that people are made aware of this flexibility. Mr. Hansen also commented that when standards are so high, the streets don't get improved and it ends up costing the City money. Mr. Gleason explained, using Lorane Highway as an example, that the issue is grade; there is no "in between"-- either you have a country road or a street. A country road does not provide drainage and the road bed doesn't last. Ms. Ehrman asked about the criteria for repair of streets. Mr. Teitzel said that repairs will be made as long as they are economically feasible; minimal repairs will be made for safety purposes. He also said that there is a priority list of street repair needs, and that property owners need to petition for improvements. 5. Arterial/Collector Improvements Mr. Miller asked how the effect of buses on substandard streets is handled. He was concerned that a relationship needs to be established in order to keep property owners from being penalized by street use by LTD. Mr. Teitzel said that damage to streets would move that street higher on the priority list for improvement. 6. Proposed Project Schedule Ms. Andersen reviewed the proposed schedule for major transportation work items. Mr. Hansen suggested that because so much development has begun on Goodpasture Island, the options in 1988 would be lessened considerably. He believed that the City would be financially ahead if the Valley River Bridge were moved up in the timeframe. Ms. Andersen also explained that the City has received pressure from both the public and the City Council to review street standards. A public task team is being established in order to begin work on street standards after the map process is underway or adopted. III. WEST EUGENE PARKWAY Ms. Andersen distributed the Supplemental EIS for the West 11th Avenue to Garfield project (State of Oregon terminology). The State will release the supplemental EIS on June 10. An information session for the Citizen Advisory Committee will be held June 26. On July 9 the City Council will have a work session, and on July 15 a public hearing will be held. The State report to the City Council will be on August 11, and public information will be provided in September and October. The election is November 4. The preliminary engineering and right-of-way acquisition will be in 1987-1989, 1990 will be Phase One, and 1992, Phase Two. Ms. Andersen distributed a memorandum entitled "Limited Access Throughway Amendment," dated June 9, 1986, which she thoroughly reviewed, concluding with the staff recommendation. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 9, 1986 Page 5 e e e Mr. Holmer concurred with the staff recommendation to assess voters during the West Eugene Parkway election through a surveyor exit interview geared toward perception of public support for removal or retention of the Charter provision. Mr. Holmer questioned why the 6th/7th extension was now called the West Eugene Parkway. Ms. Bascom believed the title to be descriptive and appropriate. Ms. Wooten was impressed by the presentation but was concerned that the City was beginning to gear up for projects not scheduled for completion until the 1990's. She suggested a more thorough analysis as priorities are set, especially along the way. Ms. Andersen explained that the proposals are part of the work plan for the City and that they will be inserted into the budget process for consideration. Needs will be evaluated in connection with the Metropolitan land Use Plan, which is the best vehicle for updating current needs during the process. The Transportation Plan may be adjusted accord- ingly. Mr. Gleason said that the arterial study will affect the shorter, ongoing phase of the Transplan. Ms. Wooten suggested that as budgets are considered, needs for use of staff time need to be evaluated. Ms. Andersen explained that the bridge projects were pulled from the Transplan because they involve both alignment provisions and right-of-way acquisitions; most of the Transplan projects involve neither. Ms. Bascom asked about Highway 99, which is absent from consideration. Ms. Andersen replied that improvements to Highway 99 are not currently scheduled by the State, although they concur with the need for eventual improvements. Ms. Wooten asked if the City Council can prioritize Transplan projects, and Ms. Andersen said yes, that council input would be welcome. She reminded the council that the lead time on the bridge projects is quite long and if the council is not interested in pursuing them, the staff needs to know. The work session was adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ?;J/;~ (~~~4~~ Mike Gl eason City Manager (Recorded by Judy Jernberg) JJ:ky/MINS6 MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 9, 1986 Page 6