Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/25/1985 Meeting ,(1 --' M I NUT E S e Eugene City Council--Dinner/Work Session Wilder Room--Conference Center November 25, 1985 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Richard Hansen, Ruth Bascom, Jeff Miller, Freeman Holmer, Emily Schue, Roger Rutan, Debra Ehrman. COUNCILOR ABSENT: Cynthi a Wooten. Mr. Hansen opened the meeting in the absence of Mayor Brian Obie and Council President Cynthia Wooten. 1. TRANSPLAN Mr. McKinley introduced the presentation by referring to the several items on the memorandum for the work session dated November 19, 1985, on the Draft TransPlan. The purpose of the presentation, according to Mr. McKinley, is to bring the Draft TransPlan before the City Council in order to identify issues and hear questions before the pUblic hearing process. The TransPlan document takes the place of the T-2000 Plan adopted in 1978. The L-COG board is the e final adopting body. Mr. Reinhard clarified that the TransPlan attempts to be a transportation plan for the Metropolitan Area General Plan without an attached date. Mr. Gleason explained that demographics are predicted without identifying a year. Mr. McKinley continued by explaining the process by which the plan assumptions were chosen. The TransPlan assumptions were developed over a year ago in the Evaluation Report process and had to do with transit goals, alternative modes of transportation, toleration levels on streets and highways, and light indus- trial development. The Metropolitan Area Transportation Committee agreed to these and approved them as the assumptions for TransPlan. He also said that the TransPlan does not include the Riverfront Park property or the property in the Mid-Period Review. The TransPlan includes a recommendation for a trans- portation refinement study of the Downtown, University, Sacred Heart, and Riverfront areas. Mr. McKinley added that the Metropolitan Bike- ways Master Plan has been integrated into the TransPlan. As Mr. McKinley went through the TransPlan document, several questions were .. asked. He responded by saying that the plan will be subject to an annual update, as it is done now, and that the document will be reprinted after adoption. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 25, 1985 Page 1 Mr. McKinley referred to the Goals, Objectives, and Policies Element; Street - and Highway Element; and Bicycle Element of the plan, explaining that listed projects and maps were keyed to the different elements. The Street and Highway Element is divided into three time phases by which the projects will be included into future Capital Improvement Programs. Ms. Ehrman expressed concern about how the TransPlan fits together with the CIP and Mr. Reinhard explained that the TransPlan projects and the current CIP projects will be integrated and that the CIP would be updated annually. Some current CIP projects will be updated or replaced by the TransP1an projects. Mr. Gleason added that the TransP1an, once adopted, would become a policy foundation for prioritizing projects. Mr. McKinley continued by referring to the Financial Element in the TransP1an, which was not included in the T-2000 Plan. Several projects in the T-2000 Plan were dropped in the TransPlan, according to Mr. McKinley: 6th/7th Freeway; WOW Hall Ramps; Linco1n/Charnelton Couplet; 30/30 Connector; and North Delta Extension. These were dropped either for financial reasons or because of other alternatives. Two major projects which were not in T-2000 were added to the plan: 1. Extension of Beltline to Willow Creek Area Mr. McKinley explained that a refinement study of this area will be needed as e well. Mr. Reinhard said that the County has raised several questions about this project. Ms. Bascom asked if the widening of West 11th was included and Mr. Reinhard said no. 2. Valley River Bridge Rather than doing expensive improvement and modification of the Washington/ Jefferson Bridge, it is suggested that a Delta Highway/Be1tline Bridge would be an alternative. This is project 314 in TransPlan's Highway Element. Ms. Bascom asked if this was similar to the Park Avenue connector. Mr. Reinhard said that it was geographically close but would serve not only the River Road and Valley River Center area, but the southwest Eugene area as we 11. It would reroute southwest Eugene traffic to the Valley River Center and Goodpasture Island area off of 6th and 7th avenues. II. IDENTIFICATION AND ISSUES AND QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TRANSPLAN A. Washington/Jefferson Bridge Improvement Mr. Miller expressed concern about the merging lanes on the Washington/ Jefferson Bridge interchange to Valley River Center. He suggested that a widening of the merging area be added to the TransP1an. Mr. Reinhard agreed that this could be added. In a later discussion, it was suggested that this would be a short-range project and should be suggested to the State agency for investigation. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 25, 1985 Page 2 B. Transit Goals e Mr. Holmer identified the transit goal assumption as a major question for discussion. Mr. Hansen agreed that a discussion of the modal splits must be done before the pUblic hearing. Mr. Reinhard responded to Ms. Ehrman's question by reviewing how the TransPlan included the modal splits in its assumptions. Mr. McKinley referred to the Evaluation Report, explaining that the intention of the Evaluation Report was to try to get the community to agree on the assumptions to be used in TransPlan. The transit goal adopted by MATC was 3 percent by 1990; 5 percent by 1995 or 1997; and 8 percent by 293,700 population. The whole TransPlan system was modeled around the 8 percent transit goal. He agreed that there were questions about whether this was too high or unattainable. The T-2000 Plan had a transit goal of 14 percent; the TransPlan lowers it to 8 percent. The TransPlan will be updated in a major way every five years. During this time the trip-making rate per household rate will be monitored and re-evaluated. Mr. McKinley suggested that the council stick with the 8 percent goal, leaving it open for re-evaluation. In response to Mr. Holmer's question, he said that the transit percentage of use is now about 1.3 percent and was the same five years ago. Mr. Rutan asked Ms. Anderson if the joint Eugene/Springfield/Lane County Planning Commissions came to a consensus on this assumption during development of the Evaluation Report; and that goals are not expected to be reached if not set. Ms. Anderson agreed. Mr. Rutan added that the implications of the e 8 percent transit goal do have an impact on today's planning and that the problem is not easily resolved. Mr. Hansen asked if the City Council had signed off on this transit goal assumption and Mr. Gleason responded that all the bodies, including the council, had signed off on the documents so that the modeling could be done. Mr. Reinhard responded to Mr. Rutan by saying that there is a problem if the 8 percent is not realistic, because we could be under-designing the highway system. However, the short-range projects (within five years) would probably not be designed differently. When long-range projects are begun, project modeling will be done, and the 8 percent transit goal will be evaluated for each project. They will look at alternatives if the goal is high for that time and plan expandibility or flexibility into the projects, even though the TransPlan does not predict that need. Mr. Hansen asked if the council wanted to re-open the issue of the transit goal as an assumption for the TransP1an. Hearing no willingness to do so, he asked for other questions. C. Suggestions for Understanding TransP1an Mr. Rutan commented that the TransPlan document is lengthy. The public testimony and the staff responses are lengthy. The time line for decision- making is short. He asked the staff for suggestions on how to get through the materials in a way to help the councilors understand and make an intelligent dec; s; on. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 25, 1985 Page 3 Mr. Gleason suggested that in order to get an overview of the plan and what e the model does, that the councilors sit down with either Mr. McKinley or Mr. Reinhard and look at the models which would result with or without the assumptions of the plan. Then ask, that given all the reasonable assessments, if that is really what is going to happen and if so, are you satisfied. Mr. McKinley suggested that the policies are an important area on which to focus. The action will be on those. He asked that the councilors call one of the staff if they have questions. Mr. Reinhard agreed that the plan assump- tions and policies, not the projects, have drawn the most comments. D. TransPlan's Tie into the Capital Improvement Program Ms. Ehrman expressed concern about the possibility of TransPlan projects taking priority over other projects in the CIP which are not transportation related. E. Revenue Availability Mr. Holmer asked to what extent the TransPlan was constrained by available revenue. He also asked if there was an adequate identification of projects sustainable by the City budget without new taxes. Mr. Reinhard said that there was not a sub-list, but that this could be done. Mr. Holmer asked if the City was committing itself to raising dollars for the TransPlan and commented that, if the projects were not financed, they had no meaning and became a wish list. e Mr. Gleason responded by saying that the council needed to decide if it agreed with the assumptions of the plan. The projects will be financed largely by Federal, State, and County funds. If the City does not have metropolitan priorities, it would be difficult to work in the Federal, State, and County area. A plan needs to be in place. Mr. Hansen asked if a list of the sources for funds for short-range projects could be made. Mr. Reinhard explained that the plan does this partially, and such a list could be made. The tables included now are for the metropolitan area, not just Eugene. He added that a list of short-range project fund sources would be made. Mr. Rutan suggested that City projects which are sustainable by the City be listed, so that the public can see which projects are funded by other sources. Mr. Hansen asked what happens if the City Council makes changes in the plan after the other governing bodies have approved. Mr. Reinhard responded that the MATC is the appropriate forum for resolving metropolitan differences. Information sharing with other jurisdictions will be done prior to a final decision by the City Council. F. Process for Updating TransPlan Mr. Holmer expressed concern that the TransPlan be updated and evaluated annually was too frequent. He suggested every three years, as the review process takes up a great deal of staff time and energy. He also asked how the T-2000 Plan got out of date if it was evaluated every year. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 25, 1985 Page 4 Mr. McKinley responded that the T-2000 Plan process for review did not include e citizen input. The TransPlan could allow for amendments to project~ through citizen input. Mr. Hansen asked if policies and assumptions would be evaluated each year. Mr. Gleason said that there would not be a debate on policies each year, but that projects would be evaluated annually. Mr. Miller asked how a project could be added to the plan and Mr. Reinhard suggested that it would be better to add it now. There was further discussion regarding how to determine whether projects should be included or added to the TransPlan. Mr. Hansen suggested that the council needed time for a work session to determine how to make decisions about the TransPlan. III. 6TH AND 7TH AVENUE ARTERIAL Mr. Reinhard distributed and reviewed the memorandum explaining the alterna- tives for the 6th and 7th Avenues Arterial Plan. He also referred to the aerial photograph, routing two alternative plans. Ms. Ehrman asked if the State planned to expand the two-lane section of Highway 126 by Fern Ridge Reservoir. The staff knew of no such immediate plans. Mr. Rutan asked why Alternative #1 was not routed on 5th Avenue. Mr. Reinhard responded that there was substantial impact on businesses either way and that this suggestion had been investigated by the Citizen Advisory Committee and the State pre- e viously. Mr. Miller asked if 6th and 7th avenues could be two-way streets in order to allow business access in the limited section. Mr. Reinhard said that this was also considered, but found unfeasible. Ms. Ehrman asked if the plan was a freeway model. Mr. Reinhard explained that both alternatives are limited access roadways and that limited direct access is different from the freeway model. There is no direct driveway access, but there is at grade access at each major arterial: Greenhill, Terry, Danebo, Beltline, Seneca, etc. Mr. Holmer asked if elevation at the east end was considered. Mr. Reinhard said that the State did not consider it because of cost and local circulation, but that the Planning Commission had recommended elevation be studied. Mr. Reinhard referred to the section entitled, "Public Input" on the memoran- dum and explained that there has been a massive outreach program regarding this project. Nearly 100 people attended a half-day information session. He also referred to the recommendations listed on the memorandum. He said that the Planning Commission had recommended Alternative #1. Ms. Ehrman asked about the purpose of the project. Mr. Reinhard responded that it would provide an alternative to West 11th in order to alleviate traffic there. It would also serve the Willow Creek area. Mr. Hansen asked what would happen if the route diversion (in green on the map) from Alternative #1 to Alternative #2 was used, but originated on 5th e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 25, 1985 Page 5 Avenue. Mr. Reinhard replied that this had been considered in the early e deliberations. He also said that nine businesses would be displaced in Alternative #1 and 18 businesses displaced in Alternative #2. Mr. Gleason summarized the need for the arterial project. A decision was made to develop the city towards Greenhill and the Willow Creek basin instead of 1-5. Development on 1-5 for the transportation system was not unacceptable to the State. Willow Creek is a feeder area and the areas surrounding it will be developed too. Mr. Reinhard added that the urban growth boundary is at Greenhill Road. Mr. Miller asked about the rerouting of Alternative #1 up the Amazon Canal and along the the railroad track. Mr. Reinhard said that the Planning Commission has recommended this change, will submit it to the State, and continue to discuss it with the property owners. The council will be receiving the details of the change. Mr. Reinhard reiterated the conclusions about the possibility of an elevated roadway in the industrial park on the east end of the route for the benefit of Ms. Bascom. He said that the State is looking at this, but City staff has not yet received a report. Item #4 on the memorandum addresses wetlands. Mr. Reinhard pointed out the Bertelsen Slough and Stewart Pond on the map and explained that measures would need to be taken to protect these from development. Perhaps, it would be required that the State purchase them. Mr. Hansen asked about acquiring other ~ wetlands and Mr. Reinhard said that even though the Federal agencies interpret the law to mean that destroyed wetlands be replaced with creation of new ones, the City would prefer to preserve those already existing. Item #5 on the memorandum refers to the provision for the Amazon Fern Ridge Bike Path. Mr. Reinhard said that the Planning Commission wants to emphasize this during the design process. Mr. McKinley explained that the reason for moving so rapidly on this project was to be able to have a decision in time for input into the State's six-year highway improvement program update which is done every two years. After the December 18 public hearing by the State, they will issue a hearing study report which will include the recommended alignment by late January or early February. Then the City Council will need to call for a vote in March. Ms. Bascom expressed her appreciation for the explanation of what a limited access roadway means and she felt that the public would be benefited by this kind of system, rather than a freeway. Ms. Ehrman asked if the 6th and 7th widening project anticipated this change and Mr. Reinhard said, yes. Mr. Hansen asked if the State would support a one-way traffic system and Mr. Gleason responded that the justification for building a state highway was to connect to another state system which ultimately connects to the freeway. Funding would be questionable if the State planned an arterial for City use only. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 25, 1985 Page 6 Mr. Hansen also asked if the route could go on 5th Avenue and 7th Avenue with e one-way traffic--wou1d this save money? Mr. Reinhard answered that the analysis was not done but the condemnation issue would be the same. Mr. Miller asked if the route was one-way, if access was possible through separate lanes for businesses. Mr. Reinhard said that this could not be done unless the right-of-way was purchased which would still condemn the buildings. Ms. Ehrman asked about purchasing and relocation of displaced businesses. Mr. Reinhard said that this would be part of the State project expense and referred to the figures starting on page 87 of the draft book. n was adjourned at 7:10 p.m. (Recorded by Judy Jernberg) 1916C e . MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 25, 1985 Page 7