Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 04/26/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session Council Chamber--City Hall April 26, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Pap~. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Pat Farr, Gary Rayor. A. Mayor's Youth Leadership Program Shane Skyler of the New Roads School discussed the lack of a crosswalk at Van Buren Street and 7th Avenue to serve his school and said that because it was a school rule that students must use crosswalks, he requested the council to install one at that location. Mr. Meisner noted that information related to such a proposal was provided to the council that week. 7ak 7erzan, representing Marist High School, thanked the council and the mayor for the opportunity to speak and for listening to student concerns. He had solicited input from his fellow students about their concerns and had heard concerns expressed about the need for the school to have a sign directing people to the school's location, because it was hard to find. He asked the council to place such a sign on Beltline or 1-105. Mr. 7erzan thanked the council for installing the signal at Kingsley and Goodpasture Island roads. Mr. 7erzan proposed that counselors and candidates for office visit Mr. Ben Rain's Friday first period class to give students a better understanding of municipal government. He indicated he would leave a contact number with staff. Evan Rutter, Sheldon High School, thanked the mayor for attending the recent Youth Voice event. He discussed a traffic control issue at the intersection of Crescent and Norkenzie streets and urged the council to install a signal to create a more safe intersection. Mayor Torrey discussed the Youth Voice effort and commended its participants. He said that he had been very proud of the participants during a recent candidates' forum, and asked Mr. Rutter to pass his compliment on. Mayor Torrey said it was his understanding a signal would be installed at Crescent and Gilham streets, and hoped it would have a positive impact on the situation at the intersection of Crescent and Norkenzie streets, two block east that Mr. Rutter had discussed. Mr. Meisner suggested that any new signals be signed in advance to alert people to the fact there was a new signal. Mayor Torrey concurred. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 26, 2000 Page 1 Work Session Mayor Torrey reminded the council of the proposal made by John Brown to form an oversight committee for the police and fire facilities if the voters approved them. He said it appeared there were no major objections to that approach. Mr. Lee said that three Contingency Fund requests from the Council Committee on Homelessness and Youth had been faxed to the councilors. He briefly described each request and asked the council if it was willing to consider the requests. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Lee said that the committee had looked at the base budget but was unable to find funding so late in the budget process. Mayor Torrey noted the elimination of federal funding for several local programs and said that their staffs were working to transition those organizations to a new funding base. By head nods, council members indicated willingness to consider the requests at the regular meeting on May 8. Mr. Pap8 said that he had received a Contingency Fund request for summer funding for the school-based health centers and was gathering information. He anticipated the council would also be asked to consider that request on May 8. Mr. Johnson said that he had received a request for funding from the United Way to help underwrite a community needs assessment. He indicated he would request the council to authorize $2,000 in Contingency Funds for that purpose on May 8. B.Work Session: TransPlan The council was joined by Planning Director Jan Childs and Traffic Engineer David Reinhard for further discussion of the TransPlan update. Ms. Childs noted a request from Delta Sand and Gravel that the council not discuss the issues related to Division Avenue Bridge and Beaver Street until a representative of the company was present to hear the discussion. The council had no objection to postponing the discussion. Ms. Childs reviewed the contents of the council packet. She noted that Tom Schwetz, project manager from Lane Council of Governments, Stefano Viggiano from Lane Transit District, Nick Amis from Oregon Department of Transportation, and Nick Forte from the Federal Highway Administration were also present at the meeting. Regarding the attachments, Ms. Childs said that she had reflected the positions taken by Springfield and Lane County in a matrix. She said that if the council supported the position taken by those jurisdictions, it could merely indicate its concurrence. Mr. Kelly expressed concern that the council would be unable to complete its work in the time scheduled and asked the City Manager to consider the council's schedule to ensure that all work session items were addressed. Ms. Childs anticipated that a joint work session would be held in mid-July, event if all the preliminary work sessions were not completed. The council briefly discussed the potential of adding additional meetings to the schedule or adding a second work session after the completion of a regular meeting. Ms. Childs said that she would review the schedule to see if additional meetings could be added. SYSTEMWIDE AND ROAD SYSTEMS (Issue Area 4) Systernwide Poficy 5, TransPlan Project List MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 26, 2000 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Childs referred to Attachment B, and noted testimony about Systemwide Policy 5, TransPlan Project List, and the associated staff recommendation. There was no objection to the recommendation for Option 2. Roadway Policy l, Mobility and Safety for all Modes Ms. Childs referred to testimony regarding Roadway Policy 1, Mobility and Safety for all Modes, and the related staff recommendation. There was no objection to the staff recommendation of no change to the policy. Roadway Policy 2, Motor Vehicle Level of Service Ms. Childs noted testimony calling for the establishment of Level of Service (LOS) E throughout the system and Springfield's opposition to that approach. Lane County recommended no change to the policy. She said that the current LOS was LOS D; there was discussion among the planning commissions about whether that was realistic, but eventual agreement that LOS D should be retained as a standard except in those cases where it was anticipated the standard should be lower, such as in the nodes and in the Central Area Transportation Study area. She noted that the Springfield City Council was willing to consider allowing LOS E in some circumstances. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Ms. Childs said that Springfield recommended no changes to the policy, but wanted clarity about situations where LOS E was acceptable in that community. Ms. Taylor asked what effect altering the policy to LOS E would have on proposed developments. Mr. Reinhard said that it would likely make it easier for development to attain the standard. Ms. Childs said that the issue of the standard would most likely have an effect on an application for a plan amendment rather than an individual development proposal. If LOS D was lowered to LOS E, it would indicate that a more congested system was acceptable. Mr. Kelly said while moving to LOS E might make development easier, his concern about retaining the LOS D standard was that it could make road expansion easier as well and create an additional impetus for increasing roadway capacity as opposed to looking for other solutions. For that reason, he was interested in Option 2, modify the policy to use LOS E in all areas of the community except State highway facilities. He said that additionally, lowering the LOS was a reflection of reality. Mr. Kelly said that LOS was a very simplistic measure because it only addressed peak times of commuting in the afternoon, and if one was attempting to get from Point Ato Point B, the issue to him was the ease with which that occurred. He did not think that overall trip time would be significantly affected by a reduction in LOS. He did not want LOS to drive the planning process, and if the community was "stuck with it" he wanted to lower it to reflect current conditions. Ms. Nathanson found the LOS policy overly bureaucratic and nonexplanatory. She questioned the wording in the policy as unclear in that she was unsure of the meaning of the phrase performance on the roadway system. She said that the public would wonder why the elected officials were not attempting to achieve LOS A, and that should be addressed by the policy. She said "let's make it real for people." MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 26, 2000 Page 3 Work Session Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Mr. Reinhard confirmed that the policy was intended to apply to arterial and collector streets. The impact on local streets would generally be one of spillover traffic. On many local streets and smaller collectors the City did not design for capacity, but rather ensured that there were two-lane streets with adequate width, sidewalks, and on-street parking. Mr. Pap8 observed that River Road and Santa Clara did not have improved streets, and asked if reducing LOS would create the need for improvements to those streets. Mr. Reinhard did not anticipate that effect. Mr. Pap8 asked if the trade-offs identified in Attachment A on page 261 had evidence behind them. Mr. Reinhard said yes. Mr. Meisner agreed with the remarks of Mr. Kelly. He said that the tradeoffs identified in the attachment were actually consequences and he was very concerned about traffic infiltration through neighborhoods. Neighbors become upset, and the City's traffic calming budget was too small to address all needs. He said that the City must acknowledge reality and increase its traffic calming budget. With the exception of Mr. PapS, the council indicated support for Option 2, calling for LOS E in all areas of the community except state highway facilities. Roadway Policy #3, Coordinated Roadway Network Ms. Childs noted the split of adopting officials opinion on the testimony submitted regarding the policy by Springfield and Lane County. Mr. Kelly favored Option 3 because the policy in question was a roadway policy. Other councilors concurred. Suggestion to Add an Access Management Policy Ms. Childs said that Lane County and Springfield did not support the addition of such an access management policy. She referred the council to the text suggested in testimony, reflected in Option 2 in the packet: 'Manage the roadway system to preserve operational efficiency and safety by adopting regulations to manage access to roadways and applying these regulations to decisions related to approving new or modified access to the roadway system." Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Reinhard said that the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration believed the policy would create an impetus for the adoption of access management policies that are required by the State through the transportation planning rule. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson about the linkage between the policy and the City's interactions with Oregon Department of Transportation and Lane County about proposed road improvements adjacent to I-5, Mr. Reinhard said there could be a linkage but he did not think it was significant or that the policy was objectionable to the City. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 26, 2000 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Nathanson did not see a reason not to have such a policy. Ms. Taylor agreed. She did not think it compelled the City to do anything. Responding to a question from Mr. Lee, Mr. Reinhard said that the disagreement between the State and City on access management had existed on certain facilities. He said that Oregon Department of Transportation had recently adopted similar rules for the State highway system, and he would characterize the City as being out-of-date in not having a similar access management policies. He hoped staff would return to the council for adoption of such a policy. Mr. Reinhard said he supported Option 2. Mr. Meisner suggested that the council modify Option 2, which called for a new Roadway Policy 4, Access Management, by reversing the terms "operational efficiency" and "safety" because he believed the original order gave primacy to the movement of traffic. The council agreed to adopt Option 2 as revised by Mr. Meisner. Vafley River Bridge Ms. Childs referred the council to four possible options in the meeting packet regarding the proposed Valley River Bridge project: A. Leave the proposed Valley River Bridge in TransPlan (Table la-Financially Constrained Roadway Project List). Additional study would be anticipated to evaluate alternative locations, environmental impacts, design, etc. B. Delete the Valley River Bridge from the TransPlan project list. No further study would be conducted on a new fiver crossing in this area. C. Remove the Valley River Bridge from the TransPlan project list, and replace it with a study to evaluate fiver crossings in the area between Washington-Jefferson Bridge and Beltline Bridge. This type of study would have a standing in TransPlan similar to the proposed corridor studies on 18th Avenue and South Willamette Street. Staff would envision a furl citizen involvement process and a planning level study to develop a preferred alternative, prior to conducting a more comprehensive, project-level environmental assessment or ElS. The adopted TransPlan document would need to be amended at some point in order for the Valley River Bridge (or any other new fiver crossing in this area) to be advanced to the final project design and construction stage. D. Remove the Valley River Bridge from the TransPlan project list and replace it with a study to evaluate a regional system of Willamette River crossing alternatives. Staff would envision a furl citizen involvement process and a planning level study to develop a preferred alternative, prior to conducting a more comprehensive, project-level environmental assessment or ElS. The adopted TransPlan document would need to be amended in order for a new Willamette River crossing to be advanced to the final project design and construction stage. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Mr. Kelly, to adopt Option B. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 26, 2000 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Meisner noted his long-term opposition to a Valley River Bridge. He said that transportation corridors were important but not at the cost of destroying neighborhoods. He said that there was no evidence that the bridge anywhere in the general vicinity of Rasor Park was needed to reduce pressure on other bridges or improve the roadway system. He was also not interested in Option D because he was not interested in a study that heightened the importance of finding a place for a bridge. He stated his belief there was no way to connect such a bridge to the traffic system efficiently, and noted his hope improvements would be made to the Washington-Jefferson Bridge to reduce congestion on that facility. Mr. Meisner said that currently, traffic patterns force those in central neighborhoods to use the Ferry Street Bridge to reach the northern pads of the city. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Meisner's remarks. He acknowledged the mention in the briefing document about the Ferry Street Corridor Advisory Committee findings, but pointed out that the council had revised those findings to de-emphasize the bridge and focused on transportation demand management and improvements to the corridor. He noted that the advisory committee also discussed improvements to the Franklin/l-5 interchange. Mr. Kelly called attention to the statement on page 265 of the packet stating that the Valley River Bridge would decrease Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) on local and County roads, which was not what was originally written in the original memorandum; that memorandum indicated VMT would decrease on State facilities and increase on local and County roads. Mr. Kelly suggested that because of the importance of the Willamette Greenway and the fact Eugene had a much different riverfront than Portland, to the extent more river crossings were needed he wanted to make better use of the crossings that exist. He noted the improvements proposed for the Washington-Jefferson Bridge and said that would reduce pressure on the other crossings. He believed that the widening of the crossing at Beltline and Delta Highway was preferable to him, and suggested that project could be moved from the out years into the 20-year plan. Ms. Nathanson did not support retaining the Valley River Bridge as a project in TransPlan. However, she differed from Mr. Meisner and Mr. Kelly in believing that a study was needed, although she did not think it was urgent to embark on such a study at this time. Regarding Mr. Kelly's remarks about the council's reprioritization of the Ferry Street Corridor Advisory Committee recommendations, she noted that the council did not delete the proposal for a study of river crossings. She liked Option D with changes: rather than replace the bridge project with a study that needed to be underway by a date certain, she wanted a study evaluating a regional system of Willamette River crossings without the presumption a new crossing was needed. She said that things in the community were going to change, and where activities are located and new housing was located was changing. Ms. Nathanson said that many members of the community did not favor major new bridge crossings and had suggested a couple of small crossings rather than a big, freeway-sized bridge. Mr. Pap~ concurred with Ms. Nathanson. He did not favor a Valley River Bridge as constituted to this point, but thought the City would be putting "our heads in the sand" by not doing a study for river crossings for a 20-year planning process. He pointed out considerable new development was happening in the community that necessitated some type of crossing. He did not want to foreclose examination of those possibilities. Mr. Pap~ thought it was appropriate that Eugene had more pedestrian bridges than auto bridges at this time, but questioned whether the community could expect those facilities to be sufficient in the next 20 years. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 26, 2000 Page 6 Work Session Mayor Torrey noted his own long-term opposition to the proposed Valley River Bridge because it was intended to provide access to a single commercial center, and that was a not a community priority; the community's priority was good transportation. He did support improving and enhancing Washington-Jefferson Bridge and the widening of Delta Highway at Beltline. Mayor Torrey pointed out that although safety and seismic conditions were improved, the Ferry Street Bridge project had resulted in no more lanes than it had before retrofitting and contained no additional capacity. For that reason, he thought a study was needed. He suggested that such a study could focus on the area east of the Ferry Street Bridge. Acknowledging the Federal Highway Administration's continued opposition to the concept, he continued to support a southbound lane from I-5 to Franklin Boulevard to reduce traffic on the Ferry Street Bridge. He said that he wanted the federal and State governments to examine the impacts of their programming on local communities such as Eugene. He said that in the absence of an alternative, there would be gridlock on the Ferry Street Bridge that would not be alleviated by widening Beltline or improvements to Washington-Jefferson Bridge. Mr. Meisner did not believe that more street or crossing capacity was needed to improve the transportation system. He said that the plan addressed both land use and alternative modes, and if the City's only choices were widening existing bridges or adding more smaller bridges, the council had missed the point of TransPlan. The document was premised on the connections between land use and transportation. He agreed with Mr. Pap8 that the City must recognize that growth was significant and it must find ways for those people to cross town, he did not want that to occur at the expense of neighborhoods in the center of Eugene. Mr. Meisner said that the City needed to find a way to provide a transportation system that did not damage what already existed. He cited Jefferson Street as an example of a neighborhood degraded by traffic because of recent growth. Regarding Option D, Mr. Meisner said he understood the need for a 20-year plan, but he interpreted Option D as placing a new bridge crossing higher in priority as a result of the study than the other projects in the plan. He said the option called for evaluation of the regional system of river crossing alternatives as if there was a need to find an alternative. He believed that the option was "just a study about finding a different location and naming it something other than the Valley River Bridge." Mr. Meisner said that he would support a comprehensive study on the transportation and its impact on the city and its neighborhoods, but the option did not say that; instead, the option stated "find another site for the bridge." Referring to the statement in the option that the plan would have to be amended to advance the bridge project to the design and construction stage, Mr. Meisner asserted that placed the bridge higher in priority than the Valley River Bridge was in TransPlan. Mr. Kelly concurred with Mr. Pap8 and Ms. Nathanson that TransPlan was a 20-year plan, but the plan called for periodic reviews, and nothing would prevent the City Council from placing a study in the plan in the future. He suggested that the City would look at the existing crossings when transportation demand measures (TDM) had been implemented. Mr. Kelly agreed with the mayor about the I-5/Franklin option. He thought it made sense for the future and could be footnoted in TransPlan. Regarding the proposed bridge study, he suggested that another bridge in the area was not the answer to congestion on the Ferry Street Bridge because a new bridge would not reduce traffic on the existing bridge by more than three percent. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 26, 2000 Page 7 Work Session Regarding Ms. Nathanson's comments about multiple small crossings, Mr. Kelly suggested said he would normally agree, but felt that the Willamette River was such a significant natural feature that it eliminated the potential of such crossings. Ms. Nathanson said that it was ironic to her in that Mr. Meisner's unwillingness to examine the system of Willamette River crossings could likely result in even more traffic to the downtown core, and negatively affect inner city neighborhoods to a greater degree. She indicated her intent to vote against the motion and, if it failed, to offer a substitute motion based on her earlier remarks: Remove the Valley River Bridge from the TransPlan project list and replace it with a future study to evaluate the regional system of Willamette River crossings, Mr. Lee said he visited Rasor Park with some of the neighbors and understood their concerns about livability. He pointed out, however, that his ward in the West University neighborhood was also in the center of the city and residents were was also being adversely affected by traffic. He said that people in his ward needed to have a say in the issue as well because of that effect. Mr. Lee said that the council should acknowledge that all residents in all wards were concerned about traffic in their neighborhoods. Mr. Lee did not perceive a significant difference between options B and D. He said that the issue was whether to have a study. He said that nothing would stop a future council from taking a different position. He asked staff to discuss the difference between the options. Ms. Childs suggested that Option D indicated a willingness sometime during the planning period to conduct a study. She confirmed that the study would have to be reviewed by the public and adopted by the council. Mr. Lee said he could support either option. Ms. Taylor said that there was more to the issue than traffic, including livability, the park, and the river front. She did not want to have a river crossing in the area known as Rasor Park by the neighborhood. She hoped the council could find a way to say that the area would be park land. Mr. Pap~ also found some irony in Mr. Meisner's position. He said that precluding future studies reduced the council's flexibility and he could not support Option B. Mr. Pap~ said that Option D addressed the entire river corridor, not just the area in the center of the city. Addressing Mr. Lee, he said that there was a difference between options. Option B said no study would occur. He noted Lane County's support for Option D, and pointed out that four adopting jurisdictions must concur on the policy. Mayor Torrey urged the council to find a way to include some text in the plan that did not preclude a river crossing to the east of the Ferry Street Bridge. He suggested that would help resolve any interjurisdictional issues that might arise. In response to Mr. Pap~ and Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner said that Option D called for a study focused on river crossings. He said that Ms. Nathanson's suggested motion assumed that a river crossing was a major panacea for the community's transportation problems, and he disagreed. Mr. Meisner said that the review of the transportation system in the future did not preclude a proposal for a new bridge crossing. Mr. Kelly reiterated that the plan would be subject to periodic review. He also noted that the plan currently contained other studies, and given limited funding he would prefer to fund those studies over what he termed "yet another study" of river crossing alternatives. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 26, 2000 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Mr. Pap~, to divide the question by separating the two sentences in the motion. The vote on the nondebateable motion was a 3:3 tie, with Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Pap~ voting yes; Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Taylor voting no; Mayor Torrey cast the tie- breaking vote in favor of the motion. The final vote on the motion was 4:3. The vote on the first part of the divided motion, Delete the Valley River Bridge from the TransPlan project list, passed unanimously, 6:0. The council considered the second part of the divided motion, No further study would be conducted on a new fiver crossing in this area. Mr. Kelly said he could not support the second sentence because it did not mean anything. He asked about the implications of passing the motion. Mayor Torrey suggested the council clarify the reference to the word "this area." Responding to a question from Mr. Lee, Ms. Childs said that, if the council chose, Eugene could do a study of river crossings within its portion of the urban growth boundary in the future. Mayor Torrey said that passage of the motion did not preclude a study. Ms. Childs recommended that the council be specific about what "this area" was, suggesting the motion refer to the area between the Ferry Street Bridge and Beltline Bridge. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, that the motion be amended to refer to the area between the Ferry Street Bridge and Beltline Bridge. Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Mr. Reinhard said he did not know if the amendment to the motion precluded a parallel bridge structure by the Ferry Street Bridge or the Beltline Bridge. The amendment to the motion passed, 4:2; Mr. Pap6 and Ms. Nathanson voting no. Ms. Nathanson left the meeting. The motion passed, 4:1; Mr. Pap8 voting no. Mr. Kelly referred to the General Project Topics listed on page 263 of the meeting packet and asked for confirmation of the statement that the project rankings were not included in the plan because they had no impact other than to indicate the fiscally constrained nature of the plan. Ms. Childs concurred. Mr. Kelly said in that case, he had no problem with not including them. Mr. Kelly referred to the topic area Fund Traffic Calming and suggested that a project category for traffic calming projects be added to TransPlan. There was no objection from other councilors. Mr. Meisner referred to the topic area One-Way Streets in Downtown Eugene and the many one- way streets in downtown Eugene and asked if TransPlan contained a policy that precluded the City from converting one-way streets to two-way streets. Ms. Childs said no. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 26, 2000 Page 9 Work Session Referring to the topic area Projects Near Urban Growth Boundary, Ms. Taylor called for a policy that discouraged road projects near and outside the urban growth boundary. The meeting adjourned at 7:19 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by KimberlyYoung) MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 26, 2000 Page 10 Work Session