Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/16/1985 Meeting (2) \ M I NUT E S e Eugene City Council City Council Chamber December 16, 1985 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Cynthia Wooten (7:43-9:15 p.m.), Richard Hansen, Emily Schue, Freeman Holmer, Ruth Bascom, Debra Ehrman (7:43-9:15 p.m.), Roger Rutan, Jeff Miller. The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Brian B. Obie. I. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Obie said the council initiated the Public Forum to hear concerns of the community. He said the council will not respond immediately to the concerns. A response will be made later if it is appropriate. Susan Marcus, 1961 Hilyard, announced a one-day communication skills training event titled "Changing Places." She said proceeds from the event will benefit e USA for Africa. Jeff Stier, 958 West 11th, said he wanted to discuss the TransP1an. Mayor Obie said the TransPlan is on the council's agenda for Wednesday, December 18, 1985. Mr. Stier presented the draft of a two-page article, a graph, suggestions for TransPlan changes, and the copy of an article about Hartford, Connecticut, to the councilors. He said the article contained population projections which differ from the staff projections used in the TransP1an. He said the TransPlan should not be adopted. John Eberly, Seavey Loop Road, Springfield, said the Eugene/Springfield area has never had exponential growth. Growth has not come from immigration. He said the population of 293,000 in 2005 projected by the staff and used in the TransPlan would require an annual growth rate of 7,000 to 7,500. He said the area has never had that kind of growth. He said the economy of the area will not be improved by building roads we do not need with money we do not have. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 16, 1985 Page 1 II. PUBLIC HEARING: FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND e TELEGRAPH COMPANY (memo, ordinance distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. He said the fran- chise agreement will permit American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) to use the public right-of-way for fibre optic cable lines. The franchise will provide the City about $26,000 in annual revenue. He said Susan Smernoff of the Finance Division was present if there were questions. Mayor Obie opened the pUblic hearing. There being no requests to testify, he closed the public hearing. Councilor Hansen said the ordinance indicated that the only way the City can raise the annual fee for the franchise is to threaten cancellation of the agreement. He thought the ordinance should include some way to trigger a review of the 15-year agreement so the fee can be adjusted without threatening to cancel the agreement. The ordinance as presented to the council would automatically renew the agreement every three years unless a threat of cancel- lation was made. He suggested the agreement should indicate the reasons the agreement would be cancelled. Ms. Smernoff said the provisions for fee adjustment in the proposed ordinance are similar to those in agreements with other franchise holders such as the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) and Pacific Northwest Bell (PNB). Answering questions from Councilor Holmer and Mayor Obie, Ms. Smernoff said e the average fee paid by present franchise holders in the city was used to calculate the fee that AT&T will pay. The City has agreements with four franchise holders. The fees are three to six percent of gross revenues earned within the city. However, it is difficult for AT&T to determine what revenue is generated within Eugene. Therefore, Ms. Smernoff calculated the average fee present franchise holders pay for each linear foot of pipe or line. The proposed fee for AT&T represents that average. She called other cities, the office of the National league of Cities, and the Mayor's Conference to find out how other cities charge AT&T, but she was told other cities have not devised a method for charging since the divestiture. For that reason, the proposed charge is conservative. Mayor Obie and Councilor Ehrman said Mr. Hansen's concern seemed valid. Mayor Obie said threatening to cancel the agreement seemed an extreme way to adjust the annual fee. Ms. Smernoff suggested the words "or renegotiate" be inserted in Section 11 of the ordinance. She discussed the termination and renegotiation of the agreement with PNB that will take place soon. Mr. Hansen said the wording suggested by Ms. Smernoff might indicate that the whole agreement would be renegotiated. He said agreements drafted by the City in the future should stipulate when annual fees will be renegotiated. He suggested the agreement indicate that six months before the end of every third year the City will notify AT&T of the expected fee for the next three years and failure to reach an agreement could result in cancellation by either party. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 16, 1985 Page 2 Mr. Hansen did not think the City would cancel the agreement after AT&T e invests $2 million. He thought the City would have to work out an agreement. He said perhaps the agreement should be for three years so that it would be renegotiated every three years. Ms. Smernoff said the City originally proposed a six-year agreement, but AT&T requested a 15-year agreement and had agreed to the proposed ordinance. Mr. Gleason said the City has a "tickler" file for every agreement that needs a revi ew. The proposed ordinance puts the City in an advantageous position because the City can raise the fee or cancel the agreement in three years. He did not want to list the reasons the agreement might be cancelled because the City might want to cancel the agreement just to raise the fee. Ms. Wooten said Mr. Hansen, after hearing the staff comments, indicated he is willing to accept the wording in the ordinance. CB 2864--An ordinance granting to the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, through its interstate division, the privilege to use the public way to construct and maintain public communication facilities within the Ci ty of Eugene. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and e became Ordinance No. 19369). III. PLANNING COMMISSIONS'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 6TH/7TH EXTENSION PROJECT (memo, background information distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Planning Director Susan Brody gave the staff report. She said the Planning Commission recom- mended that the City Council recommend Alternative #1 with some modifications to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Ms. Brody said the Planning Commission received written and oral testimony from 24 people. Thirteen people preferred Alternative #1, two people preferred Alternative #2, two people preferred a no-build option, two people preferred a Roosevelt Freeway which was not included in the draft Environ- mental Impact Statement, two people preferred the 5th/7th couplet, and three people did not state a preference. She said the planning commissioners recommended Alternative #1 be shifted north along the railroad tracks, west of Terry Street, to respond to testimony about the west end of the project. The commissioners recommended that an elevated roadway be considered on the east end of the project in response to testimony about that part of the project. She said the commissioners did not hear as much testimony as the councilors did about impacts on the east end of the project. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 16, 1985 Page 3 Ms. Brody said the Planning Commission recommended the project construction e include provision for the Amazon/Fern Ridge Bikeway, and mitigation and protection for the wetlands. She said the commission received testimony from the Citizen Advisory Committee which favored Alternative #1 with an elevated section in the east. Dorothy Anderson, President of the Planning Commission, said the Planning Commission recommended an elevated section in the eastern part of the highway to mitigate the impacts of the project on local circulation and areas in that industrial area. The commission did not recommend the 5th/7th couplet because the Environmental Impact Statement indicated the impacts would be bad. Answering a question from Mayor Obie, Dorothy Anderson said the possibility of moving the alignment of Alternative #1 north was not included in the testimony of the Citizen Advisory Committee. She said the Planning Commission tried to find a perfect alignment and finally decided there isn't one. Answering questions from Ms. Wooten and Mayor Obie, Mr. Gleason and Public Works Director Chris Andersen reviewed the process for getting the project approved so that an election can be held in March of 1986. They said voters must be presented a specific alignment and the election must be designated 34 days in advance. The alignment presented to the voters must be recommended by ODOT because, if it is different, another election will have to be held. The 6th/7th extension will use Federal funds which will be administered by the State. Federal law requires an Environmental Impact Statement to ensure that the environmental impacts of the project were considered before an alignment was chosen. ODOT cannot recommend an alignment until the draft EIS has been e reviewed and all comments and testimony have been analyzed and responded to. Ms. Wooten said the council was told there will be flexibility in the design of the 6th/7th extension. She wondered if the councilors will be included in the design phase as they were when 6th and 7th avenues were widened. Answering questions about the difference between the design phase of a project and the alignment phase, Ms. Andersen said the alignment phase indicates the location of affected properties. Mr. Gleason said the alignment is concep- tual. An agreement on an alignment must be made before the design phase of a project can begin. The full impact of a project is realized during the design phase. Then, specific impacts on specific properties are considered and right-of-way acquisition begins. ODOT will spend $2 million on the design phase of the 6th/7th extension. The City will be involved and impacts can be mitigated then. The 6th/7th widening project was different because the right-of-way already existed. Reviewing the process, Ms. Schue said a draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by ODOT. ODOT would like a recommendation from the City Council before it holds a public hearing on the project. After the hearing, ODOT will prepare a final Environmental Impact Statement for a specific route. Eugene voters can then be asked to approve the route. If that procedure is not followed, there could be trouble with the Federal regulations. Answering questions from Mr. Hansen, Ms. Andersen said the draft Environmental Impact Statement identifies environmental impacts in a broad area and in the specific alignments identified by the Citizen Advisory Committee and the e staff. Those alignments are Alternatives 1, 2, and 2A. Other alignments MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 16, 1985 Page 4 received preliminary evaluations before they were discarded. Mr. Gleason said e ODOT must produce an analysis of testimony received in its public hearing (a Hearing Study Report) in time for the council to call for an election in March. If the council asks for much more information from ODOT, the analysis may not be produced in time. The election must be held in March if the 6th/7th extension is to be considered for inclusion in the 1986 update of ODOT's Six-Year Plan. Answering a question from Councilor Holmer, City Attorney John Arnold said the City Charter requires a vote on the specific route of a limited access highway. Responding to questions from Ms. Ehrman, Ms. Andersen said ODOT will hold public hearings on the Six-Year Plan in March and April of 1986 and the plan probably will be adopted in June or July. The present draft of the Six-Year Plan includes only the "development" of the 6th!7th Extension. If it is not changed, only the design of the highway will be completed in the next six years. No right-of-way acquisition or construction will be done. The City hopes to get the project moved up in the Six-Year Plan so that right-of-way can be acquired and construction begun. To accomplish that, a successful election is needed. Mr. Gleason said the "development" designation is a way to avoid doing something on the project. The 6th/7th widening project is in the first year of the draft of the Six-Year Plan. The project is designed and the voters approved it. Councilor Rutan wondered why councilors had asked so many questions about process. He wondered why they were not discussing the alternatives. e Councilor Bascom said the council's options were: (1) to choose the best of the alternatives or (2) to wait at least two years until the next Six-Year Plan update. Ms. Andersen agreed with Ms. Bascom. Answering questions from Councilor Miller, Ms. Andersen said the council will not have to call an election in March. However, if the council does not make a recommendation so that ODOT can prepare the final Environmental Impact Statement, there will be at least a two-year delay in the project. Mr. Gleason said ODOT will not design the project until it receives a higher priority than "deve10pment" in the Six-Year Plan. Ms. Brody said ODOT will address the concerns raised in the public hearings between now and when the final EIS is presented. If a re-evaluation is needed, another public hearing might be held. The council will have about a month to discuss the ODOT recommendation after the Hearing Study Report is received. The council's decision can be changed any time before an election is called. Answering a question from Ms. Wooten, Ms. Andersen said money for a "development" project wi 11 not be spent until near the end of the Six-Year Plan if right-of-way acquisition and construction are not included in the pl an. A project can retain the "development" designation for many years. In this case, the City will have to urge a higher priority for the 6th/7th extension in two years if it is not approved this year. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 16, 1985 Page 5 Answering questions from Mr. Hansen, Ms. Andersen said any additional hearings e on other alternatives must be held by ODOT; the City cannot facilitate ODOT evaluation and public hearings. The record of City hearings will be part of the pUblic record which ODOT will consider. Mr. Gleason said it would probably take ODOT at least six months to evaluate another alternative. Beginning the council's deliberation, Ms. Wooten said she had concerns about all the alternatives. She said all the councilors were reluctant to approve a limited access road through the heart of the industrial area. It appears existing businesses are being sacrificed. She was anguished by the issue, but she was prepared to approve Alternative #1. She did not think the council had enough information about the other alternatives. She was bitter about the "box" the council seemed to be in. However, she was convinced of the need for the project. She wanted the council to participate in the design of the highway, recommend an east end elevation that will protect as many businesses as possible, and be cautious about right-of-way acquisition because it sometimes affects other businesses. Mr. Miller agreed with Ms. Wooten. He said approval of Alternative #1 now will keep the council's options open. Mr. Rutan said approval of Alternative #1 with a caveat that changes might be made later would not be acting in good faith. Ms. Wooten responded that she had suggested approving Alternative #1 with the understanding that the council will consider public comments and work with e ODOT to respond to the comments. The only alternative was to do nothing. She did not think the 5th Avenue route was appealing and the 5th/7th avenue couplet would be dangerous. Mr. Hansen said the only option the council has is to approve Alternative #1. He was not satisfied with the process. He said the council's decision should be definitive. Ms. Bascom said an east/west connector is needed. Phases 1, 2, and 3 of the improvement of 6th and 7th avenues need to be continued. She said it had been cruel to tour the area and find, for example, that The Willamette Valley Company is exactly the kind of business the City wants to recruit. She had reconsidered the other alternatives, but they did not seem adequate. She said proceeding is about all the council could do. Defending the process, Mr. Holmer said the Citizen Advisory Committee had functioned and public hearings had been held. He said a decision had to be made to meet the need. He would support Alternative #1. Ms. Ehrman said the 6th/7th extension will decrease problems on 11th and 18th avenues. She found it troubling that the project will adversely affect some businesses. She said all the councilors seemed to want to direct the staff to mitigate the adverse impacts. Ms. Schue said it was unfortunate the councilor on the Citizen Advisory Committee is no longer on the council. She favored approving the recommenda- e tions of the Citizen Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission. She did not think the council had much choice. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 16, 1985 Page 6 Mr. Rutan said the community will not support such a project if the councilors e do not approve it enthusiastically, and the other councilors were not eager about the alternatives. He did not think enough design work had been done on the alignments. Ms. Wooten said the voters approved the 2nd and 3rd phases of the improvement of 6th and 7th avenues without a specific design. She did not like displacing some businesses with the 6th/7th extension; but she hoped the City and the State will acquire right-of-way in a fair and decent way. No other alterna- tives are viable, she said. She did not think an immediate need was demon- strated. She said the voters should be given an opportunity to approve the project. Answering questions, Dave Reinhard of the Public Works Department said Resolution 3952 recommends Alternative #1 and adopts findings. It includes findings on an elevated section of Alternative #1. The motion prepared by the staff references the Planning Commission's recommendation and emphasizes other council concerns that have been stated earlier in their prior meetings on this subject. Ms. Wooten moved, and Mr. Hansen seconded, that the City Council adopt the recommendation of the Planning Commission regarding the 6th/7th extension project and forward the recommendation to the Oregon Department of Transportation for its consideration with the following comments from the council: e First, that the City Council strongly supports the need for this project and urges that State and City staff continue joint efforts to complete the planning process so the project can be made eligible for funding as soon as possible. Second, that we strongly urge the State to design the easternmost one-half mile of this project as an elevated roadway which would have positive effects on traffic flow, safety, immediate impacts on affected businesses, and long-term impacts on local traffic circulation in this industrial area. Third, that our primary concern related to the alignment and the final design is how this project will affect existing busi- nesses. Therefore, our support of Alternative One is based on the assurance that the State will take all reasonable measures to minimize that impact, including the following: --elevating the eastern portion of the roadway, as mentioned earlier. --shifting the alignment where possible to lessen its impacts, for example, in the vicinity of Seneca Road and in the area between 6th and 7th avenues. --using all available State and Federal resources, in coopera- tion with the City's resources to respond in a positive manner e to the needs of each affected business and property owner. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 16, 1985 Page 7 Fourth, that sufficient right-of-way should be purchased and e reserved to allow for future expansion of this highway should it become necessary. This consideration should apply along the entire route, as well as at all intersections; and particular attention should be given to the intersection at Beltline Highway where long-range planning indicates that a full interchange will eventually be required. Fifth, that strong consideration should be given to landscaping along the route to improve its aesthetic aspects both from the point of view of those using the road as well as that of adjacent properties and businesses. Answering a question from Ms. Wooten, Mr. Gleason said enough right-of-way should be purchased for future expansion of the intersection at Beltline Hi ghway. Ms. Wooten emphasized that there are no local or City funds involved in the project. Ms. Bascom said it is important to be able to upgrade the Beltline intersec- tion. She did not think the fifth item in the motion is strong enough to provide the Fern Ridge Parkway west from Seneca Road she had proposed. Roll call vote; the motion carried 7:1 with Councilors Wooten, Hansen, Schue, Bascom, Holmer, Ehrman, and Miller voting aye and e Councilor Rutan voting nay. Res. No. 3952--A resolution recommending the Alternative #1 alignment for the 6th/7th avenues extension. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; the motion carried 7:1 with Councilors Wooten, Hansen, Schue, Bascom, Holmer, Ehrman, and Miller voting aye and Councilor Rutan voting nay. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. ?p~ ..;~ , ..-","".. Micheal Gleason City Manager (Recorded by Betty Lou Rarick) BLR:db/1922C e MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 16, 1985 Page 8 . i . \ AGE N D A EUGENE CITY COUNCIL e CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER December 16, 1985 7:30 p.m. Regular meeting of the Eugene City Council; His Honor Mayor Brian B. Obie presiding. Councilors: Cynthia Wooten, President Freeman Holmer Richard Hansen, Vice President Jeff Miller Ruth Bascom Roger Rutan Debra Ehman Emi ly Schue 1. PUBLIC FORUM Time: 10 mi n. II. PUBLIC HEARING: FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY (memo attached; ordinance under separate cover) Ti me : 5/5 min. e CB 2864--An ordinance granting to the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, through its interstate division, the privilege to use the public way to construct and maintain pUblic communication facilities within the ci ty of Eugene. III. PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 6TH/7TH EXTENSION PROJECT (memo attached; background information under separate cover) Res. No. 3952--A resolution recommending the Alternative #1 alignment for the 6th/7th Avenues Extension. Adjourn to December 18, 1985. CF:je/EA29 - AGENDA 12//16/85--1 . M E M 0 RAN DUM , - December 16, 1985'. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Susan Smernoff, Financial Analyst SUBJECT: FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH Request Currently, the City does not have a franchise agreement with American Tele- phone & Telegraph Company (AT&T), and so we are in the process of negotiating such an agreement. We are asking you to act on the proposed AT&T franchise agreement. AT&T has indicated they will accept the terms of the agreement. Background With the divestiture of Pacific Northwest Bell (PNB) and AT&T, the City con- tinued to have a franchise agreement with PNB, but not with AT&T. Recentl y , AT&T has sought approval to use the public-way to place fiber-optic cable from lOth Avenue and Oak Street to to Blanton Heights. This use of the public-way gives the City the opportunity to negotiate a franchise agreement with AT&T. The authority to create franchise agreements is in the City Charter in Section e 43. The charter allows us to exact a percentage of the gross income from the franchisee. Because it is difficult to determine the gross income generated by AT&T within the city limits, we are proposing that the amount of the fran- chise agreement be $1.00 a linear foot for use of the public-way. This amount was arrived at by comparing the revenue received from current franchise hold- ers to the miles of line or pipe those franchise holders have in the public- way. The City of Eugene will be the first City in Oregon and one of the first cities in the country to negotiate a franchise agreement with AT&T. We feel that our proposed agreement is IImoderatell both in terms of the franchise holder requirements and the annual fee charged for the use of the public-way. The agreement is written so that the City has the opportunity to renegotiate the agreement within three years if we so desire. Estimated Revenue We assume that AT&T will have about five (5) miles of fiber-optic cable within the city. At a cost of $1.00 per linear foot, that would generate $26,400 in revenue for the City on an annual basis. Recommended Action We recommend that after a public hearing on December 16, 1985, the City Coun- cil take final affirmative action on the ordinance granting to the American - Telephone & Telegraph Company, through its interstate division, the privilege to use the pUblic way to construct and maintain public communication facil- ities within the city of Eugene. SLS:ch/1115S . q ; M E M 0 RAN DUM e December 13, 1985 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Departments of Public Works and Planning SUBJECT: EVALUATION OF 6TH-7TH EXTENSION ALTERNATIVES FROM HIGHWAY 99 TO SENECA At the Council's work session on December 4, you requested that we compare several alternatives to the recommended Alternative One alignment at the east end of the project. The following discussion summarizes the results of our analysis, and the attached table shows in a matrix format how each alternative ranks with the others based on the evaluation criteria that we used. General Discussion of Alternatives This analysis compared the following four alternatives: e (1) Alternative One, at grade, as described in the draft Environ- mental Impact Statement. (2) Alternative One, with the section between Highway 99 and Conger Street on an elevated structure. (3) Using 5th and 7th as a one-way couplet from Highway 99 to just west of Seneca, where they would then be merged into the Alternative One route to the west. (4) A "5th Avenue" alternative, consisting of a new limited-access roadway running generally parallel to 5th Avenue. The four alternatives are shown on the enclosed map. The 5th-7th couplet and the 5th Avenue Alternative were studied previously by State and City staff and the Citizens Advisory Committee. For various reasons, they were rejected for further study in the EIS, along with several other preliminary proposals. (See pages 5 and 6, and Figure 3, in the draft EIS). Discussion of Evaluation Criteria To aid in comparing these alternatives, we selected a number of criteria that we feel represent the primary issues the Council must consider in weighing the pros and cons of each proposal. (A) Traffic Flow: We used a computer model to simulate traffic e flow for the year 1996, which is used in the EIS as the basis for traffic projections. The model gives an estimate of total ~ 't vehicle miles, average travel speed, average delay, and a number of other variables. These numbers provide an overall e indication of level of service, or how well the roadway performs the task of moving traffic. In addition to level of service, overall safety of the proposed roadway was considered. This is not the result of a computer analysis, but rather a professional judgment by staff taking into account such features as curvature, number of intersec- tions, potential conflicts due to driveways, and mixing of through and local traffic. (8) Cost: At this eastern end of the project, right-of-way acquisi- tion (including payment of damages, relocation assistance, etc.) is much higher than elsewhere on the project and varies con- siderably fromone alternative to another. The right-of-way criteria compares estimated dollar costs of the four alterna- tives. Construction cost of these alternatives is also compared. (C) Impacts on Businesses: These criteria compare the alternatives based on the number of businesses that would actually be dis- placed, as well as the general extent of other impacts that would occur. For example, less of a loading dock might consti- tute an impact for which the business would be compensated. These impacts, including displacement, are considered short-term e since they would be mitigated by monetary compensation. A third criterion under this heading, impacts on local circula- tion, addresses long-term effects on existing and future businesses within this industrial area. For example, some of the alternatives might impede local access and traffic movement which could have a detrimental effect on business operations. (0) ImDlementation Issues: It should be recognized that recom- mending an alternative not already included in the draft EIS would carry some risk of delaying the project. For example, an alignment that affects several businesses that have not already been identified as being impacted might require further study, a new EIS and/or additional public hearings. A related but somewhat different criterion is stated as "ac- ceptabil i ty to State/Feds. II This has been included because, even if the type of delay outlined above did not occur, there might still be technical or other reasons for the State or Federal agencies to question the desireability of the recom- mended alternative, and require further study before deciding to implement it. Finally, the likelihood of State/Federal funding for the project is listed. This is related to "acceptability," but reflects more specifically the State's ability and willingness e to commit funding to the selected alternative. The attached 2 - matrix contains ratins of the four alternatives based on these e crit~ria with "10" being the best and "1" being the worst. Alternative One As indicated on the attached table, Alternative One rates highest on the likelihood of timely implementation, but has the greatest impact in terms of right-of-way costs and displacement of businesses. Its ratings on the other criteria are all high: it has a good level of service and a safe design. Its construction cost is comparatively moderate, it has some degree of impact on businesses other than actual displacement, and it would have only a moderate effect on local circulation, by creating several new signalized intersections for north-south traffic to cross. Alternative One. Elevated at East End This alternative would use the alignment of Alternative One but would place it on an elevated roadway to provide grade-separated crossings over Conger, Wilson and McKinley Streets, and over the rail sidings in this area; a grade separation for west bound traffic over 7th Avenue (Highway 99 southbound) would also be provided. This feature of grade separation would result in the new highway having no traffic signals or intersections between Highway 99 and Seneca, and only one at-grade rail crossing (between Seneca and Conger). This would represent an improvement in both traffic safety and level of service. The right-of-way cost of this alternative would be somewhat less than that of e Alternative One since a slightly narrower total width would be required and "flairs" would not be required at intersections. Construction cost would be. highest of all four alternatives, since about one-half mile of structure would have to be built. Displacement of businesss would be about the same as for Alternative One, although elevating the roadway could make a difference in one or two instances; the same can be said for other short-term business impacts. There would be virtually no impact on local circulation, since the existing street system in the area would remain unchanged. We judge this option would have a low potential for delay and a high accepta- bility to the State and federal agencies. On the other hand, funding might be a problem due to the substantial added cost of the one-half mile of structure. The 5th-7th Couplet This concept was initially proposed by City staff in 1982 to facilitate local traffic flow between Highway 99 and Bailey Hill Road. (A summary of the public hearings and staff report was included in the testimony at your November 25 publiC hearing). At that time, the outcome was a compromise, leaving 5th and 7th in 2-way operation between Highway 99 and Seneca. This was based on testimony from a number of businesses in the area, who raised the following objections: - 5th and 7th are too far apart and do not have enough cross streets e connecting them to function efficiently as a one-way couplet. 3 .~ , - Some businesses depend on use of the street (5th or 7th) by their vehicles:or equipment in their day-to-day operations, since they do e not have adequate on-site room for all their movements. - A number of businesses have loading docks that require trucks to back up from the street, and occasionally protrude into the street during loading or unloading. - Through traffic should not be superimposed on these streets, which were designed and intended for local circulation. The concept evaluated in this present study is different in two important respects from the 1982 proposal: (1) We assumed that Tyinn Street would be extended north from 7th to 5th, thus creating another north-south cross street, between Conger and Seneca. (2) 5th and 7th would need to be reconstructed and widened about ten feet, to accommodate four travel lanes in each direction. This is due to the "side friction" of numerous access points, including back-in loading bays and docks. In essence, two lanes in each direction would be needed for through traffic, and two lanes for local traffic and turning/backing movements. With those assumptions and constraints, the 5th-7th couplet was evaluated as follows: Level of service would be good, since one-way streets provide for efficient e traffic flow. On the other hand, the couplet rates only fair on safety, due to the "side friction" and mix of local and through traffic. Right-of-way cost would probably be lowest of the four options, although it might still be substantial due to the need to widen to four lanes. Construc- tion cost would be high, since both streets would probably have to be com- pletely reconstructed. There would probably be some businesses displaced by the couplet, although less than for the other alternatives. Other business impacts and effects onlocal circulation would be worse than for the other alternatives, for the reasons stated above. (We conducted brief interviews with representatives of those businesses we judged to be most directly impacted. The general responses were 'similar to the concerns they raised in 1982). The couplet has a medium-to-high probability of delaying the process, since a number of businesses would be impacted which have not been included in the present EIS; new public hearings, further study and major revisions or a new EIS could be required. Acceptability and funding are harder to judge. It is our opinion that the State would exhibit considerable resistance to the concept of a llQrr-limited access highway, particularly one through an existing business district with established circulation patterns and access needs. 5th Avenue Alternative This is a slight variation on an alignment studied earlier and rejected by the e CAC. The route was selected to displace the least number of businesses, 4 ~ i while still providing a new, 4-lane, limited access roadway. Existing 5th e Avenue would be'left intact, but would be discontinuous where the new roadway crosses it. Therefore, to assure adequate local circulation, Tyinn Street was presumed to be connected, and Wilson Street would be extended north to inter- sect with the new route. Local traffic would have to use the new roadway to travel between the western and eastern sections of the area presently connected by 5th Avenue. This alternative rates slightly lower than Alternative One on level of service and safety, due to the intersection geometrics and curving alignment. Right- of-way cost would be substantial. Construction cost would be slightly less than for Alternative One, since fewer traffic signals are required. Several businesses would be displaced, and there would be other impacts relating to proximity damages. The impact on local circulation would be fairly high, since 5th Avenue would no longer be a continuous local street. It is fairly likely that selection of this alternative would result in process delays, for the same reasons mentioned for the 5th-7th couplet. We consider it less likely to be accepted by the State and Federal agencies than Alterna- tive One or the elevated option; if it were accepted, however, the cost would be reasonable and funding might be forthcoming. Summary and Recommendation The Council is faced with a difficult choice. The staff feels it is very e important to keep the following points in mind: (1) The 6th-7th Extension is an absolutely essential component of our metropolitan transportation system. Without it, our adopted land use arrangement anticipated in the Metropolitan Plan cannot be implemented. (2) The extension is a new section of State highway, 5 1/2 miles in length. Although much of the route passes through undeveloped land, it is not possible to build a facility which improves access to West Eugene without any adverse impacts on businesses. (3) State and Federal project funds will be used to compensate businesses and property owners who are impacted by the selected alternative. Once the alignment has been determined, affected parties will have ample time to conduct negotiations, make adjustments, and relocate if necessary. Construction is not expected to being until about 1990, or later. (4) State and City staff and the project Citizens Advisory Committee considered numerous alternative routes, particularly at the eastern end of the project, before agreeing on Alternatives 1, 2 and 2A for study in the EIS. We feel that our own re-investi- gation of the 5th-7th couplet and the 5th Avenue Alternative has been very useful; our conclusion, however, is that neither of these is superior to Alternative One, while both of them do carry some risks of delaying the process. - 5 , ~. Based on the numerical ratings in the matrix, Alternative One emerges with the e highest score, with Alternative One elevated a close second. The benefits of elevating the roadway from Conger to Highway 99 are substantial, since safety and level of service would be improved and there would be no adverse impact on local circulation patterns. Given this conclusion and the considerations noted above, we recommend that the Council adopt and forward to the State, the Planning Commission's recom- mendation for Alternative One, including strong support for consideration of an elevated section at the eastern end. If the Council chooses to follow this recommendation, we further suggest that you adopt the Resolution establishing the City's support for the project and recommending a set of findings pursuant to State land use law (material provided under separate cover). e e 6 -- " I I I I ~ I I I I . I I Ul I 1 e ::> l- I 0: 1 COt'- ~(Tl i..DtD~ -4"t'-CO ('J I I i..D I I 1 I l- I 1 if) I I I I I I I I I I I I 0: I I U I I I Ul 1-1-1 I Z i"-Ul I 1 W -II I en 1Cl. I CI"I IJ1 i"-i..D CO ~ flJ ~1 (,') ~1 -4"1 ::J I Ul I 0 IOI 1 Z I-UI I 0: In I I I I CI"I 1 I (I"l 1 1 I 1 :> 1 I 0: "'"' I I 3 1 1 I WQ I I (!) I-UJI 1 ..... aI- I 1 I ZO: I IS; IS; (,') (,') ..;t(l"l1S; (I"l (I"l ~1 OJ I a::::>1 ..... "'"' ..... 1'1 Z WUJI 1 W 1--11 I W -lUll I 3 a I I l- I I L11 I 1 I:t! 1 I I I en "'"' I I W I 1 e ::> L11 ~ I 1 ~ l- I ,'" I l- a: I I a: z 1 (I"lC(l OJ co (,') CO I' IS; IS; IS; if) I Z a:: I "'"' .... .... 1'1 0:: w I I L11 I I I- ...J t I ..J cr I I 0: 1 I I I !..L -----------------------1 0 I I I Z 1 ~ 0 I (1 III H I .... 1:) l- I -+> Ql a: I rtl IJ... ::J I r-I "- +> ..J I ::; Ql III 0: I U +> t "" ::> I 1Il ~ rtl 0 L11 I en oj.) 'f"i en >. +> 3 I L11 UU Wrtlen W Ql I en rtl :J~ 0:: ~ (I 'P <II Ql (J) o.~ (fj W t) 0 rtl Z ....., U L11 :: rtl eno+>+> u U..... 0 0::1 -1"'1 Z .... U ....... :;.. UJI UJ ..... WI > .... (J :;.. >. (I I en 1-1 t >.~ UJ+>+>..J zo+>O- ..JI 01 OP "" Z ...., Ql rtl 0 :J ~ U o ~ .... 0- crl ~-+> W t:r13m 3 -,.,j I:t!WWC .... ..... ::; 1-1 '1"'1 III I- UIO I+> :: ~ IJ I- ~ .... en 01 +> Ql x I..J~ ~ U Z W .... O:rtl.Q 1-1 rtll:t! L11 I !..L (0 (I ~ OUOIll I- .... rtl CI 1 0:: I >. I :;.. rtl +> z+>+>c I II IU.....+> +>+> en~~u L11 ~ o..f"i I I 1 ...... W Ql .t: III 1-00Wrtl EWW1:) 1 IS; I- Ill...>~ OlC UUl.t:Q. l1Joj.)U): I "'"' I' I ll... W rtl I- '1"'1 oJ 0: -1"'1 +> E ..JOU:;' 1 100-iUJ UJO::U ClOO..... Q.uo:ll... 1 - 1 to:: a E E I II- I I UI I ......1 1 I HI I I I I I I l- t...... ...... ....... ....... I W 10: I:t! U 0 I ;"; Sixth/Seventh Extension Alternatives : 1 Highway 99 to Seneca ternate 1/1 e ~~ ..... '.' Q. ...... ........... .. ... ~ North 7th < A~ - III c:l .. c:l IU U c:l Qol 0 ~ .lll .. Qol - Dtl !Il c:l III c:l ~ c:l - - Qol E- o .- ~ l:I.l U ~ ::.: u ~ , 6th .&. North 7th Place a;, 7th ., = - III c:l .. c:l ~ Qol U c:l Qol Qol - .lll Qol Dtl 0 - Qol .. - !Il .!: - ;..; III c:l ~ c:l - .... IU IU E- o - ::.: .. e - ~ l:I.l U ~ III -; u c: = ~ 5th 6th .dtlh. North Place :: ...... 7th =: - ~ Qol Qol - .lll - ~ ~ .. c:l .... III - .. ~ ~ ::.: III -; u c: = ~ 5th ...... 6th ~ North 7th Place :' 7th e: = - III c:l .. ~ Qol U c:l Qol ~ ~ .lll Qol - Dtl ~ .. c:l ~ c:l c:l ;:: III - .. ~ :::!1 Qol E- o ::.: III -; l:I.l U u ~ =:I :::!1