Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/25/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall July 25, 2001 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~, Bonny Bettman, Par Farr. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Scott Meisner. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A.Work Session: West Eugene Transportation Charrette Debrief and Next Steps Dave Reinhard of the Public Works Department joined the council for the item, noting the presence of Bob Pirrie of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). He called attention to the executive summary of the recent West Eugene Transportation Charrette included in the meeting packet (Attachment A). The packet also included attachments B, C, and D, which reflected e-mails/memorandums received from councilors since the charrette. Mr. Reinhard called attention to maps posted on the meeting room wall, including a large-scale version of the TransPlan Roadways Map, which illustrated transportation projects in the west Eugene area. Mayor Torrey solicited council comments on the charrette. Ms. Nathanson noted her inability to attend the first day of the charrette. She noted the mixture of participants and the fact there had been less discussion from the partners and stakeholders than she had hoped for. Ms. Nathanson said that it appeared to her there had been no clear outcome to the charrette. She noted that the issue of whether the process was to be a consensus process or one driven by the majority was not raised until near the end of the meeting. Since the meeting was intended to provide direction to staff, the distinction did not seem critical; Ms. Nathanson thought it most important to know what the majority of participants thought. Mr. Kelly said the charrette started well and ended poorly. He said the idea that participants would work toward a directed consensus was lost over the course of the second day. He thought the idea of a vote was not useful in the situation because there was no representative body casting the votes and no clarity about the weight to be given the different participants' votes. Mr. Kelly said that many good ideas were suggested but there had been little opportunity to discuss MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 25, 2001 Page 1 Work Session them fully, and he thought more discussion was needed about the different possibilities. He said it was important that things moved forward in concert. Mr. Kelly asked what process would occur if a new road project was identified. Mr. Reinhard said it depended on the project selected. ©D©T had informed the City a new Environmental Impact Statement (ELS) and purpose statement would be required for a project that was radically different from the West Eugene Parkway. Mr. Rayor thought the charrette process a good one and said the issue of voting was not crucial to him. He said the charrette indicated there were no easy answers to the issues involved. Even if the identified environmental obstacles were overcome, the money to build the parkway was not available. He had hoped to be able to salvage the State's work regarding the east end of the proposed parkway and he still hoped that was possible, although he had doubts. Ms. Bettman had hoped the charrette would be an opportunity for people to roll their sleeves up and look at the alternatives. Instead, the group spent time discussing transportation and land use at a high level and had reviewed the old proposal, and did not get to specific design work until late the second day. There was no time to explore the feasibility of the ideas offered by participants. Ms. Bettman said that the facilitators seemed to be at a loss as to how to proceed and sought advice from the participants. She concurred with Mr. Kelly about the change in process related to consensus. Ms. Bettman believed the results of the charrette argued for a combined approach given the straw polls that had been taken. She noted that the only issue on which consensus was reached by charrette participants was transit. She hoped the corridor would be prioritized during the next phase of Bus Rapid Transit. Mayor Torrey thought the charrette process as good as possible given the time limitations facing the community. He had not anticipated total consensus would be reached. Mayor Torrey said that the council needed to move forward with a solution. He said that ©D©T needed to have certainty about the parkway. In the absence of a parkway, there was only one way to get to Eugene, Highway 126, and that roadway would have to be enhanced. He thought th the intersection at West 11 Avenue and Beltline needed to be improved, noting that it was the location of two new large stores whose location at that site was predicated in part on the construction of the parkway. He thought Beltline needed to be extended to West 11th Avenue. He said that more discussion was needed about what to do to east of the Beltline. Mr. Fart said that TransPlan was based in part on the construction of the parkway. He said the City Council needed to do a lot of work fast to get people through the corridor in question safely and quickly. He had no suggestions to offer at this point, and expressed the hope that staff would come up with some Iow-cost solutions. He thanked ©D©T and congratulated its staff on the section of Beltline that had recently been improved, saying it made the road much easier to negotiate. Mr. Pap~ thanked the councilors who participated in the charrette. He said that it did not appear that consensus had provided direction about anything but transit, and he wanted more firm direction, which he thought was provided by the votes taken. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 25, 2001 Page 2 Work Session At Mr. PapS's request, Mr. Pirrie discussed the work that had been done on elements of the West Eugene Parkway to this point (Units lA and 1B). Without Units 2A and 2B, the parkway was in a no-build status. Mr. Pirrie noted that money was still allocated for the project at this time. Mr. Pap8 asked Mr. Pirrie what would become of the right-of-way purchased by ODOT if the parkway was not build. Mr. Pirrie did not know. He noted that ODOT had purchased right-of-way for Unit lA, Seneca Road to Beltline. Right-of-way acquisition had been halted at this time. Mr. Pap8 asked how a flyover at Beltline could be constructed given the store being built at the corner of West 11th Avenue and Beltline. Mr. Pirrie said ODOT was not able to buy right-of-way in advance of a project. He said that whatever the department came up with for the intersection would have impacts on land requirements at the intersection. Mr. Reinhard concurred with Mr. Pirrie, although he did not think the construction at the intersection would prohibit a flyover. He considered the situation an obstacle rather than a fatal flaw. He noted that the City had no rationale for condemning the property in question at this point. Ms. Taylor asserted that the West Eugene Parkway was in a no-build status; the council made that decision some time ago. She had attended parts of the charrette and had been disappointed by the discussion of what was to be done given that decision. She had thought the charrette would start with proposed solutions. She did not consider the votes taken at the charrette conclusive because not all those voting were elected officials. Ms. Taylor thought it unfortunate the council did not have two days to spend working with experts on solutions. Mr. Kelly said the council needed to do a better job of partnering and communicating with the other agencies involved. He thought an interagency working group might be a good approach. The group could work on all the ideas that had been suggested. He suggested the City, County, ODOT, Lane Transit District, and Department of Land Conservation and Development participate. He said key to him was to determine how to have multiple projects move forward together as he anticipated the solution would be several projects. He asked staff to help the council develop a motion for future action that reflected that multiple solutions would move forward and a working group would keep the process going. Mr. Kelly suggested that the solutions could involve engineering studies and analysis for a roadway on the eastern parkway alignment, moving ahead with study and planning for street treatments on West 11th Avenue east of Beltline, and transit. Ms. Nathanson reviewed the eight items she proposed in her e-mail message, noting it suggested road projects, projects related to community livability and design, and pedestrian and bicycle projects. Ms. Nathanson said that her e-mail reflected a combined strategy, but a combined strategy may not work if all elements were not included. She expressed concern about information that had been shared by ODOT with the council about what could be done, and said she was discouraged that it might not be possible to accomplish a combined strategy. She asked what would happen if the council could not make its approach work: would it allow a quadrant of the city to be destroyed because of a lack of facility such as the Amazon Parkway, which kept traffic flowing smoothly in southeast Eugene? She questioned what would have happened to Hilyard and Willamette streets in the absence of that facility, and said that impact could be multiplied many times in west Eugene. She was concerned that the result would be a greater impact to West 18th Avenue, which would have to take more of a share of east-west traffic. Ms. Nathanson said she could not sit by and watch West 18th Avenue and a quarter of the city destroyed by traffic because the City could not find good traffic solutions in west Eugene. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 25, 2001 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Bettman thought that Willamette Street was in failure even with the Amazon Parkway nearby, and pointed out the Amazon Parkway's terminus was in Eugene and served the Eugene community, as opposed to serving people outside the city and outlying areas. She said if the West Eugene Parkway was built, it would stimulate development at its terminus outside the urban growth boundary and create more traffic. Ms. Bettman suggested that the council endorse those projects with the most support and get them before ODOT by October 2001 to compete for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding. She favored completing improvements from Beltline to West 11th Avenue, limiting access to West 11th Avenue from Commercial to Fisher streets and designating that section an expressway, improving east-west traffic on Roosevelt and Royal, and improving safety conditions on Highway 126 from Greenhill Road to Veneta. She suggested the council examine those projects, determine what they cost, and rally support to get them in the STIR Mr. Rayor thought the best thing the City could do was ask the State that the money formerly designated for the parkway be redirected to other local projects that were needed in addition to the parkway. He cited Phase III of Beltline and expressway status on West 11th Avenue as examples. Mr. Rayor said that, according to ODOT, there was no way to build the east portion of the parkway without the west portion. The design failed even with the projects proposed. He opposed the west end because it would bisect a large contiguous wetland. Mr. Rayor thought citizens needed to understand there is no money for the parkway anyway. If the people wanted the project, they would have to vote to fund the entire project; he did not think the State would do so. Mr. Rayor said that if the parkway were built, it would halt the construction of many other needed projects in TransPlan because no funding was available. He did not think that the traffic issues on West 11th Avenue had a State solution and they needed to be solved locally. Mr. Farr said he had begun to resign himself to the fact the parkway was gone. There was no political will on the part of the council or community to move forward. The result was continued degradation of West 11th Avenue that would soon begin to affect residential neighborhoods unless something was done. He said that a potential solution was to route traffic off West 11th Avenue to Beltline to Roosevelt Boulevard out to Highway 99, but that would require reconstruction of several intersections. He asked what would happen if the City came up with such a solution: could the engineering be done by October in time for submittal to ODOT? Mr. Reinhard thought it would take more study than could be done by October. Mr. Farr asked what chance the City had to get funding from the State for those projects. Mr. Pirrie responded that the money reallocated from the parkway would go to other State projects. ODOT had no authority to spend those dollars on right-of-way outside the State system, unless it was associated with a major State project. Mr. Pirrie noted that ODOT would not be able to identify the portion of West 11th Avenue inside the City's jurisdiction as an expressway. He noted that the expressway status did not generally involve much funding. He further noted that improvements at the intersections mentioned by Mr. Farr would require study before any improvements were contemplated. Mr. Farr said that it appeared the majority of the funding allocated for the parkway would be directed elsewhere in the state, although there was a possibility some would come to Eugene. Mr. Pirrie agreed with Mr. Farr's summation. Mr. Reinhard also agreed. He said the amount of funding in the State STIP for Unit 1Awas about the same as the amount needed for Phase III of MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 25, 2001 Page 4 Work Session the Beltline project. He noted that project and Project 333, the widening of West 11th Avenue, would require more money than was currently allocated for Unit lA. Mr. Pirrie confirmed, in response to a follow-up question from Mr. Reinhard, that the improvements at Beltline and West 11th Avenue were a future project that would not happen soon. He noted that the facility was proceeding to failure. Mr. Pap~ asked if ©D©T money could be used to convert West 11th Avenue into an expressway. Mr. Pirrie reiterated that, generally there was no funding associated with the expressway status designation. He said the OTC could entertain whether there was something that could be done on the City part of the system that would alleviate congestion at the Beltline intersection. Mr. Pap~ asked how the West Eugene Parkway project would be funded by the State if it were still under consideration, noting that many such projects were built in phases. Mr. Pirrie said that there were a variety of ways money could be raised for large projects. Keeping it in TransPlan as a constrained project meant it might need to be funded through federal transportation bills. He confirmed that the project could be eligible for funding from the $400 million recently allocated by the legislature for transportation projects, but those projects must be completed by 2008. Mr. Pap~ thought Mr. Rayor's proposal made sense, and asked Mr. Pirrie and Mr. Reinhard for comment about its feasibility. Mr. Reinhard believed that to make the concept offered by Mr. Rayor work with forecasted traffic, there must be extreme geometric ramps and interchanges and combinations of access management and additional lanes on West 11th Avenue. He did not think the concept feasible for completion inside the funding window and thought some elements of it, such as the proposed disconnection of the Willow Creek/West 11th Avenue intersection, might be feasible but not acceptable to the public. He could not recommend taking that direction at this point. Ms. Taylor thought it good news the parkway funding could be reallocated and hoped that it could be reallocated to some of the unfunded projects in TransPlan. She agreed with the remarks of Ms. Bettman as they related to the projects to be sent to ©D©T for funding, and called for council consensus on those projects. Speaking to the remarks of Ms. Taylor, Mayor Torrey clarified that the council had not made a no- build decision about the parkway, but had agreed not to initiate an amendment for the West Eugene Wetlands Plan to facilitate the parkway. He thought the council needed to make an overt decision about the parkway. Mayor Torrey noted that many pads of the transportation system were nearing failure. He said that the council was talking about actions that would place more traffic on West 18th Avenue, and the council needed to look at itself and acknowledge it made that decision. Mayor Torrey acknowledged Mr. Rayor's statement about the lack of funding for the parkway but said that the elected officials could work with the State and federal governments to get the parkway funded if the council and voters supported it. Mayor Torrey wanted the staff to return on August 6 with a proposal the council could agree with that reflected the items mentioned by Ms. Bettman. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 25, 2001 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Bettman's recommendation for projects to offer the State for STIP funding. Mr. Kelly asked for a staff memorandum that explained the ramifications of the State expressway designation. Mr. Kelly agreed that increased traffic on West 18th Avenue was a problem, but that situation would not be addressed by the construction of West Eugene Parkway, which was anticipated to produce only a ten percent reduction in traffic on West 18th Avenue. Mr. Kelly hoped the working group he wished to form would look at treatments for West 11th Avenue east of Beltline, and that it would also examine what could be done in terms of roadway and transit treatments along the east side of the West Eugene Parkway right-of-way. He said the question would then be where the money would come from if not from the State. Mr. Kelly suggested the working group could help answer that question. Mr. Kelly highlighted the potential of more funding for car pools. Ms. Bettman said the traffic projections did not include the figures for the induced traffic that she believed would be created from the sprawl-type development that would be located at the parkway's terminus. She did not believe the cost was worth the result, particularly when there were other, more efficient transportation improvements that could be done. Ms. Bettman suggested the increased traffic on West 18th Avenue could be attributed to the improvements to Willow Creek Road and the improvements to the segment of West 18th Avenue between Bertelsen and Willow Creek roads. Ms. Bettman expressed hope that staff would return with a list of transportation projects that qualified for State funding. She thought those projects had the support of the charrette participants. She also wanted staff to look at some of the unfunded projects in TransPlan for possible funding with those dollars. Ms. Bettman also wanted to take advantage of grant funding available through Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to conduct an integrated study of land use and transportation in the west Eugene area. She suggested that staff move immediately to secure that funding, and consider what could be done regarding the old roadway alignment for the development of an arterial. She wanted the staff recommendation to outline the process for applying for DLCD funds. Ms. Nathanson said the land use pattern in West Eugene was based on legal land use and transportation decisions. The land use pattern followed normal patterns of good land use planning, and it was all predicated on a transportation system that was voted on by Eugene voters and approved and funded by ©D©T. The development on the ground or permitted at this point was done legally and correctly. This council had stopped the transportation system that supported the land use pattern the community had already come up with. Responding to Ms. Bettman's statements regarding the sprawl that would occur, Ms. Nathanson said that most people considered sprawl to be leapfrog development on new tracts of land beyond vacant parcels. The development in west Eugene was inside the city limits; sprawl would come from additional development in Veneta and Junction City over which the City had no control. Ms. Nathanson was supportive of three items summarized by Ms. Bettman as they mirrored the first three items on her list, but also wanted the list expanded with the additional language in her MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 25, 2001 Page 6 Work Session e-mail message related to the redesign of the intersection of West 11th Avenue and Beltline as a portal to the community that was more attractive. The design of the intersection would encourage the use of Beltline. She wanted to pursue improvements to West 11th Avenue as well as they related to her interest in community design and livability. Mr. Pap~ determined from Mr. Reinhard that staff did not consider the intersection at West 11th Avenue and Beltline to be in failure at this time. Mr. Pap~ asked how quickly a new project could go through the design to Environmental Impact Statement process. Mr. Pirrie said that it was hard to gauge; the situation could be affected by a natural resource issue, for example. He cited the 1-5/Gateway intersection project as an example of a multi-year project involving environmental considerations and public input, and estimated it was two to five years from inception to project construction. Mr. Pap~ endorsed approaching the State through the Board of County Commissioners acting as the Area Commission on Transportation (ACT). He thought the use of ACTS in other areas depolicitized the issues involved. Mayor Torrey asked if interchange improvements at Beltline and West 11th Avenue would impact Danebo Road or Willow Creek Road. Mr. Pirrie said he could only guess given that the parameters of the improvements were not known. Mayor Torrey asked Mr. Reinhard to determine what the City would have to do to realize the expressway concept from Beltline to Commerce Street, and specifically what the City would have to do with regard to Target's access to West 11th Avenue. Mayor Torrey asked staff to provide the council with the information he had received regarding the Hampton, Virginia, boulevard approach, which was not generally successful. Mr. Kelly indicated support for text supporting the portal concept and community livability and design as suggested by Ms. Nathanson. He encouraged staff to bring the individual who presented the boulevard concept at the recent Livable Oregon Conference to the community, who might be able to explain why Hampton failed. Mr. Kelly suggested that staff develop timelines for the City-oriented tasks that lay ahead. Responding to Ms. Nathanson's comments regarding sprawl, Mr. Kelly maintained that most land use experts say that the community could sprawl inside the urban growth boundary as well as outside the urban growth boundary. The issue inside the urban growth boundary was the type of development that occurred. Mr. Kelly requested that, rather than focus on failure of an intersection at peak periods, staff discuss at some point the change in end-to-end trip times under different conditions. Ms. Bettman clarified that she was not proposing to take any strategies off the table by offering her items. She said there were other strategies she strongly supported that received as many votes as the favored projects. She cited examination of the north-south connectivity from Roosevelt Boulevard to 1st, 5th, and 11th avenues and creating a local grid system providing more southern connectivity as an example. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 25, 2001 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Bettman suggested the council have further discussion of the boulevard concept to ensure that the definition of boulevard was shared. Mr. Pirrie thanked the council for taking part in the charrette. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 25, 2001 Page 8 Work Session