HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: River Avenue Improvements
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Work Session: River Avenue Improvements
Meeting Date: December 12, 2005 Agenda Item Number: B
Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Michelle Cahill
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-6855
ISSUE STATEMENT
A conceptual design for transportation improvements for River Avenue has been developed and
approved by the River Avenue Stakeholders Group and is included as Attachment A, sections 1 and 2.
The City Council is being requested to approve the conceptual design for River Avenue and direct the
City Manager to proceed with the final design and bidding of an improvement project.
BACKGROUND
In April 2005 after a public hearing and consideration of a resolution to form a local improvement
district (LID) for improvements to River Avenue between River Road and the ramps to the Beltline
Highway, the City Council passed the following motion:
Substantially modify the improvements, rebidding if necessary, and then conduct a hearing on the
modified improvements.
The council also directed staff to conduct more outreach and solicit more public input in the redesign of
transportation improvements for River Avenue.
City staff developed and implemented a public outreach plan that included 11 meetings:
1. Four outreach meetings (with the River Avenue property owners and residents, the Santa Clara
Community Organization, River Road area residents, and the Eugene Bicycle Coalition) to solicit
public input on the redesign of River Avenue. Comments received are included in Attachment A,
Section 5.
2. Three meetings with an 11-member stakeholder group representing the River Road and Santa Clara
community organizations, the Eugene Bicycle Coalition and the property owners along River
Avenue. The Stakeholder Group meetings were facilitated by a professional facilitator. The
facilitator’s Summary Report is included as Section 3 to Attachment A. At its third meeting, the
Stakeholder Group reached consensus on a conceptual design for River Avenue. The motion passed
by the Stakeholder Group is shown as Section 1 to Attachment A.
3. Four meetings following the Stakeholder Group meetings to report back to the various interest
groups, present the conceptual design for River Avenue, answer questions regarding the design and
solicit comments on the design. The comments are included in Attachment A, Section 7.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M051212\S051212B.doc
The conceptual design is shown as Section 2 of Attachment A. The conceptual design includes:
1. Two travel lanes and a center turn lane the entire length of River Avenue.
2. Setback sidewalks and street trees on both sides of River Avenue from River Road to the eastern
property line of the post office.
3. A curbside sidewalk on the north side of River Avenue east of the post office.
4. Street trees at the discretion of the property owners on the north side of River Avenue east of the
post office
5. On-street bike lanes on both sides of River Avenue from River Road to the eastern property line of
the post office.
6. A multi-use setback path and street trees on the southside of River Avenue east of the post office.
7. Four painted crosswalks.
8. Bioswales where possible.
In addition, the Stakeholder Group recommended that the following work be advanced and implemented
with the River Avenue improvement project:
1. Operational improvements to the River Avenue/River Road intersection.
2. A separate bike/pedestrian path on the south side of River Avenue connecting to the Santa Clara
neighborhood underneath the Beltline on the east end of River Avenue.
Subsequent to the completion of the work of the Stakeholder Group, the River Road Community
Organization withdrew its affirmative votes for the conceptual design and submitted a minority report,
included as Section 4 to Attachment A.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
The design developed by the stakeholder representative group does not fully comply with the Arterial
and Collector Street Plan (ACSP) and associated adopted standards for design of a major collector street.
If the council approves the conceptual design, an administrative rule would need to be processed to
create an exception in the ACSP that would allow these modifications.
The deviations for the conceptual design from the standards identified in the ACSP include:
1. A multi-use path in lieu of bike lanes on the street on the section of the road east of the post office.
2. Curbside instead of setback walk along the north side of the street east of the post office.
3. Street trees at the discretion of the property owners along the north side of the street east of the post
office.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The City Council may:
1. Approve the conceptual design of transportation improvements for River Avenue approved by the
River Avenue Stakeholder Group and direct the City Manager to proceed with the final design and
bidding of an improvement project.
2. Modify the conceptual design of transportation improvements for River Avenue approved by the
River Avenue Stakeholder Group and direct the City Manager to proceed with the final design and
bidding of an improvement project.
3. Reject the conceptual design and provide direction on whether or how to proceed to meet the
transportation needs on River Avenue.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M051212\S051212B.doc
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council approve the conceptual design of transportation
improvements for River Avenue approved by the River Avenue Stakeholder Group and direct the City
Manager to proceed with the final design and bidding of an improvement project.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to approve the conceptual design of transportation improvements for River Avenue approved by
the River Avenue Stakeholder Group and direct the City Manager to proceed with the final design and
bidding of an improvement project.
ATTACHMENTS
A. River Avenue Stakeholder Group Process Report for the Re-Design of River Avenue Sections:
1. Motion Passed by Stakeholder Group
2. Aerial Photo of Design Approved by Stakeholder Group
3. Summary Report (prepared by facilitator Paul Hoobyar)
4. River Road Community Organization Minority Report
5. Outreach Meetings – (Meeting Information and Comments)
6. Stakeholder Group Meetings - (Agendas and Minutes)
7. Follow-Up Meetings – (Meeting Information and Comments)
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Michelle Cahill
Telephone: 682-6855
Staff E-Mail: michelle.r.cahill@ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M051212\S051212B.doc
ATTACHMENT A
River Avenue Proposed Improvement List as amended and
approved at the third River Avenue Stakeholder Group meeting
October 5, 2005:
A THREE (3) Lane road for continuous length of River Avenue with center
lane being A turn lane only fully improved with curb, gutters and storm
drainage. USE OF CURBS AND GUTTERS WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH, AND
SUPPORTIVE OF, BIOS WALE DESIGN WHERE POSSIBLE.
Setback sidewalks both sides (5 FT-WIDE') on west end of River Avenue up
to east end of Post Office. Curbside sidewalk (5 FT-WIDE) on north side
only from east end of Post Office to the east end of River A venue with no
sidewalk on south side of River Avenue EAST OF THE POST OFFICE. Flat
sidewalks to facilitate use of bioswales where possible.
Bike LANES on both sides up to east end of Post Office and connected to
bike path at west end of Wastewater Treatment Plant and then
CONNECTING TO A 12 FT. WIDE, MUL TI -USE, OFF-STREET PA TH on south
side only for continuous length of River Avenue.
STRIPED crosswalks (to control speed) at east end of Post Office, Ross Lane
and at the east end bike path across from the Orowheat store and possibly
at the VA building.
No landscaped islands or planters on any portion of the THREE (3) lane
road. Street trees to be planted at the west end only in the setback
sidewalk area up to the east end of the Post Office. EAST OF THE POST
OFFICE TREES WILL BE PLANTED ON THE SOUTH SIDE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH CITY POLICY. ON THE NORTH SIDE, EAST OF THE POST OFFICE,
TREES WILL BE PLANTED AT PROPERTY OWNERS' DISCRETION.
IN ADDITION, THE RIVER AVENUE STAKEHOLDER GROUP ALSO
RECOMMENDS THAT THE FOLLOWING WORK BE ADVANCED AND
IMPLEMENTED WITH THE RIVER A VENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT:
* OPERA TIONAL IMPROVEMENTS TO RIVER ROAD/RIVER A VENUE
INTERSECTION AS SUGGESTED BY CITY ENGINEERING STAFF;
* A SEPARATED BIKE/PED PA TH ON SOUTH SIDE OF RIVER A VE,
CONNECTING TO SANTA CLARA NEIGHBORHOOD BENEATH BELTLINE ON
THE EAST END OF PROJECT
MATCH LINE
AJ ;;t
~
,.. ...~;
tOo, ~ .~ ...... ~._ "
...1i....~...4
,
~. . ''''1' I
. I
- .... '\i".
- : I
I :
l:. r: I
\ fj :
r ...1
w (. '
~ I
~ ~ f :
i t; I
=--:kJ.~ 10
r '
, {-, .." \j
-~,.>....._. .--
" 'i>t
8NI~33N18N3 S)i~OM ~1l8nd
3N38n3 .:lO ,.ul~
(N81S30 gOOZ llV ~ ~no-'
SlN:3V\[j^O~d~1 l:3:3~lS :3
MATCH LINE
~'"
,
,
j .!
-.......-- ~- - -- ,
D ~ ',i
~ ':
ffi ~ f, l
m - ~ t.::\ ,
Ai, ,
ffi 1/ :.~ l
a: (J
~ . ~ I
-- > ,
-~-----
~
,
i
I
r
'I"~
~t
( .
,I
f
... ~
...~
--
) .;: I. I
II .. J
.., ..
..... 1
~
, ,
"\
z
a:
o
?-
m
If) i
;;;;~~, ~
(,,;
"J,
'.,. .-,
f-. ~.;.;;;..s:;. l~r,.. ~
-_~ r
.. .--
. f,
, ". ~i
." ,
" ~ ,(~
..... ~ n
y~~ N
I ",,' ~.:I.I
I"r
,/'"
i;, """''''''
~.:.:"
J
----------
._~.~ ~
,~j!,.:
'~ Jh
_.~ '"
.~..~ r "(
., 0
ij --- ~
'-
-
0
~ '"
'"
( N
0
. "
-fl I-
~ --!--
, D..
;11 l-
I. ~I .. z
W
~l .,\!'" "'l" ~
" . I-
L'li
.
'*
".
<(
lD _
~1 a
~
~~..
,
fft €feQ t
,~....,;;;;;";".;;,,..,~~
,J
..
I.f
};,
[0'
------ t.....;
u r ili
...
!..2 r\:.
lJ '-
'*"
-ii"
~-~..,
133~lS ~3^ v=
t
a:
w
ffi.~
~ (,) .,ll;.1'
wW
0...1
~ ~ .",;t.
RIVER AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS
Stakeholder Representative Destgn Concept
Typica I Section
From 600' East of River Rtf to
Ea st Side of Post Office
i
11'
Traffic
Lane
5'
Bike 7'
Lane POfleible 5'
Bio$wale Walk
Cur!?
5'
7' Bike
5' PO%wle 1 Lane
Walk BioElwale
Cur!?
11'
Travel
Lane
12'
Two-way
Turn Lane
(Minimum Row needed:::; 69')
Typical Section
From East Side of Post Office
to East End of River Ave.
11'
Travel
t Lane
Cur!?
12'
Two-way
Turn Lane
'~
5'
Walk
11'
Travel
Lane
7'
f OEli!i1 t 12'
Blo!5waJe
Curb Mul'ti-U5e Pa'th t
2' Shoulder 2' Shoulder
(Minimum Row needed:::; 6:3')
i} O,w'" 2005
River Avenue Road Improvements Stakeholder Group
Summary Report
Submitted by Paul Hoobyar, Facilitator
The River Avenue Stakeholder Group (RASG) met for three evening meetings at the
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant on August 24th, August 30th, and October 5th.
The charge of the RASG was to find agreement among property owners and community
interests regarding needed improvements along River Avenue. This group convened as a
result of Council direction to City staff to better understand what improvements the
property owners and community wanted for River Avenue.
The group was composed of six representatives from the property owners along River
Avenue: Clayton Austin, Greg Austin, Daniel M. Hill, Gordon B. Howard, Chuck
Meeker, and Paul Spain. (Note: Due to family commitments, Greg Austin only attended
the first stakeholder meeting); Community interests were represented by two River Road
Community Organization representatives: Teresa Damron and Krista Rojas; two Santa
Clara Community Organization representatives: Mort Hyman and Ann Vaughn, and the
Eugene Bike Coalition representative, Yuri Samer. (Note: Rob Handy was an alternate
for the RRCO who participated at the end of the last meeting for Teresa Damron).
The group decided to use a consensus decision-making model, with a two-thirds super
majority vote as a fall back should consensus not be reached.
First Meeting
The first meeting began with City staff and an ODOT representative providing overviews
of the City and state processes for scheduling, prioritizing, and funding road
improvement projects. During subsequent discussion, the RASG representatives held
widely diverse views on the role of the stakeholder group, the amount of influence the
group had over the final decisions for design improvements to River A venue, as well as
differences over the design issues associated with River Avenue and the implications of
ODOT's future design changes for Beltline Highway and the Beltline bridge.
In fact, questions regarding the scope of the design, coupled with questions about
Council's intent and charge to the stakeholder group, led to a proposed motion to raise
the issue before City Council:
Was it the City Council's intent that River Avenue be redesigned
spec~flcally to urban design standards. or is some lower level of
improvement that is supported by stakeholders acceptable?
That proposal was voted down, 8:3. (Minutes-River Avenue Stakeholder
Group. August 24, 2005)
(NOTE: To gain some insight into the environment in which the stakeholder group was
operating, it is worth briefly noting that comments at public meetings from many in the
community, and from a number of the representatives in the stakeholder group process,
strongly advocated that no improvements be made to River Avenue until the residents
and community had a better understanding of the Oregon Department of Transportation' s
future development plans for Beltline Highway, the ramps at River Avenue and River
Road, and the Beltline bridge across the Willamette River. While this concern continued
to be raised throughout the stakeholder meetings, by the end of the third meeting, the
group voted to approve a design alternative--see below.)
Second Meeting
At the second meeting, part of the group's discussion centered on whether the
stakeholders' concerns were a function of costs and assessments, or whether the concern
had to do with creating a design that addressed safety issues and met the needs of the
community. Both assessment costs and addressing community needs and safety issues
were of concern to all the representatives in the group, although differences were noted
among the stakeholder representatives regarding the design preferences of River Avenue.
Dan Hill, one of the property owners, proposed a design approach that split River Avenue
into two segments, with the west end of River Avenue meriting a different design
standard than the east end of River Avenue, given the different businesses, traffic patterns
and bicycle and pedestrian uses of the two segments. Hill suggested making the point of
demarcation between the two segments at Ross Lane. Given the group discussion, the
facilitator asked for a vote on establishing two different design standards for the west and
east end of River Avenue, and where the point of demarcation should be.
The group indicated vl'ith a unanimous show of hands its support for splitting
River Avenue into tu'o sections with different development standards to suit the
difference in uses for those two parts of the road (Minutes-River Avenue
Stakeholder Group, August 30, 10OS.
The group indicated a preference for demarcation of the f11'0 segments o.lRiver
Avenue, to be developed to d(fferent and more spec{fic standards based on road
usage, to occur at Ross Lane by a vote of7:3 (ibid)
Third Meeting
At the third meeting, two different proposals were submitted by stakeholder
representatives for consideration by the RASG. The property o\vner representatives had
met between meetings and submitted a proposal that suggested a center turn lane for the
entire length of River Avenue. The proposal included sidewalks on both sides of River
Avenue up to the east end of the Post Office, and a single sidewalk east of the Post OHice
on the north side. Bike lanes were also induded in their proposal on both sides up to the
east end of the Post Office, and then only on the south side of the avenue east of the Post
Office.
Another proposal from Teresa Damron of the River Road Community Organization
suggested a range of options for the RASG to consider. These options included: 1) have
no road project to improve River Avenue until ODOr s plans became clearer; 2)
maintain the road with a simple overlay of pavement until ODOT determined the long-
term needs for Beltline; 3) redefine the boundaries of the road improvement project to
include improvements for bike and pedestrian traffic for the full length of River Avenue,
along with improvements to the River Avenue/River Road intersection, support for
natural swale drainage and replacement tree plantings using native species; or 4) accept
the City Engineering Staffs original design for improvements to River Avenue.
The stakeholder representatives expressed varying perspectives regarding the amount of
landscaping that River Avenue should receive as part ofthe road improvement project,
whether improvements on the west and east of River Avenue should be included in the
proposal, and the use of natural swales for stormwater drainage. After much discussion,
the group agreed to the following motion, amended and approved by a 10-0 vote of the
stakeholders.
Stakeholder Approved Design Alternative
River Avenue Proposed Improvement List as amended and approved on October 5,
2005:
A three (3) Lane roadfor the continuous length of River Avenue with the center lane
being a turn lane only; fully improved with curb, gutters and storm drainage. The use of
curbs and gutters will be consistent with, and supportive of, bioswale designs where
possible.
Setback sidewalks on both sides (5 '-wide,) on the west end of River Avenue up to the east
end of the Post Office. Curbside sidewalk (5'-wide) on the north side onlyfrom the east
end of the Post qfJice to the east end of River Avenue with no side}valk on the south side
of River Avenue east of the Post Office.
Bike lanes on both sides of River Avenue up to the east end of the Post Office and
connected to the bike path at the west end o.fthe Wastewater Treatment Plant and then
connecting to a setback 12 'wide, multi-use, off-street path on the south side only for the
continuous length of River Avenue.
Striped crosswalks (to control speed) at the east end of the Post qfJice, at Ross Lane and
at the east end of the bike path acrossfrom the Orowheat store and possibly at the
Veteran's Administration building.
No landscaped islands or planters on any portion of the three (3) lane road. Street trees
to be planted at the west end only in the setback sidewalk area up to the east end of the
Post Qflke. East of the Post qfJice, trees will be planted on the south side in accordance
with City policy. On the north side, east o.fthe Post Office, trees will be planted at the
discretion of the property owners.
In addition, the River Avenue Stakeholder Group also recommends that the.following
work be advanced and implemented with the River Avenue improvement project:
. Operational improvements to the River Road/River Avenue intersection as
suggested by City engineering stqff;
· A separated bikelped path on the south side of River Avenue, connecting to the
Santa Clara neighborhood beneath Be/tUne Highway on the east end of the (River
Avenue) improvement project.
NOTE: A number of representatives thought coordinating these projects along with
improvements to River A venue would expedite addressing safety and traffic flow
concerns in the River Road/River Avenue area in a more systemic fashion. The two
recommendations from the River Road Community Organization for coordinating work
on the west and east ends of River Avenue were agreed to with the understanding that
coordinating the timing of these projects with the River A venue road improvements
would have no financial impact on the costs of the stakeholder-approved River A venue
improvement proposal. Finally, tree plantings are assumed to adhere to current City
policy with respect to use of native species.
After the group reached its decision on the above motion, some members of the
stakeholder group voiced concern that the re-design costs associated \vith the approved
road improvement design could add to the overall cost of the River Avenue project. In
conversations with staff, redesign costs between April, 2005 and the point at which a
future Local Improvement District is formed will not be added to the assessments of the
property owners.
Finally, the RASG supported having one or two representatives from the stakeholder
group attend City Council's work session on November 28th when staff reports to Council
about the River Avenue improvement stakeholder process and outcomes. RASG
representatives want an opportunity to present their perspective(s) with staff during the
presentation of the process and the design alternative from the RASG to Council.
Conclusion
While the stakeholder representatives held widely differing views regarding what should
(or should not) be done to improve River Avenue, in the end, the decision reached by the
RASG at the October 5th meeting indicates a strong level of agreement to address the
safety concerns, aesthetics, storm water management and bike and pedestrian traffic
needs of River Avenue and the community. As one stakeholder noted late in the third
meeting, ".. ,no one is getting everything they wanted in this plan," yet the fact that the
group of representatives did agree on the above design approach is significant. The
group is now hopeful that City Council will take their agreed-upon road improvement
proposal under strong advisement and use it to inform its final decisions for
improvements to River Avenue.
Final Note: The River Road Community Organization sent an email on October 31st
stating that their concerns have not been adequately addressed, and that they intend to
rescind their two "yes" votes and file a minority report. While this turn of events is
unusual, at a minimum, the agreed-upon decision-making process of the stakeholder
group, with a two-thirds super-majority vote, still stands.
River Avenue Stakeholders Minority Report
Received 11/17/05
River Avenue Stakeholders Minority Report
This report is submitted by the River Road Community Organization
representatives Krista Rojas and Teresa Damron. Rob Handy served as an
alternate representative and has contributed as well.
We appreciate the Eugene City Council's direction to staff to gather more
input from the community before proceeding with the River Avenue Road
Improvement Project. It is in the spirit of building on the values that emerged
from the River Road Santa Clara Urban Services Committee of voice, equity,
collaboration and trust that we offer our report.
While the majority report covers the stakeholders meetings primarily. we
are including our sense of the larger process, including stakeholder
conversations and recent developments. We address two areas: the public input
process and our recommendations for the actual road improvement project.
Improve the public input process for future projects.
We believe Council's intent is to increase communication and trust between
the City of Eugene, the adjacent property owners and the River Road
neighborhood. Unfortunately increased trust was not an outcome of this
process. For that reason we are very concerned to hear this process being
publicized as a "model" for future road improvement projects.
Our concerns are not personal in nature; we commend the staff for their
professionalism and hard work on a challenging project. We do however believe
the process can and should be improved for future projects. We recommend
creating written goals and procedure. Perhaps City engineering staff. the
facilitator and interested members of the Neighborhood Leaders Council and this
stakeholders group could meet to debrief and develop process guidelines for the
future.
In addition to the absence of clearly defined goals and procedures, the
public and engineering department staff disagreed from the outset about the
scope of the specific options that should be considered. The public issues
pertinent to this project that we felt should be included were:
. questioning the classification and design requirements of River Avenue
. consideration of future transportation needs given pending ODOT study of
Beltline
. whether a simple overlay could be done for part or all of roadway until the
ODOT study was completed
. safety
. bicycle and pedestrian access
. trees and green spaces along roadways
. stormwater quality and collection systems
. property owner's assessments
. preservation of neighborhood character
River Avenue Stakeholders Minority Report
Page 1 of 3
River Avenue Stakeholders Minority Report
Received 11/17/05
Yet, staff made it clear that certain options, such as a simple overlay, were
"off the table". The majority opinion at well attended community meetings was to
maintain the road with an overlay, create pedestrian/bicycle improvements up to
the Post Office and a connector to the riverbank trail system. replant trees and
wait for ODOT before making design decisions about the east end of the street.
As the process moved from community meetings to the stakeholders group
some had heard the engineering staffs presentation several times and were
frustrated that so much stakeholder group time was spent listening to lengthy
presentations from staff. In truth the six hours of scheduled stakeholders
meeting time was simply inadequate to cover the material. A few of the property
owners made comment that this process shouldn't require so much time, that
they could get together and quickly make the necessary decisions. In the end a
few stakeholders did just that, presenting their design recommendations as the
final meeting was running short on time.
Not surprisingly the process degraded quickly with no time left and no
agreements. Ultimately with the final meeting in overtime some of the
stakeholders genuinely supported the final recommendations, while others
agreed reluctantly in order to show support for property owners. River Road
representatives agreed to a compromise that was not reflected in the final
wording.
It is a sad statement that in hindsight the apparent unanimous agreement
is a reflection of discouragement, resignation and confusion rather than true
consensus.
The unanimous agreement may be fiction, but it's not too late to choose a
good compromise.
During the second meeting of the stakeholders group we found general
agreement on this simple observation. The land use and transportation needs at
the west end of the project closest to the intersection of River Road and River
Avenue are different than the east end closest to the Belt Une on ramp.
Meantime, ODOT's proposed study of Beltline, and potential closure of the
River Ave. ramps at the east end of the street, has been moved up and funding
secured for scoping in 2006. With new expansion proposed by Delta Sand and
Gravel and development of a major new hospital proposed by Triad that could
affect Beltline and local traffic patterns in the area, it seems reasonable to wait to
make permanent design decisions about the east end of the street until more is
known about these developments.
Building on these premises. the property owner's desire to contain costs,
safe pedestrian and bicycle access, City engineering staffs concerns for safety
and long term road durability, neighborhood concerns for environmental
protection and aesthetic appeal we recommend:
Plan A
Build a fully improved, three lane road extending from an operationally
improved intersection with River Road and River Avenue west to the Post Office
complete with sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides, a pedestrian crossing
River Avenue Stakeholders Minority Report
Page 2 of 3
River Avenue Stakeholders Minority Report
Received 11/17/05
complete with a landscaped pedestrian refuge at the Post Office and flat curbed
natural stormwater drainage systems on both sides of the roadway.
Discontinue the fully improved project at the Post Office. Overlay the
existing two lane street from this point east, and construct a separated
pedestrianfbicycle path on the south side of the project continuing to the Santa
Clara community under the Beltline. City engineering staff described their criteria
for determining when a street can or should be improved instead of maintained
with an overlay during the stakeholders meetings. River Avenue, by City
engineering standards, falls into a grey zone where it is possible to maintain with
an overlay, but generally recommended to improve for long term cost
effectiveness. We believe that an exception to City engineering policy about
overlays is justified in this case, given the uncertainties about future traffic
patterns at the east end of the street.
Under this plan no storm water improvements or tree replacement will be
needed on the east end of the road until it is improved pending ODOT decisions.
Plan B
We strongly urge you to adopt Plan A. If you decide instead to improve
the full length of River Avenue now we recommend discontinuing the third lane at
the Post Office as the City engineering staff proposed in their original design.
We then urge you to recognize that flat curb, natural stormwater drainage
is not only possible, but the preferred option over the entire project to reduce
costs to both property owners and the City of Eugene, while improving
stormwater quality consistent with the City of Eugene stormwater quality goals.
This unique roadway is home to the Wastewater Treatment Plant and is in close
proximity to the Willamette River. This is an opportunity to showcase natural
stormwater drainage for the larger community.
Insist upon tree replacement for all road improvement projects. The
majority report recommends allowing some property owners to opt out of
replacement trees at their discretion. Street trees are for the welfare of the entire
community. We believe it is unwise precedent to allow individuals to opt out of
street tree replacement programs when streets become improved. We further
recommend planting full canopied, native trees where appropriate in keeping with
the heritage character of the River Road neighborhood.
Respectfully submitted
Thank you for considering this proposal. We are available for your questions,
comments or to take you on a brief tour of the area at your convenience.
Teresa Damron, Krista Rojas, Rob Handy
River Avenue Stakeholder Representatives
River Road Community Organization
River Avenue Stakeholders Minority Report
Page 3 of 3
.
RIVER AVENUE JMl'ROVEMENT PROJECT COMMENT FORM a ...;;
On a scale of 1 to 5, please rate the following statements or elements related to the design presented in spring 2005
to improve River Avenue:
I
~
Project Statements (J '" strongly t/isagree, 2 "" somewhat disagree, 3 .. neutra/' 4 ". somewhat agree, 5 "" strongly agree)
o The design created an overall safer street
o The design was safe for bicyclists
o The design was safe for ~trians
o The design was safe for motor vehicles
o The overall estimated project cost was fair and reasonable
o River Avenue needs to be improved
o I have received lots of huonnation about the proposals to improve River Avenue
Deslsrn Elements (J ... SI7(1ngly QjJp(1u design element. 2 ... somewhat oppose design element. 3 '" neul7Q~
4 ". $()mewhat support design element, 5 ... strongly support design ekment)
o Sidewalks
o Bike lanes
o Pedestrian crossings
o Travel lane width
o Center turn lanes
o Onstreet parking
o Street lights
o 'Street trees
o Driveway aprons
Other or .p.dft..OlIl.....ls: 5 ,... ~ ~S15 ^' () #v dlf1.v.&.. Sf tJL='
() f- PClv VJ~Jf?
I --
\tV6&f- ~~S ~ &.=.A\-e t.t,k/~?
(Continue on back if needed)
Return completed/Orln to Eugene Public Works Engineering, 244 E. Broadway, Eugene OR 97401 It 541 .682~5.560
~~l t Q.ht'l~~'I
l~ .
I~ ~/..(.., ~
({~s~~"VW
Co lM'\ .-v-'u::R
~:=- :~1~,
M.. ",tt"l .. -
f~~l .
~ ~ ...".,(<>-.J~ .
~t-J.t..:[il/t$~.s .. ~v#" ((A ~
~~$~
'e. .W\~c: ~, '.' ~
H
fA.$ tf;~J - o~ I - J, &t".{"
vfltc.......",. f l.:a..prf-Y' -v~
~ Ii f2"'~W
vJ
q
y
~~If J/t..g~
_ ~ Jer4t j-e -
CoP1~;-(..~
~~.( ,
~(.er$"7~ .
N~
f~
if
f'Je.tL~ 'S.5~ '
c.. "v.~' e. J
\\~
~
\\~
\~
" ~-e-
~~
~
--
R"
A
T
rtf
o t
he
Iver venue ranspo a Ion u reac omments
BIKE lANES/PATHS
# Mtig Date I Group Comments
2005
1 June 23 PO Bicyclists prefer off-street on hiah speed roads
2 June 23 PO Bike path prooosed on north side of street is excess
3 June 23 PO Bike paths on both sides is waste of money
4 June 23 PO Summary
- Sidewalk on north side to post office
- Combined path south side to existing path and then normal
sidewalk on south side to east end.
5 June 23 PO Council heard no support going out to broaden scope e.g. bicyclists no truckers.
Bikers don't pay gas taxes. Property owners foot the bill.
6 June 23 PO Crossing of River Ave on bikes at east end is a hazard due to speed of vehicles
trying to get up to speed to enter Beltline
7 June 23 PO Heard from a couple bicyclists that it doesn't meet needs but they don't pay for
improvements.
8 June 23 PO No bike lanes on north side, exception to McDonalds
9 June 23 PO Path stops at existing River oath bv Waste water treatment olant.
10 June 23 PO What do we have to provide for biCYClists?
11 June 23 PO Bicycle commuter, travels south on River Road, east on River Avenue, south on river
bike paths to work. Prefers 2' to 5' bicycle lanes on street, minimum a bicycle
shoulder
12 June 23 PO Should have bike path off of (south side) roadway. Raised pedestrian bike crossing
to slow traffic (like what was done on Avres Road).
13 June 23 PO No bike lanes above sewage olant, connect to bike path available.
14 July 7 seeo Access to bicycle path is from River Ave.
15 July 7 seco Bike access at Owosso.
16 July 7 seeo Build combination bike/ped, surface water treatment, resurface don't do more until
ODOT decision for studying Beltline.
17 July 7 sceo Could the improvement be extended under Beltline to Division?
18 July 7 seco Could there be a utilitarian path for bicyclists.
19 July 7 seeo Hardly ever see pedestrians, bicvclists onlv 00 to path at olant.
20 July 7 seco People that ride bikes to Dost office. Bike trail on one side. No need to duplicate.
21 July 7 seco Santa Clara oroanization would like connection north of BeltHne to existing path.
22 July 7 SCCO Sidewalk to Post Office sufficient. Don't need sidewalks beyond. Businesses east
don't attract bikes/peds.
23 July 7 seeo What if there is only a bike path on one side, bioswale instead of piping, don't need
curb, gutter, pipes.
24 July 7 seco i Why are there sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides, current shoulder wider than
i city design.
25 July 7 seeo Bike lanes, if at all, only needed on south side of River Avenue; not enough traffic to
justify pedestrian crossings or center turn lanes.
26 July 11 RRAR Bike lane from fiver path to Corliss Lane
27 July 11 RRAR Bike lanes from MWMC to the west
28 July 11 RRAR Bike lanes on road
29 July 11 RRAR Connect bike path under Beltline along River's edge
30 Julv 11 RRAR Direct route for bikes
31 July 11 RRAR Existing river bike path is sufficient
32 JulY 11 RRAR If connectivity under Beltline is made, fumish bike lanes entire lenClth of River Ave
33 July 11 RRAR If Corliss lane connection, need traffic control on River Ave for bicvcles
34 Julv 11 RRAR Joint oed/bike oath west of post office
35 July 11 RRAR One bike lane fulllenath of River Avenue
PO = Property Owner River Avenue Transportation Improvements
SCCO = Santa Clara Community Organization Summary of Outreach Comments
RRAR = River Road Area Residents June/July 2005 p 10f9
ESC = Eugene Bicycle Coalition
R"
A
T
rtaf
o t
he
t
Iver venue ranspo Ion u reae ommen s
36 Julv 11 RRAR Separate bike lanes from sidewalks
37 July 11 RRAR Separate bike oath from post office towards River Rd
38 Julv 11 RRAR Bike lane on one side if street should be sufficient
39 , July 11 RRAR Bike lanes, sidewalk, street lights, and turn lanes from River Road to east entrance
of USPO. a-foot-wide multi-use oath one side.
40 July 11 RRAR As a bicycle commuter I won't use the bike path to River Avenue as much as I'd like
to because I feel too unsafe.
41 July 11 RRAR A separate bike path between River Road and the post office. Pedestrian crossings
- a safer crossino at the post office.
42 Julv 11 RRAR A bike underoass under Beltline would be Qreat to connect to Santa Clara.
43 July 11 RRAR Pedestrian overpass over River Avenue along River Road that bicycles can also use.
Pedestrian refuaes.
44 July 11 RRAR Would support one sidewalk/bike path (7.5') along south side. Would support one off
street bike lane on south side. Why have pedestrian crossings, no walk-in
businesses.
45 July 11 RRAR Bike lanes share roadway; bikers have other alternative routes.
46 July 11 RRAR Currently I support improvement up to and including post office, sidewalks on both
sides of street, and one bike path on south side of street. Wait for improvement on
remainder of street east of post office until ODOT decides what they are going to do
with the east end of River Avenue. then I feel what's required is one sidewalk on
south side and share with bikes; center lane with no islands, thus giving semi trucks
and trailers more move ability for entrance and exit to businesses.
47 July 18 EBC 2 bike lanes and 2 sidewalks west of post office, east of post office - 12' multi-use
path connect north of Beltline;
48 July 18 EBC Bicycle usaQe low because of DOor road cond ition
49 Julv 18 EBC Bike lanes both sides. Sidewalks south side.
50 JulY 18 EBC Bike riders come north of Beltline from river trail paths. Need bike path extension
51 July 18 EBC Connection to Corliss to existina river trail oath
52 July 18 EBC Currently not meeting needs of variety of bicyclists types - commuters, leisure, cross
country
53 Julv 18 EBC Cyclist fatalitv in area of underoass a few years aQO
54 July 18 EBC Different users - Youth, touring, commuters. Use path to university and other
locations. One size doesn't fit all.
55 Julv 18 EBC Difficult to cross at River Road oath on south side. Connection to Maxwell
56 July 18 EBC East-similar treatment to Goodpasture Island - Delta Hwy to Happy Ln a possible
compromise.
57 July 18 EBC Greater need for bike oath west of river oath at plant
58 July 18 EBC If rOadway imoroved, more bicyclists will use it.
59 July 18 EBC Improvements for bikes on River Ave near off ramp (east off)
60 July 18 EBe Maior route for utility cvclists aoino east-west to north oart of City.
61 July 18 EBC Need a way to cross River Road
62 July 18 ESC I Previous meeting
Sidewalks both sides to post office
South side bike path to end
+22 people oooosed oroceedina until ODOT studY of Beltline completed I
63 July 18 ESC Spur of Transamerica bikeway on River Avenue need signage and road
improvements.
64 Julv 18 EBC Trucks w/trailers swing wide, scarv for cvclists at Beltline underpass
65 July 18 EBC Wouldn't go out of direction going eastbound along River Avenue to take path behind
wastewater olant
66 July 18 EBC Ideally, bike lanes from River Road on both sides of River Road as far East as
possible. At least dual bike lanes East to the first bike path entrance with a multi-
purpose path on the South side to the entrance of the Eastern bike path entrance.
i PO ::;: Property Owner River Avenue Transportation Improvements
I SCCO = Santa Clara Community Organization Summary of Outreach Comments
RRAR = River Road Area Residents June/July 2005 p 2of9
EBC = Eugene Bicycle Coalition
River Avenue Trans ortation Outreach Comments
68 July 18
ESC This is an urban area with lots of existing and potential walking and bicycling
opportunities. Bicycle lanes on both sides of the street all the way from River Road
to the connection with Division Avenue are critical, as are sidewalks. And the
sidewalks really must be provided on both sides of the street since there are
pedestrian generators on both sides. The pedestrian refuge islands located where
the paths meet River Avenue are also very important to provide a safe landing spot
for cyclists and pedestrians as they attempt to cross to the street (to get to the proper
bicycle lane for cyclists or to their destination for pedestrians). The pedestrian
refuge island at the VA clinic is needed for the large volume of clients who ride the
bus. They will not walk the extra distance to the River Road signal to cross River
Avenue-it is human nature and man of them are either elderl or ill.
ESC Sidewalks and bike lanes at least west of water treatment plant. River Avenue is an
important access to the Riverfront Trail system, so it's important to have good bicycle
and pedestrian access from River Road to the path access (at edge of water
treatment plant). This means bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the street
east of this oint; a sin Ie shared multi-use ath mi ht be ad uate.
67 July 18
PEDESTRIAN
# Mtng Date Group Comments
2005
69 June 23 PO Summary
- Sidewalk on north side to post office
- Combined path south side to existing path and then normal
sidewalk on south side to east end.
70 June 23 PO Discourage pedestrian crossing at west end near donut shop and McDonald' direct
to safer location.
71 June 23 PO Don't need sidewalks both sides.
72 June 23 PO Excessive to orovide oath beyond existinQ oath near plant.
73 June 23 PO How are opinions weighed? Bike coalition opinion shouldn't outweigh property
owners.
74 June 23 PO Little current pedestrian use
75 June 23 PO Medians shouldn't block driveway access
76 June 23 PO Need overlay and bike/oedestrian path
77 June 23 PO Obiect to oversize sidewalks
78 June 23 PO Path stops at existina River oath bv Wastewater treatment plant.
79 June 23 PO Pedestrian crossinas on Country Club catches debris
80 June 23 PO Raised crossina on Avres Qood
81 June 23 PO A thought: find way to prevent pedestrian traffic from cutting across from Riviera
CenterlV A over to McDonalds/bus transit station
82 June 23 PO Sidewalk onlv on south side above USPO
83 June 23 PO No oedestrian crossinos at east end of road.
84 June 23 PO Sidewalk width narrow
85 July 7 SCCO Build combination bike/ped, surface water treatment, resurface don't do more until
ooor decision for studvina Seltline.
86 July 7 SCCO Could the imorovement be extended under Beltline to Division?
87 Julv 7 SCCO Could there be a utilitarian oath for bicyclists.
88 July 7 SCCO Hardlv ever see oedestrians, bicyclists onlV 00 to path at olant.
PO = Property Owner
SCCO = Santa Clara Community Organization
RRAR = River Road Area Residents
ESC = Eugene Sicyde Coalition
River Avenue Transportation Improvements
Summary of Outreach Comments
June/July 2005 p 3 of 9
R"
A
T
rtat'
o t
he
t
Iver venue ranspo Ion u reac ommen s
89 July 7 SCCO Santa Clara organization would like connection north of Beltline to existing path.
90 July 7 seeo Sidewalk to Post Office sufficient. Don't need sidewalks beyond. Businesses east
don't attract bikes/peds.
91 July 7 seco Why are there sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides, current shoulder wider than
city design.
92 July 7 SCCO Sidewalks, if at all, only needed on north side of River Avenue; bike lanes, if at all,
only needed on south side of River Avenue; not enough traffic to justify pedestrian
crossings or center turn lanes.
93 July 11 RRAR 5' sidewalk shared with bicycle from post office to the west
94 July 11 RRAR Boat propeller guards conflict with raised ped medians
95 Julv 11 RRAR Non-shared sidewalks (only for peds)
96 July 11 RRAR Sidewalk on one side full length of River Avenue
97 July 11 RRAR Stop sidewalks at post office
98 July 11 RRAR Widen asphalt shoulders for bicycles & peds
- Restripe pavement for these
99 July 11 RRAR Widen pavement shoulders from post office to east
100 Julv 11 RRAR Sidewalk on one side of street should be sufficient
101 July 11 RRAR I support combo bike/pedestrian path on the south side of the street. Pedestrian
crossing perhaps near PO.
102 July 11 RRAR Sidewalks yes, at least one side between River Road and PO.
103 July 11 RRAR A separate bike path between River Road and the post office. Pedestrian
crossings - a safer crossing at the post office.
104 July 11 RRAR Pedestrian overpass over River Avenue along River Road that bicycles can also
use. Pedestrian refuges.
I 105 July 11 RRAR Sidewalks and bike lanes - one from PO to River Road.
106 July 11 RRAR Would support one sidewalklbike path (7.5') along south side. Would support one
off street bike lane on south side. Why have pedestrian crossings, no walk-in
businesses.
107 July 11 RRAR Sidewalk only on south side.
108 July 11 RRAR Pedestrian crossings in business district (one side only).
109 July 11 RRAR Currently I support improvement up to and including post office, sidewalks on both
sides of street, and one bike path on south side of street. Wait for improvement on
remainder of street east of post office until OOOT decides what they are going to
do with the east end of River Avenue. then I feel what's required is one sidewalk
on south side and share with bikes; center lane with no islands, thus giving semi
trucks and trailers more move ability for entrance and exit to businesses.
110 July 18 ESC 2 bike lanes and 2 sidewalks west of post office, east of post office - 12' multi-use
path connect north of BeltUne;
111 July 18 EBC Bicycle usage low because of poor road condition
112 July 18 EBC Bike lanes both sides. Sidewalks south side.
113 July 18 ESe Businesses not conducive to bike/ped trips
114 July 18 EBe This is an urban area with lots of existing and potential walking and bicycling
opportunities. Bicycle lanes on both sides of the street all the way from River
Road to the connection with Division Avenue are critical, as are sidewalks. And
the sidewalks really must be provided on both sides of the street since there are
pedestrian generators on both sides. The pedestrian refuge islands located where
the paths meet River Avenue are also very important to provide a safe landing spot
for cyclists and pedestrians as they attempt to cross to the street (to get to the
proper bicycle lane for cyclists or to their destination for pedestrians). The
pedestrian refuge island at the VA clinic is needed for the large volume of clients
who ride the bus. They will not walk the extra distance to the River Road signal to
cross River Avenue-it is human nature and many of them are either elderly or ill.
115 July 18 ESC Sidewalks and bike lanes at least west of water treatment plant. River Avenue is
PO = Property Owner
SCCO = Santa Clara Community Organization
RRAR = River Road Area Residents
EBC = Eugene Bicycle Coalition
River Avenue Transportation Improvements
Summary of Outreach Comments
June/July 2005 p 4 of 9
River Avenue Trans ortation Outreach Comments
an important access to the Riverfront Trail system, so ifs important to have good
bicycle and pedestrian access from River Road to the path access (at edge of
water treatment plant). This means bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the
street east of this int; a sin Ie shared multi~use ath mi ht be ade uate.
LANDSCAPING
# Mtng Date Group Comments
116 June 23 PO City doesn't have funds for landscapina
117 June 23 PO Favor of street liahts.
118 June 23 PO Orioinal costs much lower. Take away trees, bike oath south, curb/outter, overlay
119 June 23 PO Street trees should be far enouah aoart for visibHltv. Doesn't need to be a park.
120 July 11 RRAR Don't eliminate all trees keep some River Rd to post office
121 July 11 RRAR Street trees, thev've alreadv been cut! Leave what's left.
122 July 11 RRAR Landscape per stakeholders meetina
123 July 11 RRAR Street lights near residential area. Street trees, yes, please include trees, especially
UP to oost office.
124 July 11 RRAR Stormwater swale sounds like a great idea, especially near the water treatment plant.
More native vegetation. Street trees to soften sound from Beltline and to beautify
street.
125 July 11 RRAR No street trees. Drivewav aprons as needed.
PARKING
# Mtng Group Comments
Date
2005
126 June 23 PO
127 June 23 PO No
128 Jul 11 RRAR
129 Jul 11 RRAR
TRAFFIC
# Mtg Date Group Comments
2005
130 June 23 PO How much of traffic is shortcut to Beltline vs. River Avenue business. Should be
studied first, can it be measured?
131 June 23 PO Traffic count east and west
132 June 23 PO Will roadway be designed for heavy trucks and will property owners be assessed
for that?
133 July 7 seeo Do safety studies first.
134 July 7 seeo More worth while oroiect would be to improve River Rd/River Ave traffic at signal.
135 July 7 seeo Need to look at how River Ave should be classified based on other factors such as
ODOT proiects.
PO = Property Owner
SCCO = Santa Clara Community Organization
RRAR = River Road Area Residents
E8C = Eugene 8icycle Coalition
River Avenue Transportation Improvements
Summary of Outreach Comments
June/July 2005 p 5 of 9 .
River Avenue Transportation Outreach Comments
TRAFFIC DATA NEEDED
# Mtg Date Group Comments
2005
136 Julv 11 RRAR Accident data to show need
137 July 11 RRAR Traffic counts
138 July 18 ESC It would be helpful to know the number of cyclists using this area before a plan is
completed .
TURN LANES
# Mtg Date Group Comments
2005
139 July 11 RRAR No turn lanes entire length
140 Julv 11 RRAR Turn lane from River Rd to post office
TRAVEL LANES
# Mtg Date Group Comments
2005
141 July 11 RRAR Design to slow traffic
142 July 11 RRAR Limit Seltline on ramp to trucks
143 July 11 RRAR Not like a freeway
144 July 11 RRAR Transition between travel lanes and driveway need to accommodate boat trailers
access
145 July 11 RRAR Utility work wear on pavement smoothness
146 July 11 RRAR No turn lanes from east USPO to Beltline on ramp.
147 July 11 RRAR Travel lane width - do not widen as that would speed up traffic. Center turn lanes
no {perhaps in front of PO}.
148 July 11 RRAR Travel lane width - keep road narrow enough to keep traffic slow. Center turn
lanes to post office.
149 July 11 RRAR Improve merge lanes onto Beltline at eat end of River Avenue.
150 July 11 RRAR Center turn lanes and on street parking not required.
151 July 11 RRAR Travel lane width as required. Center turn lanes not needed; too many
businesses.
STORM
# Mtg Date Group Comments
2005
152 June 23 PO Some improvements needed. Stormwater curb/~utter/sidewalk
153 June 23 PO Why create all the impervious surface for little pedestrian activitv
154 July 7 seco Correct the roads and sewers but nothin~ else is needed!
155 July 7 SCCO What if there is only a bike path on one side, bioswale instead of piping, don't need
curb, gutter, pipes.
156 Julv 11 RRAR Alona wastewater - swale
157 July 11 RRAR Manage stormwater to preserve street
158 Julv 11 RRAR More natural stormwater like swales
159 July 11 RRAR Stormwater treatment like alona freewaY
160 July 11 RRAR Stormwater -- utilize natural percolating functions of soil; swale/ditch to coHect
water and let drain into ground before it needs to be processed
161 July 18 ESC Use natural drainage system
PO = Property Owner
SCCO = Santa Clara Community Organization
RRAR = River Road Area Residents
ESC = Eugene Bicyde Coalition
River Avenue Transportation Improvements
Summary of Outreach Comments
June/July 2005 p 60f9
River Avenue Transportation Outreach Comments
OTHER
# Meeting Group Comments
Date 2005
162 June 23 PO As a taxoayer, waste of money and timeu(no extended process}.
163 June 23 PO Can't predict what ODOT will do. Not prudent to make decisions based on ODOT
prediction.
164 June 23 PO Could project be delayed until ODOT makes a decision on ramo?
165 June 23 PO Council heard no support going out to broaden scope e.g. bicyclists no truckers.
Bikers don't oav aas taxes. Prooertv owners foot the bill.
166 June 23 PO Curves on Avres Rd not safe
167 June 23 PO Heard from a couple bicyclists that it doesn't meet needs but they don't pay for
improvements.
168 June 23 PO How are opinions weighed? Bike coalition opinion shouldn't outweigh property
owners.
169 June 23 PO If BeltHne access closed current roadway design not applicable. Design costs
should be reasonable.
170 June 23 PO If ODOT ramp closed, functional class could chanae even local street.
171 June 23 PO Need overlay and bike/oedestrian oath
172 June 23 PO OriQinal costs much lower. Take away trees, bike oath south, curb/outter, overlay
173 June 23 PO Problem with improvements beyond post office. Encourage more traffic and
ODOT may close ramo.
174 June 23 PO Project will encouraoe more traffic. Deslon more than we need.
175 June 23 PO Saturday Ave. work session preferred over 3 evenina meetinos.
176 June 23 PO Told bv ODOT ramo would be closed.
177 June 23 PO What is the emeraencv of this oroiect?
178 June 23 PO Why is this project a priority when there is little public support? Seems to be a
staff priority.
179 June 23 PO Would the increase in oil costs aive less of a cost at same total cost?
180 June 23 PO Please do not abandon this project. This would be my wish list: keep turn lane
from Ross lane to River Road; eliminate vegetation/treeslfrufru?; keep street
liohts; speed control; multi-use bike/oed oath/walkway; draina~e.
181 June 23 PO The issue was never about these questions but about importance of such an
extensive improvement and its costs and changes caused by ODOT changes.
Most important -- wait for ODOT. 1, improvement needed west end up to post
office.
182 June 23 PO No center turn lane except at post office
183 JulY 7 SCCO Accelerate ODOT studv - talk with them.
184 July 7 SCCO Actual costs higher than presented by staff. Padd ed project costs passed on to
orooertyowners.
185 July 7 SCCO Are there other fundina sources such as ADA, parks, etc?
186 July 7 SCCO Build combination bike/ped, surface water treatment, resurface don't do more until
ODOT decision for studvinq Beltline.
187 Julv 7 SCCO Correct the roads and sewers but nothinQ else is needed!
188 July 7 SCCO Could the funds for this proiect be used for somethino more needy?
189 July 7 SCCO Delta Sand & Gravel company benefiting but not contributing, extend project so
they will.
190 July 7 sceo First west 800' of project. most emohasls. Then truck traffic at end.
191 July 7 SCCO If County can do McKenzie View for $827,000 why does the City need to spend
over $2 million for River Ave.?
192 July 7 seeo Need to talk to ODOT before oroceedina. Decision from ODOT.
193 July 7 SCCO People access Beltline from River Ave because River Road clogged ODOT project
may chanoe traffic flow.
PO = Property Owner
SCCO = Santa Clara Community Organization
RRAR = River Road Area Residents
EBe = Eugene Bicycle Coalition
River Avenue Transportation Improvements
Summary of Outreach Comments
June/July 2005 p 7 of 9
R"
A
T
rtaf
o t
he
t
Iver venue ranspo Ion u reac ommen s
194 July 7 SCCO Property owner didn't get credits for previous SOC payments.
195 July 7 SCCO Traveling road show be accompanied by elected officials.
196 July 7 SCCO Wait until OOOT does this study before doing this study.
197 July 7 SCCO What's the hurry? City staff trying to sell project and community doesn't want.
Waste of monev.
198 July 7 SCCO Correct the roads and sewers but nothing else is needed!
199 July 7 SCCO Once again, City staff have spent their time and our money designing a project (1)
without sufficient study of the need {2} without taking the pulse of public opinion
and input (3) without a very clear sense of what OoOT plans to do that directly
relates to this project, and (4) without leveling honestly with citizens and with city
council. Please be sure city council and the mayor Qet copies of this.
200 July 11 RRAR Add siQn on Silver Ln before counts
201 July 11 RRAR Add third lane on Beltline instead. Wait for OoOT,
202 July 11 RRAR Bicyclists iust trvinQ to get taxpayers money
203 July 11 RRAR Bicyclists should pay licensing fees
204 July 11 RRAR Come back to neighborhood groups before council
205 July 11 RRAR Concern that a couple of property owner can adequately represent all
206 July 11 RRAR Consensus like Irving process can work, If common sense used, improvements
could be made on one end and less improvements on other part of road
207 July 11 RRAR Design street to slow traffic
"Unsafe for walkers because high speed cars
208 July 11 RRAR Do best to make improvements without depending on OOOT (22)
209 July 11 RRAR Don't want to wait for ODOT {4 more)
210 July 11 RRAR Encourage OOOT to improve River Rd-Beltline on-ramp
211 July 11 RRAR Fix holes to improve traffic safety
212 July 11 RRAR Fix potholes, shoulders, bike lanes
213 July 11 RRAR Growth occurrinQ, OOOT not doinQ anything
214 July 11 RRAR Has to be another answer for River Ave to BeltHne
215 Julv 11 RRAR If ramp is closed, trucks will gO to River Rd. Un~e OoOT not to close
216 July 11 RRAR Improvements to post office, not further
217 Julv 11 RRAR Keep staff costs down
218 July 11 RRAR MWl'V1C assessment
219 July 11 RRAR ODOT not providing fair share to Eugene area
220 July 11 RRAR Prioritize options to take to council
221 July 11 RRAR RRCO board hasn't has chance to review
222 July 11 RRAR See little bike-ped on east end
223 Julv 11 RRAR Was a pedestrian death a couple of years ago
224 July 11 RRAR Wasting money on DE
225 July 11 RRAR Will stakeholder comments be weiQhted equally
226 July 11 RRAR Without OOOT decision at River Ave-Beltline you may be wasting money
227 July 11 RRAR River Avenue should be improved UP to the post office.
228 July 11 RRAR Minimum travel lane width.
229 July 11 RRAR On street parking not necessary; businesses have their own lots.
230 July 11 RRAR It seems wisest to wait and see what ODOT's plans are for the area. The highest
use is from RR to the PO -- improve that with ped/bike path, perhaps ped island.
Very important to keep speed down; don't want to turn it into a freeway.
231 July 11 RRAR I receive no information until this meeting. I agree with improving River Avenue
from River Road UP to the Post Office.
232 July 11 RRAR I haven't seen the desiqn vet.
233 July 11 RRAR Improve sighting westward from Post Office, so vehicles can tum both ways onto
River Avenue. Removing the big shrub on the front of the house that was removed
PO = Property Owner
SCCO = Santa Clara Community Organization
RRAR = River Road Area Residents
ESC = Eugene Bicycle Coalition
River Avenue Transportation Improvements
Summary of Outreach Comments
June/July 2005 p 8 of 9
R.
A
T
o
he
Iver venue ransportatlon utreac omments
would be a biQ help.
234 July 11 RRAR Charging 50% of cost to property owners seems arbitrary. Is there a way of
assessing the costs on a more equitable formula based on regional use vs. local
neiohborhood use.
235 July 11 RRAR Street trees with road repair monies??? Do basic street repair overlay until ODOT
decision. Defer proiect until ODOT decision.
236 July 11 RRAR This is a business area supporting small business with own off street parking.
Curbs and water drains and overlay needed. Street may be blocked in future. Only
simple maintenance should be done tm ODOT makes decision on Beltline.
237 July 11 RRAR Currently I support improvement up to and including post office, sidewalks on both
sides of street, and one bike path on south side of street. Wait for improvement on
remainder of street east of post office until OOOT deCides what they are going to
do with the east end of River Avenue. then I feel what's required is one sidewalk
on south side and share with bikes; center lane with no islands, thus giving semi
trucks and trailers more move ability for entrance and exit to businesses.
238 July 18 ESC Don't create needless impervious surface
239 July 18 ESC Don't want to set orecedent that we won't build facilities because it's expensive.
240 July 18 EBC ODOT should add third lane on Beltline
241 July 18 ESe Previous meeting
Sidewalks both sides to post office
South side bike path to end
+22 ceo ole opposed proceedina until OOOT studY of Beltllne completed
242 July 18 ESC We don't have to build anvthinQ elaborate
243 July 18 SCCO OOOT's ambiguous plans for Beltline on ramp are confusing to the project.
Clarification would help.
PO = Property Owner
SCCO = Santa Clara Community Organization
RRAR = River Road Area Residents
EBC = Eugene Bicycle Coalition
River Avenue Transportation Improvements
Summary of Outreach Comments
June/July 2005 p 9 of 9
.~~ ~
~i IK ~
~,
;.1%:,.:,;. I ~
:~
I
Ii II
~.l II
I ~~F !
~ ,.j!1 ~..!
W: ..lli~ 0
Ii > .!fl Ii
~
It
~
il
~~1 f
I~. .'
=
, 'f
I.!::S
,. .,]l
.~ c:
I~':ll'l
;. ~i
, f,
"',
;. ~
~
I
I I
<> I
.. ..
~.. "',
1 f.$
.:<;.
"I:i"~
~ i':
'l!~ U
j 15. fl :W'
't:t i$1
!. ~:
"'1 >.<<
! I ;~
11 _
i" 'I'*~
.. ~ '
,...,.ii ~
.\ .a II
;L.:','s ,~ ;
}. II "
.:/ ! ~ .
" ! :
'. i:
I ri f,
~ :1:.......1 II::
l!l :<>t :',
;:; fl';
W :<'." .
> .,>< '
'" ".......'.,,! '
",': i.!
~i i';
a:::: i':'_: >>....
~
~
I
a; ~
~ ~
;!:
i~ J g~
"'W j:
<(~ ~\;;
~i .g~ !i
Q;;'
~w 0.. X l;i.il
j
~ l
l;t Sl ili'
~",i3 ~ "i!l i" "
~'~-g,'5 :i"~ $.il\B.1! 1! go
'-6:M~ :'i<5!;.O'E '" $I
6~~K'" ~.. ~.~ iUlt'~ ~
'" ~ '" 0;;; !;l-"':' Ii ()
<! ~. &'i5l! II"" ~:<~
~~~.. ~j~~~ij'i5<~l~
~~~~ ~ilt=~s~tiS~
~~~~ tll~j$l~~~t;!
i!! ~31~-!l~ IHI'~
1811 31111111(" ~I
SiH ! .~~,~i! -dJ
Ilil &i~I~!il ~i~
'i
<n
'"
"'
'"
'"
<t)
N
"'
...
...
..,.
'"
I I
<xi .,
I !
Iii I
t.! P!iS~~i
~lt$lfil@i~
!161jI12gId'Jl~
It!! ~~iH.!
!1~~~~A!itl
"'-11>8 i ~ 'IS. ~ ~.,;
8} . .L~f!j
~ ~, 11 t j I'~ l'~
u ~
I i
~~ ~
~i ~
~
Id 1~
5i"" \t~
g:~ ~ w.~
~~t ~g
~gM ~$
l; &
.~~ ~
<'" ~
~~ ~'
"'''' "'~
'" "'- "''''
'" (oj "''''
N_ -'"
'" "''"'
"'- ...~
'" N-
N~ "'~
'" ..,'"
... "''''
'" N_
"'- "'-
(oj ...-
... N
'" ...
"
'"
01
~
:E
~
E
I
'"
i
1
~-
J!
'"
'~
~!
ti
~<.,
~
~~
{~~
~
~;>:
~
~
I
~:
~I
:~ :
i;~~;
($i
II
;~
I~~;,
(:."::
i~
II
!~~~~ !~J~i~~ Ii
I~I!"II;:III 't
i~IIIIII!!;I!, I;
~n~!I;::-~'iio~u~ ![
<> ,>< ,,'jjl '~~ ~ ,s;o ~ ,s ii: 'lS Jl
;~i!jii~j!~~~! ~s
~~ ~~ ~i~m~~l~ ~~,
1 ~<S~~~&~~~~~! ~~~
1!lt!II!lilfll IIi
ill '" '"
! IQ ~ It)
'" '"
~
1. 2 ~
Iti
It '"
ij -
i ~ N
it '"
'"
Ai::~
.;."
;il
lft;;i ~
~<>l
~ III '"
0: ;>
ili!:i '"
I~i,: N
!
3
~
!i ,~~I~h..l ,-~ i~~ i -:~ ~]
~I ~ '. .t~ !~ij~ !~1 Il""~ii:"j~~-
Ii 1.~;JII)I'111111 I!III !illl
~~ EB!~'~~~~!ilf~!Z li~fui ~~~~~
i~ !~~li~i!i~E~!fl~ l~il~ ~&8:~
Ilill-'!. ;~I~lill! ~IIII sIll:
II, 1~~III~li@~'I,~ls~ lIt! )II!~.
-J~151 lit ;&II'll II~., I'SI~1
J;~ilt~i~~~II~~i~!i !j~Jf !iill!
'"
'"
...
'"
'"
'"
'"
...
'"
..
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
.,
:%.~
fi. :!
~
I
~
~?;
~
I:
li
~
~i
Ii
If} i
~! ~ ~ ~
lill~,~ CWi.11 II ~ J ~ . I!;r~. ~!JI 8 .
~~~"'l2't; "iG~F~ ~ II ~ (;lj15~~BU!~ ....~l)j j
Jllt~i.!I'!i...1111 1111.lllllllllli 1I11IIII
~ l-i~Iiljl~i ~j-g efi."ti ::~"~:S'i~:li !~flilh
1llllllllllllli~ 111111,1,lli:1111 ~III!IIII
I ~~!Jal~~ll-I~~ ~.l~, -li-. ,I"m' 1111111,
~ 11111111111!1111 1!11111!1111!tilt 1IIIIill
!! '" '" '"
'" '"
1.,
~
~H
ft~
}..
u
U
)i
fi
~
I
~
I
~
'"
'"
..
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
..
<0
<0
'" '"
<0
<0 '"
':~
.. ...
....
'"
>1
'" ;t:;l
...
51~
~ ;18
! ;1
i,;.,t
~ i
'" ..
~ i
'" '" '"
'"
'" ..
'"
'"
... '"
..,
.., '"
'"
.,. .,.
'"
~i
I
~
~
I
~1:':1
< ;
,
~ I
. :!
~
11 d~
~ it;;
I. i l~'
11 s~
,*
:~
~.i
~
~
~11
III
l~
m'"
~5.
~i
~w
j
:i. ~"
i !j
Ill,! Iii.. IIIII'~JI
;;1111 .~i;I.' e-.;,.~~ib
!lri~~!~~~~i6 i~!!~Ul;f'
;~I;II'lli~11 ~11~11!.~~~
ii~JIJ,*g~~I' 1~:~lllllel
~~!>~~t~~i~j~1 ~~!~~aJ.g~g
8 j UI~!!.~ a1h~,.. %'ll~~~.Il_1~.;1
I t~I~I~II~lii~ ~!ijjlll~ill
IlliJIJII~iJi 1IIIiilllll
!
i~ ~
'"
'"
:.
II
19 '"
11 to> ~
i1Sl '"
.\>~
U r
I ~ '"
i1
'"
'"
'"
,.
'"
<;~
'"
'"
.......1
'<! -
iiil '"
n~ ·
~':" '"
<>.>c.'!
ee: }::~: M
~.:.~~
'"
'"
,.
...
...
"
;
!
~
h
~t;)
~~
!J
~
<Xl
~
Cl
v.% I.e I ~. s
~. ~~ i $ ~9g ji1 i
1111~1;!lrllll~~III~
~1!i;~IIIIIIIII~II~
~Ii~~i .il!lii~I~!t
~j~~~~~ w~~9~~ "'~~l
Illsllj&I~!~I!~I.~!.
~~t~f~lljj~~~sII s~~
~f&lj1~lfl!tli~~iijJ
!lIJllltlil~.JI;lil.
'.'1111 IIII~IIIII~I
...
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
II
~
~~
~
I~l
~ :
It
~ II
f.~~ ~5
II iJ
~
~.
i?&.;oai
~ g'
~~ ~
~s: w
il ..;
ii~iilli$
jdUdU
il~iltliji
Until!).
I 0~H'ifhtt
[ '"
.. ~
..
!..
;Jl
1 G ..
iit 0>
.1 i
u '"
i i "'
'"
il
0>
'"
:::~
'"
....::...1
<l!l '"
12 il ~
~ r~
i I~ :
; i'it
z c:<" \(]
! ,;i
~ ;:,i
~
.,;
~
..
~
.;
~
'"
'"
~
N
~
.,;
;!
N
:g
.;
~
'"
r;s
.;
'"
....
<'l
;:!
N
i
oj
N
;;;
on
<0
.,;
rg
.;
~
,,;
Memo
FR: Paul Hoobyar, Watershed Initiatives, LLC
TO: River Avenue Stakeholder Group
RE: Preliminary Agend~ Meeting #1
DA: August 15, 2005
Below is a proposed agenda for your review for the first meeting of the River Avenue
Stakeholder Group. I've developed this tentative agenda on the assumption that the
stakeholder group will meet three times over the course of approximately one month.
Please review the proposed agenda and respond to me with comments/suggestions by
Monday, August 22ml. I will then revise the agenda based on comments received.
Also, a number of group members have requested contact information for other
stakeholders in the group. I am enclosing a list of the stakeholders, along with their
contact information, in response to these requests.
River Avenue Stakebolder Group
Proposed Agenda
First Meeting~-August 24th, 7-9:00 pm
Introductions/Welcome
. Agenda review/approval
. Meeting agreements
. Process overview
. Questions & Answers
Understanding the Problem
. Brief review of Staff proposal and City Council response
. - Context for Road Improvements
· Transportation Rule and other regulatory guidance
· Access/safety issues
· ODOT's plan
· Traffic counts and crash information
. Transplan (regional plan for future transportation improvements)
. What's "on" and "off' the table for road improvements to River Avenue from
City staffs perspective
. Question and Answer session
Problem Identification
. Clarification of the current condition of, and problem with, River Avenue
Next Steps
. Scheduling and purpose of subsequent meetings (bring calendars)
MINUTES
River A venue Stakeholder Group
Wastewater F acUity Meeting Room - 410 River Avenue
August 24, 2005
7 p.m.
PRESENT:
Paul Hoobyar, Facilitator; Ann Vaughn, Mort Hyman, Santa Clara Community Organiza-
tion; Krista Rojas, Teresa Damron, River Road Community Organization; Chuck Meeker,
Gordon Howard, Daniel Hill, Paul Spain, Greg Austin, Clayton Austin, Property owners;
Y uri Samer, Eugene Bicycle Coalition; Tom Boyatt, Oregon Department ofTransporta-
tion staff; Peter Ruffier, Director Wastewater Division; Michelle Cahill, Mark Schoening,
Chris Henry, Eric Jones, Joe Ramirez, Lee Shoemaker, Eugene Public Works Department
staff and 16 interested parties in the audience.
1. Agenda Review/Approval
Mr. Hoobyar welcomed the members of the group to the meeting and introduced himself. At his request,
the members of the group introduced themselves.
Mr. Hoobyar explained that the stakeholder process sought to provide an opportunity for representatives
of the River Avenue area to come up with design alternatives to the one proposed by the City. He noted
that some wondered why everyone who was affected by the plan was not at the table and clarified that,
from a process standpoint, the issue was complex with much information to be considered including
regulatory contexts, and budgetary and legal considerations. He wished to ensure that everyone involved
would have the opportunity to get the information and share it with each other. He underscored that the
people at the table were representative of all area residents and people with a vested interest in the
outcome.
Mr. Hoobyar stressed that the group would not be the ultimate decision~makers in the process, but the
group members had a strong potential of providing a recommendation that would influence the outcome.
He encouraged group members to remain in touch with their constituents and to utilize staff as a resource
to answer technical and regulatory questions.
Continuing, Mr. Hoobyar stated that through his role as facilitator of the group he intended to provide
process support for them. He said he would write a summary report from the minutes at the end of the
process.
Mr. Howard requested that the stakeholders receive a copy of the report at least three days prior to the
City Council decision. Mr. Hoobyar responded that this would present no problems. He asked that the
group have an opportunity to provide additional testimony as well.
Mr. Schoening asked for clarification on the request He wished to know if Mr. Howard meant three days
prior to the actual meeting. Mr. Howard said that would be fine. Ms. Cahill observed that the item was
planned to be presented at a work session at which there generally was no public testimony. Mr.
MINUTE$---,-River A venue Stakeholder Group -
Public Works Department
August 24, 2005
Page 1
Schoening replied that the chair of the stakeholder group could present the results along with a lead staff
person at a work session.
Mr. Hoobyar suggested that the group talk about the nuances of how the material would be submitted at a
later point in the process.
In response to a question from Mr. Howard, Ms. Cahill stated that the date had been set for October 26 on
the tentative council agenda, but she stated that this date could be moved depending on how quickly the
stakeholders group come up with a concept to forward to counciL
Mr. Hoobyar reviewed the agenda. No changes were made. He hoped to reach agreement by the end of
the first meeting on what problems should be addressed.
2. Meeting Agreements
Mr. Hoobyar highlighted the meeting agreements, as follows:
. Honor the agenda/change only by agreement;
. Listen carefully to speakers;
. Focus on the issue, not the personalities;
. Be recognized before speaking;
. Monitor speaking time so all group members have a chance to sreak;
. Avoid side conversations.
Mr. Hoobyar decided that the clock on the back wall would be the official time. He said an issue that
merited a lot of conversation would be noted on a flip chart for more in-depth consideration at one of the
next meetings. He asked that group members turn off cell phones and pagers.
Regarding public comment, Mr. Hoobyar was uncertain whether setting aside some time in the agenda for
it was in the best interest of the group. He noted that on the one hand it did provide a forum for people but
it impacted the time for the rest of the agenda. He reiterated that members of the community should feel
free to contact the stakeholders group.
Ms. Vaughn asked if community members had access to the contact sheet so that they could share input
with group members. Ms. Cahill replied that the informational postcard had the names of group members
but no contact information.
Me Howard understood that staff would return to the community meetings and report on what had
transpired. He thought this would be the best time for public input, though he would not object to sharing
his contact information.
Mr. Hoobyar decided to pass around a sign-up sheet for stakeholder members to provide their preferred
contact information. Mr. Schoening said he would post the contact information on the City's Web site.
MINUTES-River Avenue Stakeholder Group -
Public Works Department
August 24. 2005
Page 2
3. Brief Review of Staff Proposal and City Council Response
Ms. Cahill pointed out that Lane County Commissioner Faye Stewart and City Councilor Gary Pape were
in the audience. She introduced the Public Works staff members who were present and thanked Mr.
Ruffier for allowing the meeting to convene at the Wastewater Facility.
Ms. Cahill noted that the stakeholder notebooks were missing some public comments and indicated that
copies of the comments had been distributed to group members for inclusion in the notebook.
Ms. Cahill provided a brief overview of the project. outlined in the attachment entitled River Avenue
Improvement Project; Project Background Iltformation. She explained that the City had been
considering road improvements to River Avenue for 20 years and reviewed the history of the project from
when it had been included in the TransPlan in 1986 to the present activities of the stakeholder group.
Ms. Cahill reviewed the council direction - of four options ranging from abandon the project to move
forward with forming the local improvement district and constructing the project the Council chose to
direct staff to substantially modify the design and rebid the project if necessary.
Ms. Cahill highlighted the outreach to the community staff had undertaken, including the mailing of 6,000
postcards. She stated that, to date. 243 comments had been received. Staff had also presented at four
public meetings and provided surveys to those in attendance. She said the surveys were summarized for
the group.
Ms. Cahill explained that traffic analyses to measure the car and bicycle traffic had utilized tubes
stretched across the road at several locations and a traffic analyst who observed traffic patterns during the
peak traffic time of the day.
In response to a question from Ms. Rojas, Ms. Cahill said bicycle traffic was counted on the bicycle path
and not on River Avenue itself.
Mr. Samer asked if any effort had been made to make a seasonal adjustment to the count. Mr. Henry
replied that there was a method to do so but it had not been applied in this case.
Ms. Cahill reviewed the "crash history" of the road and the pavement rating. She said pavement was
analyzed by a person walking the road and scoring points for wear and tear. A road could be repaired with
an overlay if it scored at least 70 and would require complete reconstruction with a score of 50. She
indicated that River Avenue had scored 69 at the west end, 59 in the middle, and 54 at the east end.
Ms. Cahill underscored that the TransPlan was a metropolitan-wide planning document that the three
agencies, Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County, worked through and adopted. She stated that the
TransPlan integrated reasonable response to growth, fiscal responsibility, and community expectation with
an emphasis on all modes of transportation. The result of the TransPlan was the 20-year fiscally
constrained list of projects and the trending and anticipation of future needs beyond 20 years.
County Commissioner Anna Morrison arrived.
Ms. Cahill reviewed TransPlan maps and tables included in the stakeholder notebooks. She noted that one
MINUTES-River Avenue Stakeholder Group -
Public Works Department
August 24, 2005
Page 3
vision for the future was a bridge project to connect Division Avenue to Green Acres Road, a project that
would offset some of the congestion on Beltline Road. She also pointed out a future project that sought to
connect the bicycle path system from River Avenue under the BeltIine Road to Beaver Street.
4. Context for Road Improvements
· Transportation Rule and Other Regulatory Guidance
. Access/Safety Issues
· Oregon Department of Transportation Plan
· Traffic Counts and Crash Information
. TransPlan
Ms. Cahill reviewed the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), which required the City of Eugene to
accommodate bicyclists, pedestrians, and traffic and to have a local plan that indicates how the City will
do this. She said it included standards adopted by the City Council. The local standards were delineated
in the Arterial Collector Street Plan (ACSP). She stated that the City utilized the American Association
for State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) recommended guidelines, one of which was that
major collectors include bicycle lanes and sidewalks.
Ms. Cahill pointed to the tab in the notebook called 'design standards and guidelines.' She said it
discussed the criteria for exceptions to the standard as well as the standards themselves.
Mr. Howard observed that there were three criteria regarding design standards, newly constructed arterial
and collector streets, upgrades to raise streets to urban standards, and improvements that would result in
adding one or more vehicular lanes. He asked if these criteria only applied to new construction and not
existing or overlays of existing roads. Ms. Cahill affirmed that the criteria were not applicable to an
overlay-type project. She reiterated that the City would not overlay a road unless it was built to urban
standards.
Mr. Henry stated that the project as proposed by staff intended to upgrade River Avenue to the urban
standard.
Mr. Howard averred that the City Council had asked for a smaller road project. Ms. Cahill clarified that
the council had directed staff to find out what the community wanted.
In response to a question from Mr. Hyman, Mr. Henry explained that 2,400 vehicles travel westbound on
River Avenue on a daily basis at the eastern end, and of that it was estimated that 50 percent of the west
end traffic was local and 40 percent of the east end traffic was local. Further, Mr. Henry explained two-
way traffic volumes are approximately 5700 vehicles per day on the east end and 7000 vehicles per day at
the west end of River Avenue.
Mr. Hill asked what criteria delineated a major arterial from a collector and so on. Ms. Cahill replied that
there was a reterencein the back of the notebook. She added that the qualifying categories included
average daily traffic, alternative modes of travel, length of the traffic facility, and connectivity. She said
generally between 2,500 and 7,500 cars would traverse a major collector in a day. Mr. Henry noted that
River Avenue served as an on and off ramp for the Beitline Road.
MINUTES-River Avenue Stakeholder Group-
Public Works Department
August 24, 2005
Page 4
Mr. Howard alleged that a footnote bumped River Avenue into being a major collector and this was a
subjective judgment. Ms. Cahill replied that zoning was absolute and not subjective. She reminded the
group that the street plan had been through a public process and approved by the Planning Commission
and then the City Council.
Mr. Spain asked fur definitions of 'financially constrained roadway project' and 'programmed' and 'un-
programmed' projects. Ms. Cahill clarified that, in looking at projections of revenues, a financially
constrained project was a project that the City thought it could afford within the next 20 years. She said a
programmed project was in the six-year window of projects the City thought it could afford and an un-
programmed project feU outside of the six-year window and had no funding proposed to be programmed
for it at this time.
Mr. Spain observed that in considering a decision to do an overlay on the street versus a decision to
redesign it, an overlay would not be considered fiscally prudent given the short life span of the repair. He
thought it would be fair to assume that the City made this decision with fiscal prudence.
Ms. Cahill asked Transportation Planner for the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Region 2,
Tom Boyatt, to speak to the group.
Mr. Boyatt explained that he was the south region long-range transportation planner and that he interfaced
with the Metropolitan Policy Organization (MPO), Lane County, and the 11 cities in Lane County. He
said projects such as the one planned for River A venue were modernization projects. He related that the
Beltline Highway currently carried 83,000 vehicles per day, a higher volume than Interstate 5 carried
through the metro-area, and because of this high volume and congestion, and exiting safety problems it
was an ODOT priority to make improvements.
Mr. Boyatt outlined the process by which a project was funded and built, which he observed was lengthy
and "tedious." He said the MPO prioritized the local priorities on the State system on a two-year ongoing
basis. He stated that this priority list was forwarded to the Lane County Board of Commissioners, which
weighed urban priorities and rural priorities and brought those to Region 2. He explained that Region 2
consisted of nine counties and 60 cities. He underscored that requests for projects outdistanced the
funding to build them. He noted that the State was in the midst of a major bridge building program.
Continuing, Mr. Boyatt said the Board of Commissioners had brought the Beltline Highway to the process
the previous year as a priority to begin looking into improving the facility. He stated that the board had
been able to secure $1 million in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) as seed
money for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) assessment process. He said this process was
used to go through and check the alternatives and, with stakeholders from the different agencies and the
public, arrive at a preferred alternative which could then be funded. He related that ODOT had internal
guidance and policy guidance from the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) as wen as from its
administrative rule and had been told to do its planning before the NEPA assessment. He clarified that in
order for ODOT to be able to program $1 million to begin the NEPA process on the Beltline project, the
region planning group had to commit to do refinement planning 011 Beltline so that ODOT could identify
on a higher level what costs and impacts might be and what alternatives would and would not work. He
called it a "pre-NEPA stage that culminates in plan amendments." He observed that at this point the
segment of Be1tline Highway that was being looked at was 011 the 'futures list' in MPO Regional
MfNUTES-River Avenue Stakeholder Group -
Public Works Department
August 24, 2005
Page 5
Transportation Plan RTP). The Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) would not sign a NEPA
document until the project was on the 'constrained list' in the RTP. He defined the financial constraint
list as a "salary cap," because it was based on the reasonable projection of revenues out 20 years. He
explained that at this point, the projects were "bumped up against the salary cap." He said some projects
would have to be built and new revenues realized before more projects could be added to the constrained
list. He speculated that the environmental impact project could cost $2.5 million, and it was now
programmed at $1 million.
Mr. Boyatt stated that the Interstate 5/Beltline Road project began systems planning in 1995, made it "into
NEPA" in 1998. and the first phase of it would likely go to bid this year. He underscored that this was a
good example of how long the process could take in a best case scenario.
In response to Mr. Howard, Mr. Boyatt clarified that the funding was listed in the STIP for 2009 and,
between August and December in 2006, he would scope a project on the Beltline Highway segment
between River Road and the Delta Highway. The refinement planning effort would occur between 2006
and 2009. He said that work would set up a NEPA project for 2009, but that the full funding for NEPA
would need to be identified and programmed.
Gordon Howard: "Given those facts as you've laid them out timewise, it would seem logical to me that it
could lay into your plans that we've (unintelligible) this intersection at the end of River Avenue which
was scheduled for 2008. So it sounds to me like this entire process (unintelligible) ... ..as much on
schedule as you can."
Tom Boyatt: "It seems the push through River Avenue would be to maintain the connection within the
project that we can anticipate. The local connection and the parallel system are recognized by ODOT as
taking pressure offthe streets system. They're often not easier investments to make but certainly less
costly investments to make, so often the State participates in making those improvements to carry some of
that load. But, you know, we take the River Avenue route and local connection, maybe not so much the
connection to the highway, that local circulation as a given and whatever process we go through we have
to respect the local system."
Gordon Howard: "Are you telling me that, now ODOT has come to the River Avenue owners in the past
and told them that they are considering closing that access. And I think if you're now telling me that
ODOT has removed that from the table that would be very good information for us to have."
Tom Boyatt: "I wish I could say that. The accesses to the highway are on the table. The vagary of the
River Avenue/Division local streets are not on the table."
Tn response to a question from Ms. Vaughn, Mr. Boyatt stated that ODOT's refinement planning effort
would begin to look at alternatives to find ways to add capacity to Beltline in order to improve traffic
flow. He reiterated that ODOT had to design a facility that would operate within standards for 20 years
and in that span of time a plan for a six-lane road could become a plan for an eight-lane road in response
to local growth.
Mr. Boyatt said, in response to a follow-up question from Ms. Vaughn, that $13 million listed on the
future list in TransPlan was from a very old planning document. He noted that TransPlan had been
updated "a couple of years ago" and one policy change had been that when a project was placed on the
constrained list, the MPO now went to the owner ofthe system and asked for their best estimate of the
MINUTES-River Avenue Stakeholder Group-
Public Works Department
August 24, 2005
Page 6
cost at that point in time. He projected that a complete upgrade of the Beltline Road/Interstate 5
interchange, including the Gateway/Beltline intersection, would be "'well over $150 million."
In response to a question from Mr. Spain, Mr. Boyart said ODOThad not settled on a design alternative,
but the connectiotls to the Beltline Highway from River Road and from River Avenue were not good
interchanges.
Ms. Damron thanked Mr. Boyatt for coming. She observed that the "$64,000 question" was in regard to
plans that 0001' had for the River AvenuelBeltline Road intersection and the intersection at River Road
and when it was planned to be under construction. Mr. Boyatt replied that 0001' had not "set the table."
He anticipated having a preferred alternative at the end of the planning process. He added that it was
possible that 0001' would end up with a "no.build situation." However, he averred that the crash history
and traffic analyses suggested that the project should be started today.
Ms. Damron surmised that it would be a few years before the group could have the answers it wished for
today. She asked ifhe thought 0001' would have a "yea or nay" on the project within three years. Mr.
Boyatt responded that the "yea or nay" point in the project would happen at the concept/sketch level.
After that, he added, the project could still be altered by the NEP A process as happened with the Gateway
interchange.
Mr. Hyman asked if it was appropriate for the City to be entering into a project before fully knowing what
the 0001' Beltline Road project would encompass. Mr. Boyart explained that it was not his agency's
position to opine on City projects. He underscored that the integrity of the River Avenue/Division
Avenue local street system would be held harmless in an 0001' project.
Mr. Hyman commented that he did not think River Avenue would continue to be a collector should the
Beltline Road interchange at the east end be shut down. He averred that many cars utilized River Avenue
as an access road to the Beltline Road.
Mr. Spain asked for a sense of the time line should 0001' undertake a major improvement project on
Beltline Road. Mr. Boyart speculated that such a project could be ready for construction in 10 to 15
years.
Mr. Spain questioned, given that a change to the Beltline Road interchange was 10 to 15 years out,
whether an overlay or reconstruction project would be more fiscally prudent. Ms. Cahill replied that the
course of action that made the best financial sense was to rebuild the road. Mr. Henry added that given
the traffic volumes, which were expected to continue to grow, the need for improvement remained.
Mr. Spain remarked that he thought the River Avenue interchange was unlikely to be closed.
Mr. Meeker opined that Lane County and the City of Eugene did not receive their fair share of the State
gasoline tax. He wondered how the local jurisdictions could receive more money for road repairs.
Mr. Boyart commented that he did not work in that arena. He stated, however, that the five ODOT regions
received money according to a formula based on population and lane miles. Region 2 received 28 or 29
percent of the "pie" and the Portland area received 35 percent. He averred that the formula was intended
to be a fair way to distribute the revenue. He noted that Oregon had done well with federal earmarking of
funds doled in six~year authorization packages, with $20 million for the lnterstate 5/Beltline Road
interchange and $9 million for the Interstate 5/Coburg interchange in addition to money for the new
MINUTES-River A venue Stakeholder Group -
Public Works Department
August 24, 2005
Page 7
federal courthouse transportation improvements. He did not, however, know how cities competed for
gasoline tax dollars.
Mr. Henry underscored that agreements needed to be reached on the project in order to get the money.
Mr. Hoobyar called for a five-minute break at 8:25 p.m.
5. What's "On" and "OW' the Table for Road Improvements to River Avenue
Mr. Schoening stated that the current scope of the project lay from the River Road intersection to the
Beltline Road onramps and expansion of the project beyond those parameters was "off" the table. He
noted that a plethora of feedback indicating support for expansion of the project would cause staff to
submit it to the City Council in the six-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). He said it could be
possible to reduce the scope, though.
Mr. Schoening said, in terms of design life, adherence to urban standards required a 20-year life which
meant it would be an engineered road built to last 20 years with routine maintenance. This indicated that
the concept of applying a maintenance overlay to the road was "off' the table. He pointed out that the
City of Eugene contained 450 miles of streets and did not have enough money to maintain them in its
maintenance fund. He stated that the City had 50 miles of unimproved roads on which the only mainte-
nance provided was pothole patching.
Mr. Schoening indicated that the TPR was unequivocal regarding the requirement to accommodate
pedestrians and bicyclists. He said the mode of accommodation could be modified somewhat, such as
choosing whether to place sidewalks on one side of the street or both sides.
Mr. Schoening listed some of the other elements of the project that were open to discussion, such as
whether or not to include a center turn lane, how much street parking there should be and whether there
should be any parking there, how drainage would be handled, and landscaping choices.
Mr. Schoening stated that how the project was paid for was immutable as the City Council had developed
its assessment policy and would not change it. He noted some concern expressed about whether Delta
Sand & Gravel & Construction Company would be assessed. When in fact, Division Avenue improve~
ment project occurs Delta would be an assessable property.
Mr. Howard did not think the City Council had charged staff with building the road to urban design
standards. He believed that the council wished for a scaled down project and would perhaps be satisfied
with a maintenance overlay. Mr. Schoening responded that it was implicit in the categorization of the
road improvement as a modernization project that it would not be merely a maintenance project. He
stated that there had never been a discussion at the council level that indicated that maintenance dollars
should be spent on an unimproved road.
Mr. Howard related that his sense taken from the community meetings was that the "vast majority" of
people wanted to wait for ODOT to redesign the intersection before undertaking action on River Avenue.
He suggested that, given Mr. Schoening's position as a City Engineer, he should go to the City Council
and pass along this sentiment.. He felt the group was being misled into thinking that it could influence the
MINUTES-River A venue Stakeholder Group -
Public Works Department
August 24, 2005
Page 8
design of the road when it was going to be rebuilt to urban design standards. He thought Mr. Schoening
was interpreting the City Council direction to be in absolute support of these standards. He did not agree
that the council directive was clear.
Mr. Schoening reiterated the points on which the stakeholder group could make changes to the design. He
did not look at the Beltline Road interchange as a part of it because as a city traffic engineer he looked at
River Avenue as an unimproved tw<rlane road that needed to be improved.
Mr. Howard opined that the road the City designed would not support the sand and gravel truck traffic that
traversed River Avenue if the ingress and egress of Beltline at the east end of River Avenue was closed by
ODOT. Mr. Schoening disagreed.
Mr. Howard questioned the need to move on this project at this point in time. Mr. Schoening reviewed the
process by which a road project rose up from the CIP, which typically took five or six years. He said
when looking at a modernization project such as upgrading River Avenue to an urban standard, the City
looked at the funding stream including the assessments and matched it against the projects to determine
what could be done within an annual budget. He stressed that the City used real objective criteria to
determine what projects move forward.
Mr. C. Austin disagreed with the assertion that the Division Avenue/River Avenue connection would be
used very much if the Beltline Road interchange was closed. He also asserted that any widening of the
Beltline Road would take out any improvements made to River Avenue. Mr. Schoening responded that it
made sense to wait to improve Divison Avenue on the north side ofthe Beltline Road for that reason.
Mr. C. Austin likened undertaking the River A venue project before ODOT knew what it was going to do
with the Beltline RoadlRiver Road interchange to placing the cart before the horse.
Ms. Rojas recalled hearing that one item on the table was the possibility that the scope of the project could
become smaller. She wondered if the road could be brought up to urban standards to the point just east of
the post office, which she considered to be an area where there really was a concern for pedestrians and
bicyclists. Mr. Schoening acknowledged that the linear scope of the project was on the table.
Mr. Samer pointed out that Mr. Boyatt indicated that the earliest date that the Beltline Road interchange
would be worked on would be 2009. He asked where the conflict lay in building a 20-year road that might
be affected by a project tentatively scheduled for 15 years from now.
Ms. Damron expressed hope that the preservation of the neighborhood character of the River Road area
could be included in the project. She noted that this was the second big improvement project to the
neighborhood, with the improvements to Maxwell Road being the first. She shared that many residents
had concerns as to how the Maxwell Road project had turned out. She wanted to consider how to
preserve the church, for one example, and whether a natural swale drainage system could be used for
another. She thought the River Avenue project, if executed well, could be used as a template for future
projects.
Continuing, Ms. Damron conveyed her concern regarding the process of how things were put on or taken
off the table. She wondered ifthe group needed to go back to the council for further direction to
determine whether an overlay was a possibility. She did not want to waste stakeholder group time
MINUTES-River A venue Stakeholder Group -
Public Works Department
August 24, 2005
Page 9
discussing something that was not possible.
Mr. G. Austin asked if funding for the project would be lost if it was not executed soon. Mr. Schoening
replied that it would not necessarily be lost, because the council had budgeted for this project. He said if
the council decided that no action was the choice to take it would reprogram the funding to another
project.
Mr. G. Austin concurred with the idea of waiting to engage in River A venue improvements until there was
a better idea of how 0 DOT would proceed with its larger project.
Mr. Hill related that at the last public meeting he attended there was majority agreement that improve-
ments to River Avenue were needed. He noted that the road flooded in front of his property every winter.
He asked if the City Council had the authority to instruct staff to work with property owners on a scaled
dow'll version of the road project. He thought the appropriate place to end the full road upgrade would be
at the west side of the Wastewater Facility and then conduct a scaled down version of the road improve-
ment to the east of that point to the Beltline Road. He recommended proposing a compromise. He noted
that he frequently dealt with land use codes in his work and they did not always make sense. He averred
that River Avenue was an instance in which the applicable codes did not make sense in relation to the use
of the area.
Mr. Hoobyar asked where the agreement among the group lay.
Mr. Hyman supported returning to the council and asking just what the group was able to do with the
project.
Mr. Schoening reiterated that the direction from the council was that city standards could be flexed to a
certain extent, but it would not be possible to override State law regarding pedestrians and bicyclists. He
stressed that it was not possible to take maintenance funds and spend it on streets that did not have a road
structure sufficient to support that level of repair.
Ms. Damron remained unclear as to whether the City Council would absolutely not consider a main1e-
nance overlay.
Mr. Hill disagreed, stating that a maintenance overlay was not appropriate for the road and the storm
drainage facilities were needed.
Ms. Vaughn observed that an improvement to the road was needed. She did not feel confused about
where the flexibility in the project lay because staff had clearly delineated those areas with room for
movement. She felt those areas allowed for creativity and unless the group was in disagreement regarding
whether the improvement was needed at all, it could conduct the necessary problem-solving and proceed.
She thought the real issue was economic and an underlying concern for property owners was tbe amount
the project would cost them. She said it could be a hardship. She did not think it was necessary to return
to the City Council.
Mr. Samer remarked that his sense from the City Council was that the stakeholder group should be
creative in bringing the road up to urban and safety standards. He averred that not seizing the opportunity
now could be cause for future regret. He was ready to move forward.
MINUTES-River A venue Stakeholder Group -
Public Works Department
August 24,2005
Page 10
Mr. G. Austin asked how much the project could be scaled back. Mr. Hoobyar suggested this discussion
be deferred to the next meeting, should this be the tack the group wished to take.
Mr. Howard reiterated his desire to ask the council for clarification on its direction.
Mr. Spain pointed to information on the existing road that indicated the roadbed was only three to five
inches deep. He did not believe this to be adequate to hold an overlay.
Mr. Howard offered this proposal to bring before the City Council:
"Was it the City Council's intent that River Avenue be redesigned specifically to urban design
standards or is some lower level of improvement that is supported by the stakeholders acceptable?"
Mr. Hoobyar noted that the group had not determined a decision.making process.
Ms. Damron observed that many people wished to talk about design options that would come close to or
meet the definition but some people still held the idea of an overlay. She did not want to argue this
without getting council direction. She said if the group was going to take a maintenance overlay off the
table, she wanted it off the table.
Mr. Hill said the maintenance overlay was already off the table because it was impractical. He com-
mented that an understanding of road engineering would lend one to believe that an overlay could not be
considered.
Mr. Hoobyar asked for a show of hands to indicate support for Mr. Howard's proposal.
The proposal was voted down, 8:3.
Mr. Hill averred that what was needed from staff was affirmation that what the group was setting forth
was what was being asked for. He said though it seemed there was no way to get around the State's rules
regarding the road project, he thought it possible to contest a portion of those rules through an action
before the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) if the group so chose. He wanted to move ahead with the
design process.
6. Scheduling the Next Meeting
Mr. Hoobyar determined from the group that the second meeting would be held on August 30 and the
third meeting was scheduled for October 5. Both meetings would begin at 7 p.m., end at 9 p.m., and
would be convened at the Wastewater Facility.
The meeting adjourned at 9:32 p.m.
(Recorded by Ruth Atcherson)
M'\2005\Public Worh Department\River Avenue Stakeholder Groupirasg050824.doc
MINUTES-River Avenue Stakeholder Group-
Public Works Department
August 24,2005
Page 11
Memo
FR: Paul Hoobyar, Watershed Initiatives, LLC
TO: River Avenue Stakeholder Group
RE: Preliminary Agenda,. Meeting #2
DA: August 26, 2005
Below is a proposed agenda for your review for the second meeting of the River Avenue
Stakeholder Group. Please review the proposed agenda and respond to me with
comments/suggestions by COB Monday, August 29th. I will then revise the agenda
based on comments received.
River Avenue Stakeholder Group
Proposed Agenda
Second Meeting--August 30th, 7-9:00 pm
Introductions/Welcome
. Agenda review/approval
. Meeting agreements review
. Questions & Answers
Decision-Making Process
. Establish a decision-making process for the Group
· Consensus?
· Super majority?
· Combination or other?
Clarifying the Stakeholder Group's Opportunity to Influence Decisions
. Perspective from City Councilor Gary Pape. Ward 5
. Crest Drive Neighborhood Assoc. stakeholder process update
Problem Identification
. Continued discussion on the current condition of, and problem with, River
Avenue
Creating Design Options for River Avenue
Next Steps
. TBD based on extent of discussions and options identified by group
.
Adjourn
MINUTES
River Avenue Stakeholder Group
Wastewater Facility Meeting Room - 410 River Avenue
August 30, 2005
7p.m.
PRESENT:
Paul Hoobyar, Facilitator; Ann Vaughn, Mort Hyman, Santa Clara CommunityOrganiza-
tion; Krista Rojas, Teresa Damron, River Road Community Organization; Chuck Meeker,
Gordon Howard, Daniel Hill, Paul Spain, Clayton Austin, property owners; Yuri Samer,
Eugene Bicycle Coalition; Peter Ruffier, Director Wastewater Division; Michelle Cahill,
Mark Schoening, Chris Henry, Eric Jones, Lee Shoemaker, Eugene Public Works De-
partment staff and 10 interested parties.
ABSENT:
Greg Austin, property owner.
1. Agenda Review/Approval
Mr. Hoobyar determined the agenda to be approved and reviewed the meeting agreements. He reminded
the group of their decision that public participation would be fulfilled by staff taking the report and
decisions made by this group out to community organizations for input.
Mr. Hoobyar pointed out that draft minutes from the meeting held on August 24 had been distributed to
group members and asked members to review the draft for approval at the meeting scheduled for October
5. He noted that the minutes from the present meeting would also be completed and made available for
review prior to the October meeting.
Mr. Hoobyar noted that October 24 was the correct date of the City Council work session at which the
results of the stakeholders' group process would be presented contingent on being able to wrap up the
process on October 5.
Mr. Hoobyar stated that two copies of the stakeholders' notebooks were available, one each at the Public
Works offices on Pearl Street and Broadway Street. He added that it was also posted on the City's Web
site. In response to requests, copies were also being provided to the Santa Clara Community Organization
(SCCO) and to the River Road Community Organization (RRCO).
Mr. Howard wondered if the council work session could be rescheduled for after October 31. Ms. Cahill
agreed to look into this.
Ms. Rojas recalled that crash statistics were largely from the intersection of River Avenue with River
Road. She wondered if it would be possible to bring the intersection into the project. She thought the
answer to this was likely negative and asked why this was so. Ms. Cahill replied that the intersection had
already been modernized. She related that public comments regarding the intersection had been
forwarded to the Traffic Division of the Public Works Department (PWD). She averred that some of the
planned improvements to River Avenue would have a positive impact on the intersection.
MINUTES-River Avenue Stakeholder Group -
Public Works Department
August 30, 2005
Page 1
Ms. Rojas remarked that if one primary issue in the River Avenue project was safety, then the intersection
should be of a higher importance given the level of public concern about it. She suggested that if work
was to be done on the intersection it would be prudent to conduct the work simultaneously with the River
A venue project.
Ms. Rojas asked if there would be an opportunity to provide a minority report to the City Council, pending
the decision-making process. Mr. Hoobyar replied that there would be such an opportunity. He clarified
that the decision-making process had yet to be determined and could be anything from pure consenms to a
majority/minority voting process.
Ms. Damron commented that Councilor Andrea Ortiz had indicated she had concerns regarding the
intersection. She thought the situation could be mitigated by providing two turn lanes from the high
school side of the road (the west side). She averred the safety issue was supported by the crash data from
the intersection. She was encouraged to hear Ms. Cahill state that some operational improvements were
possible. She said just because the "very dangerous intersection" was a few feet outside of the boundaries
of the proposed project, if safety was a driving issue the intersection should be included in the project
even if it was on an operational level and not a roadbed constnlction level. Mr. Schoening responded that
it was possible to do that operationally, but the concern lay in that should a capital improvement be
desired for that intersection it would have to be brought before the City Council for approval. However,
an operational change could be undertaken by statT. Ms. Cahill cited the blue bicycle lanes as an example
of a significant change made since the crash data had been reviewed.
Ms. Vaughn observed that a redesign of River Avenue could encourage people to come down that street
rather than turning left to enter the Beltline Highway from River Road.
Ms. Damron thought improved signage could alleviate some of the pressure on the intersection.
Mr. Hoobyar asked Mr. Schoening to speak to the difference between the maintenance budget and the
capital improvement budget, given that it was a somewhat confusing delineation. Mr. Schoening
explained that the City had 500 miles of streets, of which 50 miles were still unimproved roadways. He
stated that there was a backlog of $93 million in street preservation and maintenance projects on the 450
miles of improved roadways. He underscored that placing asphalt on an unimproved base such as the
River Avenue roadway would not be money well-spent. He further clarified that it was not possible to
unilaterally decide to change the funding source from capital improvement funding to maintenance
funding as the capital improvement program was a process that began with prioritization and staff and
council consideration and culminated in council approval.
Ms. Damron was concerned about making improvements when the future of the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) roadway, the Beltline Highway, was yet unknown. She felt the River Avenue
project could be under-built, should the roadway become the primary onramp to Bcltline Highway. She
did not think a lot of money should be spent on improvements beyond the edge of the Post Office property
without foreknowledge of the intentions ofODOT. She added that city councilors sometimes made
exceptions in city policies as an investment in goodwill.
Mr. Meeker agreed that improvements were needed on the west end of the roadway. He would support
further improvements if ODOT would provide information on its future intentions.
MINUTES--River Avenue Stakeholder Group-
Public Works Department
August 30, 2005
Page 2
Mr. SameI' was concerned that the group was jumping ahead into the agenda. He recommended the group
take care of the housekeeping elements of the agenda prior to getting at the meat of the conversation.
2. Decision Making Process
Mr. Hoobyar explained that consensus was a more difficult process and took more time but resulted in a
better buy-in of the members. He said the group could try for consensus and fall back on a majority vote
or a super.majority vote oftwo.thirds or three~quarters should consensus not work.
In response to a question from Mr. Howard, Mr. Hoobyar assured him that staff members did not have a
vote.
Mr. Howard suggested the group keep it simple and use a majority vote. He asked thatthe record include
how individuals voted. He thought the council would find this information useful in interpreting the
recommendation.
Ms. Damron suggested there be a distinction between motions that move the group forward in the process
and votes on the final recommendation. She advocated for consensus approval of the final recommenda.
tion accompanied by a majority and minority report.
Ms. Vaughn did not believe there should be a great deal offocus on how individuals voted. She wished to
avoid a political process as she preferred a more holistic and free process in the formulation and approval
of a recommendation.
Mr. Hoobyar wanted to have the capacity to take a straw vote at different points in the process.
Ms. Rojas said the group needed to consider that smaller decisions might be needed to move the process
forward. Mr. Hoobyar responded that this was what he intended to determine with a straw poll.
Mr. Hyman did not understand why the group would want their votes listed by name. Mr. Hoobyar noted
that this was only one suggestion.
Mr. Samer underscored that the reason the group was convened was to come up with a recommendation
for an alternate design. He averred that a super majority was needed in order to "put the issue to bed." He
supported a consensus process with a super majority as a fall back for the final recommendation.
Mr. Hoobyar noted that he had heard both at this meeting and the previous meeting that the focus should
be on rebuilding the road until the Post Office or the Wastewater Treatment Facility. He asked how the
group wanted to make a decision on what option it wished to "run with."
Ms. Vaughn said her concern would be satisfactorily addressed by Mr. Hoobyar's suggestion of frequent
check-ins with the group.
Mr. Hoobyar asked how the group would know when it had resolved an element of the plan.
MINUTES-River Avenue Stakeholder Group-
Public Works Department
August 30, 2005
Page 3
Mr. Hill did not think it necessary to vote on every little issue. He supported seeking consensus but felt a
two.thirds vote would work.
Mr. Hoobyar asked for a vote on consensus with a fall back to a two.thirds majority.
The group voted in favor of a consensus model with a fall back to a two-thirds majority,
7:3.
In response to a question from Mr. Howard, Mr. Hoobyar explained that consensus did not necessarily
mean unanimity. He said consensus meant that everyone in the group could live with the result.
Mr. Spain suggested that it might be good to list the final vote by stakeholder category given that the
property owners were being assessed for the improvements.
Ms. Damron had no objections to having her vote listed by her name and stakeholder group. She felt it
was possible that it could make a difference with the City Council.
Mr. Hill sugg~sted it be left up to the individual.
Mr. Hyman pointed out that the group already agreed on its decision.making process.
Ms. Rojas noted that the property owners were not the only ones who were paying for the improvements
as the community paid for half of the cost.
3. Clarifying the Stakeholder Group's Opportunity to Influence Decisions
Mr. Hoobyar reported that City Councilor Gary Pape had positively asserted that the group's process had
a great deal of potential for influencing the City Council's final decision as this was why the council had
formed the group in the first place.
Mr. Hoohyar recalled that some people had concern that the similar process that the Crest Drive area
residents had undergone had been disregarded. He related that he had communicated with Kathy Samnpa,
chair of the Crest Drive Community Organization. She had indicated that she believed the stakeholder
process had moved forward, that staff had affirmed that the exception rule could be applied to the Crest
Drive area, and the community organization was generally satisfied with the process at this point
4. Problem Identification
Mr. Hoobyar summarized the conversation thus far. He averred that concerns with how ODOT would
proceed with Beltline Highway were real. He noted a great deal of discussion on ending the major
improvements at the eastern boundary of the Post Office or at the treatment plant.
Ms. Vaughn responded that his perception of the discussion had been accurate. She questioned whether
property owners concerns were solely based on the design of the project or whether part of the concern
they had was due to the expense. She asked them to consider what objections they would have if they
MINUTES-River Avenue Stakeholder Group-
Public Works Department
August 30, 2005
Page 4
were not assessed and whether there were portions of the project that could be altered to reduce the
financial impact.
Mr. Samer also heard concern regarding the cost. He noted that the bicycle paths were not impacting the
assessments to property owners as they were funded by Systems Development Charges (SDCs).
Continuing, Mr. Samer noted that some comments heard at the previous meeting had been on whether
River A venue was a collector or not. He averred that it was a technical definition with traffic counts to
back it up. Nonetheless, he maintained that there was a lot of room to bring the road to current standards
in a creative manner. He added that bicyclists were used to coping with the vagaries in road development
that sometimes resulted from this flexibility.
Mr. Spain recalled that the preliminary costs document indicated that the anticipated cost per lineal foot of
sidewalk was $5.30. He said one question property owners posed to the City Council was what the soft
costs of the project were. He noted that of the total cost of $2.269 million, 23 percent was allocated to
engineering costs. He asked why this percentage was so high.
Mr. Spain remarked that planting numerous trees to make it "look like Alton Baker Park" was not the
highest and best use of the area, nor was building a lot of sidewalks for pedestrian traffic that did not exist.
In response to a question from Ms. Vaughn, Mr. Schoening explained that the Post Office frontage would
be paid by the City. Ms. Cahill underscored that property owners were only assessed for improvements in
front of their properties.
Mr. Spain expressed concern that when ODOT undertook its improvements he could be assessed a second
time for improvements. Ms. Cahill assured him that he would not have to pay twice.
Mr. Spain surmised that the property owners would not attain much in savings by a reduction in trees and
this sort of improvement. Ms. Cahill responded that lighting and street landscaping were not part of what
was proposed to be assessed to property owners.
Ms. Cahill elaborated, explaining that the component of the $99 per foot assessment for 10' of paving,
curb and gutter would pay for the previous low bidder on the project and this would have included paying
for their contract expenses and associated costs. She listed the other costs of the project, such as the
purchase of right-of-way, paying utilities to relocate, the cost of forming a Local Improvement District
(LID), the cost of inspections, surveying and design. She said those costs not specific to pavement were
prorated across many categories of improvements along the bottom ofthe cost distribution spreadsheet.
Mr. Henry stated that portions of the project that were not assessable included the median and bicycle
lanes and were paid for with SDCs. He said the assessments paid for curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveway
improvements, and the portion of the street in front of the property to the center line.
Mr. Hill observed that SDCs were an assessment. He said the group was paying for bicycle lanes, though
not directly. He likened SDCs to a tax, noting that he had worked on 30 sub-divisions and had paid quite
a lot into the SDC fund.
Mr. Meeker noted that the SDC on his building had cost $30,629. He was dissatisfied that he would have
MINUTES-River Avenue Stakeholder Group -
Public Works Department
August 30, 2005
Page 5
to pay more in assessments. He felt he should receive full credit for the SDC, but was only receiving
partial credit.
Mr. SameI' said he also had developed property. He stated that the SDC funds come from a larger pool
and not a direct assessment.
Mr. Hill clarified that SDCs were charged to builders and were project specific.
Ms. Damron pointed out that property values would likely increase with improvements. She reiterated her
question of whether the River Avenue issue was an assessment issue that should motivate the group to
look for ways to reduce costs or whether it was an issue for what was the best action to take for the greater
good of the community.
Mr. Meeker said given that the group did not know if the road was going to be continued east into Beltline
Highway over the long term, he would support building a three-lane road that stopped at the eastern
boundary of the Post Office property. He underscored that the issue for him was how much the City
should spend given that ODOr plans were as yet unknown.
Mr. Hill agreed that property owners \-vould realize an increase in property values with road improve~
ments. He called the first proposal for rebuilding the road "overkill." He said, given that it was largely an
industrial area, he did not see the point in building a bicycle path to the Beltline Highway. He believed
that River Avenue could some day be a major thoroughfare, but would not become a major focus for
bicyclists and pedestrians.
Mr. Howard wanted to see fiscal responsibility in government projects. He opined that too many
government projects were generated at a staff level without common sense. He repeated concerns about
the future actions of ODOr as this could dramatically increase or decrease traffic on River A venue. He
thought the City could create a bottleneck if it did not work with ODOr.
Mr. Hoobyar observed that the group had a certain level of unanimity regarding a design option in which
the road would be built out to the Post Office boundary or a little farther. He asked the group what idea
made best sense to them.
Ms. Damron asked that the property owners comment on the assessments. She suggested that the group
go around the table and give comments.
Ms. Rojas surmised that the group was not just concerned about assessments. She felt the larger concern
revolved around the large cost of the project as currently proposed and whether the community was truly
served by this. She noted that Mr. Meeker had indicated his willingness to pay the assessment if he was
able to see the reason behind it. She supported designing a scaled back project on the portion of the road
between the area that saw the greatest amount of activity and Beltline Highway.
Mr. Howard supported creating a "reasonable" road design and opposed building something that could
wind up being tom up in five years.
Mr. Austin said it was both about assessment and design. He thought should ODOr close the onramp to
Beltline Highway from River Avenue, there would be no need for three lanes on that end of the road. He
MINUTES-River A venue Stakeholder Group -
Public Works Department
August 30, 2005
Page 6
was concerned that property owners would be assessed again for a future upgrade caused by changes made
to the access by ODOT, despite assurance from staff.
Mr. Spain felt the issue was not about assessments. Rather, he averred, it was about the scope and context
of the project. He observed that the original project as proposed had resembled a nice parkway. He did
not think this would be appropriate for the area. He wanted the road to be improved, adding that the
question lay in how much improvement there should be.
Mr. Samer asked that the original proposal be included in stakeholder notebooks. He conveyed the
Bicycle Coalition's perspective which was that the entire River Avenue was a collector. He said the group
would like to deal with the road creatively so that it would meet the standards as a collector and as a
bicycle arterial.
Mr. Meeker commented that his concerns lay both in the assessments and in the design. He averred that
the City needed to spend the money realistically for the needs of the area.
Ms. Vaughn relayed the SCCO point of view. She said they were sensitive to assessments and costs and
supported a fiscally responsible redesign of the road. She stated that there \-vas a lot of concern about the
congestion in the area and were trying to look for other roads to utilize aside from River Road. She shared
that the SCCO wished to preserve the ambience of the neighborhood.
Mr. Hyman agreed with Mr. Meeker. He could not see how important it was whether it was an assessment
problem or a design problem. He said the real issue was one of undertaking a project that "made sense."
He noted that he lived near Irvington Road, which he felt to be an example of a bad transportation
construction project experience. He opined that the construction of the project had been conducted in a
disorganized fashion.
Ms. Damron shared the RRCO's concerns with the group. She said the organization was concerned for
the long~range impact on the greater community and because of this they valued bicycle access. She
related the organization's support for natural swale drainage systems. She expressed a preference for
making the more heavily trafficked west end of the road "beautiful" and representative of the community
in ways such as planting native trees She believed this project could become a template for future road
projects. She suggested inclusion of a pedestrian crossing at the post office. She also observed that there
were mixed use design elements at the west end of River Avenue and felt it warranted a formalized
pedestrian transportation facility. She noted the organization was sensitive to assessment costs.
Mr. Hoobyar surmised that while assessments and costs were important to the property owners, the design
of the road was also very important He commented that the "devil" was in the design details.
Mr. Hill proposed that the group consider splitting River Avenue into two segments, the first segment
comprised of the area traversing River Avenue from River Road to Ross Lane and the second segment
comprised of the remainder of River Avenue to its connection with Beltline Highway. He recommended
that the first segment be built to a three. lane road standard including a bicycle path. He averred that it
made sense to provide better connectivity to the mixed use area at the west end. He said there was a lot of
traffic to the Ross Lane point of River Avenue because of the business on one side and the wastewater
dump site on the other and suggested a "slow-clown point" be planned at that point. For the second
segment of the road, he recommended a scaled-down version of the proposed road with one sidewalk and
two lanes. He noted he rarely saw pedestrians or bicyclists beyond Ross Lane.
MINUTES---River Avenue Stakeholder Group-
Public Works Department
August 30, 2005
Page 7
Continuing, Mr. Hill observed that in the private sector one rarely paid as much as 12 percent of a
project's total cost in engineering and design fees. He noted that 25 percent of the city project's cost was
attributed to engineering fees and opined that the group needed to hold the City Council and City staff
accountable for this seeming discrepancy.
Mr. Meeker agreed with the idea of building out the road to Ross Lane but wished to hold the beautifica~
tion to a minimum. He commented that raised pedestrian facilities could cause damage to boats being
brought in and out of his business, Clemens Marina.
Mr. Samer said it would be possible to design a pedestrian island in the middle of the road that was not
raised and would not damage Mr. Meeker's customers' boats. Regarding build-out of the bicycle path, he
pointed out that bicyclists wished for connectivity at the east end of River Avenue. He suggested that the
bicycle lane be improved over the full length of the road, with a full improved bicycle lane to Ross Lane
and a sidewalk built to the wider mixed use standard from that point eastward. He noted that a regular
sidewalk was not wide enough for safe passage of both pedestrians and bicyclists. He added that he had
measured the road and determined it to be wide enough to accommodate the wider sidewalk standard used
in mixed use development.
Mr. Hoobyar observed that bicycle traffic could increase with improvements. Mr. Sanler concurred. He
predicted rising gasoline prices would also increase bicycle usage.
Ms. Damron concurred with Mr. Samer. She said bicycle/pedestrian issues were very important to the
RRCO. She also agreed that median pedestrian refuges did not need to be raised. She believed that foot
and bicycle traffic would increase on River Avenue once the improvements had been completed.
Mr. Meeker did not want the turn lane to be blocked with such refuges.
Mr. Hill thought Mr. Samer's suggestion to build a sidewalk to mixed use standards east of Ross Lane
made sense. He did not think bicyclists would want to share a lane with cars after that point anyway,
given the dramatic increase in speed that occurred as vehicles approached Beltline Highway.
While he favored the inclusion of landscaping, Mr. Hill observed that the City sometimes struggled to
maintain landscaping it had already installed. He suggested that lower maintenance landscaping be
utilized.
Mr. Hoobyar commented that landscaping meant different things to different people.
Mr. Austin said it seemed the group had agreed on a three-lane road to Ross Lane and asked if the group
should take a vote prior to discussing pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Mr. Howard asked why Ross Lane should be the point at which the three lane road should be built to. He
felt building it out to post office was far enough. Mr. Hill responded that Ross Lane was where the
industrial traffic stopped.
Mr. Hoobyar asked the group to indicate with a show of hands whether they supported splitting the road
into two segments. The River Avenue Stakeholders Group indicated with a unanimous show of hands its
support for splitting River Avenue into two sections with different development standards to suit the
difference in uses for those two parts of the road.
MINUTES-River Avenue Stakeholder Group-
Public Works Department
August 30, 2005
Page 8
Mr. Meeker stated that 80 percent of the traffic traversed the western end of River A venue. He averred
the west end needed attention first.
Mr. Spain agreed with Mr. Hill's proposal to have the demarcation for the two segments at Ross Lane
given the large number of industrial vehicles making ingress and egress to River Avenue at that point.
Mr. Samer pointed out that the group needed to consider how stormwater would be handled at the point at
which the road standard changed.
Mr. Hoobyar asked the group to consider whether it was significant at this point to decide the demarcation
between the two segments.
Mr. Hill reiterated that the number of industrial vehicles turning at Ross Lane warranted demarking the
two segments there. He also felt it would be prudent to include a pedestrian crossing at that point.
Mr. Hoobyar asked for a vote v,,'hat point the demarcation between the two segments of the road should
fall.
The group indicated a preference for demarcation of the two segments of River Avenue,
to be developed to different and more specific standards based on road usage, to occur at
Ross Lane by a vote 01'7:3.
Mr. Howard requested further information and possibly a legal opinion on whether the portion of River
A venue between Ross Lane and BeltJine Highway could be built to a lower standard.
Mr. Schoening stated that staff had met with legal counsel. He was not sure, at this point, what staff
would be inquiring about given that the "lesser standard" had yet to be defined. He added that his sense
was that the City was willing to designa road that ran counter to City standards.
Mr. Hoobyar suggested that staff get a sense of what the legal opinion would be on this.
Mr. Samer felt the group could design a simpler road that met City standards. He averred this was
different from recommending a design that was belov,; standards.
6. Next Steps
Mr. Hoobyar stated that minutes from the present meeting would be distributed by email and reiterated his
request that members review minutes from both of the first two meetings of the group for approval at the
next meeting.
The next meeting of the River Avenue Stakeholders Group will be convened at 7 p.m. on October 5, 2005,
at the Wastewater Facility Meeting Room
The meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m.
(Recorded by Ruth Atcherson)
M:12005\Public Works DepartmentlRiver Avenue Stakeholder Grouplrasg050830.doc
MiNUTES-River Avenue Stakeholder Group-
Public Works Department
August 30, 2005
Page 9
Memo
FR: Paul Hoobyar, Watershed Initiatives, LLC
TO: River Avenue Stakeholder Group
RE: Preliminary Agenda, Meeting #3
DA: September 29, 2005
Below is a proposed agenda for your review for the third meeting of the River Avenue
Stakeholder Group. Please review the proposed agenda and respond to me with
comments/suggestions by COB Monday, October 3rd.
River Avenue Stakeholder Group
Proposed Agenda
Third Meeting--October 5th, 7-9:00 pm
Introductions/Welcome
. Agenda review/approval
. Meeting agreements review
. Previous meeting minutes approval
. Informational packet comments/questions
. Update from stakeholder representatives
What Improvements are needed for the West End of River Avenue?
. Stormwater drainage/curbs & gutters?
. Center turn lanes?
. Pedestrian/bicycle facilities?
. Pedestrian refuges ?
. Landscaping?
What Improvements are needed for the East End River A venue?
. Stormwater drainage/curbs & gutters?
. Center turn lanes ?
. Pedestrianlbicycle facilities?
. Pedestrian refuges ?
. Landscaping?
Next Steps
. TBD based on extent of discussions and options identified by group
Adjourn
MINUTES
River Avenue Stakeholder Group
Wastewater Facility Meeting Room - 410 River Avenue
October 5, 2005
7p.m.
PRESENT:
Paul Hoobyar, Facilitator; Ann Vaughn, Mort Hyman, Santa Clara Community
Organization; Krista Rojas, Teresa Damron, River Road Community Organization;
Chuck Meeker, Gordon Howard, Daniel Hill, Paul Spain, Clayton Austin, property
owners; Yuri Samer, Eugene Bicycle Coalition; Peter Ruffier, Director Wastewater
Division; Michelle Cahill, Mark Schoening, Chris Henry, Joe Ramirez, Lee Shoemaker,
Eugene Public Works Department staff, four interested parties.
ABSENT:
Greg Austin, property owner.
1. IntroductionsIWelcome
. Agenda Review/Approval
. Meeting Agreements Review
Mr. Hoobyar detemlined the agenda to be approved and reviewed the meeting agreements.
. Previous Meeting Minutes Approval
Mr. Hoobyar suggested that minor minutes corrections be submitted directly to Ms. Cahill.
Mr. Howard indicated he was disinclined to approve minutes that needed correction. He said he did not
believe that Oregon Department of Transp0l1ation (ODOT) Regional Planner was quoted correctly in the
fourth paragraph on page 6. He requested a verbatim transcript of this portion of the meeting held on
August 24, 2005.
Mr. Howard offered the following correction to the minutes of August 24:
Page 8, paragraph 8: "Mr. Howard opined that the road the City designed would not support the
sand and gravel truck traffic that traversed River A venue if the intersection tit tlte east end of
River Avenue was closed by ODOr."
Mr. Howard, seconded by Mr. Spain, moved to approve the minutes from the meeting
of the River Avenue Stakeholders Group held on August 24,2005, as amended. The
motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES-River Avenuc Stakeholdcr Group--
Public Works Department
October 5, 2005
Page I
Ms. Vaughn offered the following correction to the minutes of August 30:
Page 8, delete paragraphs 12 and 13.
Mr. Howard, seconded by Mr. Spain, moved to approve the minutes from the meeting
of the River Avenue Stakeholders Group held on August 30, 2005, as amended. The
motion passed unanimously.
· Informational Packet Comments/Questions
. Update from Stakeholder Representatives
Mr. Hoobyar offered two agendas. He related that he had conversed with some people and there were at
least two proposals on how to move forward with road improvement designs. He offered an alternative
agenda with the second item comprised of presentations, discussion, and decisions on the proposals from
the stakeholder representatives.
Ms. Damron noted that the August 24 minutes referred to a chairperson of the group. She wondered
who that would be and how the material would be presented to the City Council at its work session.
Mr. Hoobyar had hoped to do that as part of the next step after making design decisions. He asked if
others were interested in having this discussion.
Mr. Schoening reported that he had discussed this at the staff level. He said generally staff presented a
report and then the City Council gave comments and asked questions in a first round, a second round,
and so on. He underscored that time constraints prevented multiple presentations on a topic and work
sessions were primarily to provide the council the opportunity to utilize staff as a resource. He stated
that the regular session was subsequent to the work session and began with the Public Forum in which
any citizen could speak on any topic not subject to a public hearing or a ruling by the Hearings OfficiaL
Ms. Rojas asked for Mr. Schoening to claritY whether the suggestion that a chairperson of the group
could help represent the group's work. Ms. Damron added that it had been the understanding that a
representative of the group would have an opportunity to be present as a resource to the council.
Mr. HiH indicated he was amenable to having a group representative at the work session if there was
group consensus behind it.
Mr. Hyman opined that there was little "potency" in public testimony at man)' City Council meetings.
Mr. Hill suggested that some testimony could be in letter form to go along with the proposal. He did not
see a problem with people attending the work session to sit and listen.
Ms. Damron moved to elect a minimum of one and a maximum of four representatives
to go to the City Council Work Session; and to be allowed equal time in the presentation
as was granted to staff to present the work; and that the stakeholders would submit a
written version. Mr. Howard provided the second. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES-River A venue Stakeholder Group -
Public Works Department October 5, 2005 Page 2
Mr. Hoobyar asked how the group wished to decide who would represent the group.
Mr. Howard suggested that this be decided at the end of the process.
Mr. Hoobyar asked the group for a vote on the alternative option for the agenda, as delineated earlier.
The second option for the agenda was approved of by a vote of 6:0:4; four people
abstaining.
Mr. Hill asked for clarification on the aerial map of the area. Ms. Cahill explained that the boxes on the
map represented setbacks where street trees could go and the one that resembled a bus pull out in front
of the Four Square Church was actually an allowance for a large existing tree.
2. Present, Discuss, Decide on Proposals from Stakeholder Representatives
Mr. Hoobyar stated that the property owners had provided a proposal and Teresa Damron, co-chair of
the River Road Community Organization (RRCO), had submitted a proposaL
Mr. Samer interjected that he had hoped that the group could just go through the list of possibilities for
the west and east ends of the road and see what could be taken offthe table.
Mr. Hoobyar asked staff to make copies of the two proposals for everyone. He noted that Greg Austin
was not present because he and his wife had a baby.
In response to a question from Mr. Spain, Mr. Henry said the City Attorney's comments were in
reference to the Arterial Collector Street Plan. He stated that the City Council could adopt a new
exception category based on a set of criteria that would be an exception process. He reiterated that the
City Council had no influence on the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). He underscored that the
conflict in what was proposed for River Avenue and the stakeholders' desires lay in the Arterial
Collector Street Plan.
Mr. Schoening provided copies of the two proposals to the stakeholders' group and staff.
Mr. Hill reviewed the River Avenue Properly Owners Proposed Improvement List. The improvements
included:
I. That the road would be three lane for the continuous length of the travel~way, the center
lane for turning only and that it be fully improved with curbs, gutters, and storm drainage;
2. Setback five-foot wide sidewalks from the west end to the east side of the Post Office and a
curbside five~foot wide sidewalk on the north side from that point to the east end of river
A venue.
3. Bicycle paths to be on both sides of the road to the east side of the Post Office and then on
the south side only from that point on.
MINUTES--River A venue Stakeholder Group-
Public Works Department
October 5, 2005
Page 3
Ms. Cahill asked if the proposal intended the bicycle lanes to be painted lanes on the street. Mr. Hill
affirmed that it would be that until the east side of the Post Office and then at that point, a bicycle path
would be placed on the south side of the road.
Mr. SameI' pointed out that the standard for a Mixed Use sidewalk was a 12-foot width. He reiterated
that he had measured the road and determined there was room for the bicycle facility.
4. Crosswalks at the east end of the Post office, Ross Lane and at the east end Bicycle path
across from the Orowheat Store and possibly at the Veteran's Administration building.
Mr. Hill noted that the crosswalks were listed in the proposal as being raised and the property owners
had decided to strike this point.
5. No landscaped islands or planters on any portion of the three lane road; street trees to be
planted at the west end only in the setback sidewalk area to the east end of the Post Office.
Mr. Meeker observed that a 12-foot bicycle path on the south side of the road after the Post Office
would likely have to be maintained by the Wastewater Division Facility. Mr. Hill concurred.
Mr. Samet pointed out that the group had voted to propose a full build-out of the road to Ross Lane at
the last meeting. Mr. Howard responded that the proposal was a concept and could be changed.
Mr. Spain thought the City Attorney had clearly said that whatever proposal the group arrived at had to
meet certain standards and this was new information. He underscored that everyone wanted some kind
of connectivity and the property owners had attempted to forge a compromise.
Mr. Hill commented that the reason the property owners had proposed to stop the full sidewalk
development at the Post Office was that most pedestrian and bicycle traffic went no further than that
because traversing the area in front of the Wastewater Facility was unpleasant.
Ms. Rojas thought it would be good to review the RRCO proposal.
Ms. Vaughn conveyed her appreciation for the work that the property owners had done. She felt the
previous vote to build to Ross Lane had been made before all of the information from the City Attorney
was in. She indicated that she was comfortable with the proposal.
Ms. Damron provided an overview of the RRCO proposal, which consisted of four options:
1. Have no road project; wait for OOOT decision;
2. Maintain the current road temporarily with a pavement overlay until OooT decision
determined long-ternl need;
3. Redefine construction project boundaries;
4. Go forward with the project as planned by City of Eugene engineering staff.
MINUTES-River A venue Stakeholder Group-
Public Works Department
October S, 2005
Page 4
Ms. Damron observed that the River Avenue improvements had been in the planning phase for 20 years.
She opined that ODOT plans would be better known in a year and the project could wait one more year.
She also pointed out that the River Road and Santa Clara communities were in the process of a transition
group, the outcome of which was not yet known. She preferred to stop micro-managing the engineering
department and suggested the group discuss the four options and see if it had a general position to take.
In all options, Ms. Damron wanted the trees that had been removed to be replaced with native trees.
Ms. Damron elaborated on the third option, explaining that the RRCO felt natural swales were part of
the character of the neighborhood. She averred that the water quality going into the river was of concern
and that natural swales were the best filters for stormwater.
Mr. Meeker asked if it was possible to collect drainage at the curbs and pipe it to swales. Ms. Cahill
replied that it was possible. She noted that the water quality option in the original design was structural.
Mr. Hill thought natural swales would ultimately be mandated by the Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) because it made sense to purify water before dumping it into the waterway.
Mr. Hoobyar surn1ised that there seemed to be agreement on the stOrnlwater quality to the river.
Ms. Rojas asked if the group could get a sense of whether people would choose to wait until more
information on ODOT plans was available to make the road improvements. Mr. Samer suggested that
another question would be how many people thought that option was available at all.
Mr. Spain remarked that if the group waited for ODOT, it would have to have a cut-off date. He pointed
out that whatever was decided on the road design would require lead time to put into motion. Ms. Cahill
added that it would take at least six months lead time.
Mr. Spain felt that choosing to do nothing while waiting for ODOT to provide more information
regarding its plans for Beltline Highway might mean waiting forever.
Ms. Damron said Mr. Boyatt had thought more would be known by December, 2006. She agreed that
including a sunset date was important. She expressed concern about the expense of engineering work.
She averred that having a more precise idea of what the needs ofthe road would be was prudent.
Mr. Samer likened this to Waitingfor Godor by Samuel Beckett. He stressed that the group could not
afford to maintain the present unsafe conditions. He supported the property owners' proposal and
opposed \vaiting.
Mr. Meeker asserted that that the property owners proposal covered every basic point and addressed the
needs of all involved, He noted that there had been a three-car accident at the intersection of River Road
and River Avenue on the previous day. He felt building the road at three lanes for the whole length of
the road would help mitigate traffic hazards.
MINUTES-River A venue Stakeholder Group -
Public \Vorks Department October 5, ZOOS Page 5
Mr. Hill did not favor waiting for ODOT. He observed that the message was that ODOT might decide
to do something, they did not know when it would be done, and they could change their minds. He
stressed that a pavement overlay on River Avenue would be a "big mistake," and that it would not solve
storm water issues. He questioned the wisdom of spending good money on something that would "go
away" quickly. He also wished to point out that should the project be postponed, costs would continue
to go up exponentially. He urged the group to get a plan together and "do it" and not to wait for ODOT.
Ms. Damron agreed that the group should not wait indefinitely. She wished to take the ODOT word that
more would be known within a year. She suggested that the group put a sunset date of 12 months on the
waiting period and in that time it should lobby to get some kind of decision.
Regarding the property owners' proposal, Ms. Damron opposed a reduction in landscaping. She wanted
the landscaping to be beautiful. She also opined that if the road was only an on.ramp at the east end, it
did not need to consist of three lanes. In response to concerns expressed about speed, she suggested that
a two. lane road with potholes did much to reduce speed. She felt that cleaning up the road could
potentially increase driving speeds to 50 miles per hour.
Mr. Austin recalled that the City Council had directed the stakeholders group to make a proposal, not to
present them with options. Mr. Schoening affirmed this.
Mr. Howard underscored that a common theme of discussion was an unwillingness to take an expensive
action before knowing ODOrs plans for Beltline Highway. He suggested forwarding Ms. Damron's
second option, which mainly sought to repair River Avenue with a pavement overlay, as the group's
preferred alternative and then submitting the propelty owners' proposal as a "fall.back."
Ms. Vaughn wondered ifthe group could take a closer look at proposals and finesse them. She felt once
the group had a better vision of what the project would look like, the group could strategize. She
commented that she felt a little rushed.
Mr. Hoobyar asked that a placeholder be put on Mr. Howard's suggestion.
Mr. Samer thought the property owners' proposal could, with a little tweaking, be a good plan. He
suggested that the group take a couple of "ancillary votes" on details such as landscaping and finish
putting the proposal together.
Continuing, Mr. Samer said he had made a point of coming to River Avenue on his bicycle more
frequently and had observed pedestrians and bicyclists every time. He also had been talking with
homeowners in his neighborhood, who had experienced a similar road improvement, and everyone he
spoke to had opined that the River Avenue stakeholders just had to <<bite the bullet and do it."
Mr. Hill reiterated his concerns regarding increased costs. He underscored that construction costs were
increasing by 15 to 30 percent with every year. He opined that with the money the River Avenue road
project would cost in five years a freeway could be built today. He did not favor relying on ODOT for
MINUTE8--River A venue Stakeholder Group-
Public Works Department October 5,2005 Page 6
"one darned thing." From his past development experiences, he did not believe that ODOT plans would
be known in a year, nor that they would not change once known. He averred that the group had
consensus that the road needed improvement. He urged the group to do it right and do it at today's
costs,
Mr. Howard disagreed with Mr. Hill's cost assumptions.
Mr. Meeker reiterated that the City Council had instructed staff to meet with the stakeholders and come
up with an alternative plan for the River A venue road project. He stated that he had signatures from
seven of the property owners in the Local Improvement District (LID) that would be assessed for a
portion of the improvements in support ofthe proposal that had originated with Mr. Hill. He said the
property owners had done what they were asked to do. He agreed with Mr. Samer that there were more
pedestrians and bicyclists than before. He felt the crosswalks and bicycle lanes to the east edge of the
Post Office property addressed bicycle and pedestrian needs.
Mr. Samer asked the property owners if they would accept a revision to their proposal wherein the
bikeway beyond the east edge of the Post Office was planned to be a 12-foot Mixed Use sidewalk. The
property owners indicated agreement.
Mr. Samer moved to vote on the Property Owners' Proposal as amended, with the 12-
foot Mixed Use sidewalk on the south side of the road from the eastern boundary of the
Post Office to the east end of River A venue, with votes to follow on amendments for
whether or not to suggest to hold the project pending further information from ODOT
and designation of a sunset date in that case, whether the City should adjust its Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) to move up the bicycle/pedestrian project to improve
connectivity to Santa Clara through the Beltline Highway underpass at the east end of
River Avenue, and whether or not street trees should be included along the road through
the entire project. Mr. Hyman provided a second.
In response to a question from Mr. Meeker, Mr. Sanler stated that the Santa Clara connectivity project
was a separate project with a separate funding plan.
Ms. Vaughn observed that the discussion had been good, but it was approaching time to adjourn and she
did not want to be rushed into a vote. She asked if group members would be amenable to meeting again
to complete the task before the group.
Mr. Spain responded that he thought the group was close to its conclusion. He asked if SCCO
representatives had any specific concerns.
Ms. Vaughn related that the main concern had been the impact on property owners, but the SCCO was
also supportive of trees and the use of natural swales for drainage.
Mr. Spain pointed out that the property owners' proposal had left the drainage issue open for more
specific fine-tuning. He felt the property owners were amenable to utilizing natural swales for drainage.
MINUTES-----Ri ver A venue Stakeholder Group-
Public Works Department October 5,2005 Page 7
Mr. Henry observed that the proposal from the property owners shared many of the same elements that
the original design contained. He thought it was a responsive design that met the needs of the
community. He felt it was good that bicycles were being accommodated. He said the roadway width
with center turn lane was identical to the original proposed roadway width with two bicycle lanes. He
conveyed the engineering concerns regarding the width of the sidewalk. He stated that there was no
standard for a curbside sidewalk, but the general rule was a ten foot width. He said he would have a
great deal of concern about having a five~foot curbside sidewalk next to traffic. He pointed out that
toward the east end of the project, setback sidewalks would require additional right of way. He
suggested, for the group's consideration, the original staff proposal of approximately seven and a half
feet of curbside sidewalk at that point.
Ms. Damron liked Mr. Samer's proposal. She underscored that the things to include in the plan that
were important to the RRCOincluded safety/operational changes to the River Road/River Avenue
intersection, natural swales for storm water drainage, and that trees be included both on the north and
south sides of the road. She repeated her concern that road improvements would increase travel speeds.
Mr. Howard commented that everyone had a wish list. He pointed out that no one was getting
everything they wanted in this plan. He said the property owners had tried to listen to everyone and
incorporate their concerns into the proposal. He felt the proposal included trees where they made the
greatest difference. He underscored that the property owners had heard people asking for sidewalks on
the north side of the street and even though this would prove to be very costly to the property owners,
they had included this in their proposal. He thought the project could become huge and this would run
counter to the goals for the group set forth by the City Council.
Mr. Meeker expressed concern about the potential that sidewalks would need additional right of way.
Mr. Howard remarked that this was one place the plan needed to be trimmed back.
Mr. Samerthought a 12~foot bikeway on the south side would meet the needs of bicycles and
pedestrians. He was not as concerned about a five-foot curbside sidewalk on the north side of the road
because there would be far less pedestrians on that side and because traffic was less likely to be speeding
as it moved toward the intersection with River Road. He opined that the danger was more apparent than
reaL
Ms. Damron asserted that another meeting would be needed, given the time.
Ms. Rojas asked whether the group could make further amendments after a vote on Mr. Samer's motion
had been taken.
Mr. Hoobyar called for a vote on Mr. Samer's motion. The motion passed, 6:2:2; Ms.
Damron and Ms. Rojas voting in opposition; Mr. Hyman and Ms. Vaughn abstaining.
MfNUTES--River A venue Stakeholder Group -
Public Works Department
October 5. 2005
Page &
Ms. Rojas, seconded by Ms. Damron, moved to schedule a fourth meeting. The motion
failed, 3:7; Ms. Damron, Ms. Rojas, and Ms. Vaughn voting in favor.
Ms. Damron left the meeting at 9 p.m. Her alternate, Rob Handy, assumed her place at the table.
Ms. Vaughn noted that she had abstained because the sidewalk issue was not resolved.
Mr. Hill supported removing the sidewalk on the north side ofthe road from the eastern boundary of the
Post Office. He thought building a 12-foot Mixed Use sidewalk from that point eastward would meet
the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians.
In response to a question fTOm Ms. Vaughn, Mr. Hill said the proposal would include a striped crosswalk
at the point where the road ceased to have two bicycle lanes and bicycles and pedestrians were funneled
to the north side of the street.
Mr. Hill did not wish to attempt to design the swale system, but he did not think that curbs and gutters
should be eliminated altogether. He commented that planting street trees was a great idea. He averred
that everyone supported planting trees on the south side of the road and asked that tree planting on the
north side be left to the discretion of the property owners.
Mr. Handy suggested that a tree canopy be planted in the center of the road at pedestrian crossings in
order to mitigate traffic speed.
Mr. Hill asked who would maintain the trees. Mr. Handy replied that neighborhoods often took on the
care of the trees growing in them. Mr. Spain pointed out that the property owners were the
neighborhood.
Mr. Howard thought this should be voted on.
Mr. Hoobyar recapped the property owners' proposal as anlended and approved. He asked the gl'OUp to
give thumbs up or thumbs down on Mr. Handy's suggestion to put trees in the center lane at pedestrian
crossings. The majority gave thumbs down.
Ms. Rojas said she wanted to put in flat curbs and gutters in order to promote a more holistic stonnwater
drainage system instead of directing storm water runoff into a system that drained to the river. She
pointed out that community members paid for river cleanup. She felt a system that used swales would
be cheaper and more effective.
Mr. Hill stated that some kind of gutter system would still be needed to channel storm water to a swale.
Mr. Hoobyar noted a Stormwater Management Plan was in the works for the River Road/Santa Clara
area and suggested that one way to address concerns about what sort of system to use for drainage would
be to include language flexible enough to allow curbs and gutters consistent with support of bios wales.
MINUTES--River Avenue Stakeholder Group-
Public Works Deparlment October 5, 2005 Page 9
Mr. Henry said there was value in having sidewalks and asked the group to consider having a five.foot
curbside sidewalk on the north side of the road east of the Post Office.
Ms. Vaughn asked what value such a sidewalk would add. Mr. Henry replied that without sidewalks
there was no way to have wheelchair access to that side of the road and people would have to walk in
mud.
Mr. Hill allowed as how he would agree if the businesses that were there served anyone in wheelchairs.
He reiterated the property owners' preference for no sidewalk.
Mr. Howard suggested that painted pedestrian crossings could be added to the plan to calm traffic. Mr.
Henry did not think the traffic engineer would approve of this.
Ms. Vaughn asked if there was foot or bicycle traffic to the bakery. Mr. Hill responded that occasionally
a bicycle visited the bakery.
Mr. Samer pointed out that employees needed to be considered and that there were storage lockers there
also. He also noted a sign he had recently seen advertising a teen dance at one of the locations. He
asked if Ms. Vaughn wanted to revisit the vote on the sidewalk.
Ms. Vaughn said her preference would be for a sidewalk with setbacks.
Mr. Hill stated that his business was on the property line and there was no more available right of way.
Mr. Hoobyar observed that sidewalks were being considered again.
Mr. Howard felt that the property owners had reached agreement on the sidewalks and others had been
amenable to it. He wanted the sidewalk issue to be left as it was with the first vote.
Mr. Hill wanted the sidewalk issue out of the conversation.
Mr. Meeker and Mr. Spain were undecided.
Mr. Austin wanted more discussion on the sidewalk issue. Mr. Meeker decided that he also wanted
more discussion.
Mr. Handy said the RRCO had done its best to get its proposal to people ahead oftime, but the property
owners' proposal had only been presented for review at this meeting. He asked if there was a way to go
to email and reconstruct all of the concerns into a form that .'everyone could live with." He wished to
add three amendments:
MINUTES-River A venue Stakeholder Group -
Public Works Department
October 5, 2005
Page 10
1. That the proposal incorporate operational and safety improvements to the intersection of River
Road and River A venue as suggested by city staff.
2. That the project to improve the Santa Clara bicycle connection at the east end of River A venue
be coordinated with the River Avenue road improvement project.
3. That the sidewalks on the south side be flat in order to facilitate the usage of natural swales for
stormwater drainage.
Mr. Samer moved to include a recommendation for the operational improvements to the
intersection of River Road and River Avenue be done as suggested by staff and we
recommend as a separate issue that the connectivity of bike and pedestrians underneath
Beltline from River Avenue to the north Santa Clara neighborhood be coordinated so
that is happens at the date of the River Avenue projects. Ms. Rojas provided the second.
Mr. Spain stressed that the task before the group was to look at the River A venue improvement pr~ject.
He averred that the amendments were not in line with this charge.
Mr. SameI' said that the motion added r~ommendations. Ms. Rojas did not see a point in making
separate recommendations. Ms. Vaughn averred that the proposal was for the design for the project and
the recommendations were a part of the report.
Mr. Hoobyar recapped the motion: to accept the property owners' proposal amended to incorporate
multi-use extension of the bicycle/pedestrian facility on the south side, including north side segue that
was a five-foot sidewalk, use of curbs and gutters to support a bioswale system, trees on the north side at
the discretion ofthe property owners, trees on the south side east of the post office, and the first two
aforementioned recommendations made by the RRCO.
The motion passed unanimously, 10:0.
Mr. Handy said the RRCO still needed to see the wording. He also had heard concerns expressed about
who would represent the group when the presentation was made to the City Council and whether there
would be a minority report.
Mr. Hoobyar said he would work with staff to get the proposal out to everyone.
Mr. Schoening stated that there was only room for one person to sit at the table with the council.
Mr. Hoobyar asked people who were interested in representing the group at the work session scheduled
for November 28. He noted that the motion had called for one to four people to serve in this capacity.
Mr. Howard suggested that people who were interested in serving in this capacity contact Mr. Hoobyar
and staffby email.
MINUTES-River Avenue Stakeholder Group-
Public Work.s Department
October 5. 2005
Page 11
Mr. Handy said Ms. Damron had strong feelings about representing the group at the table.
Mr. Hilt asked if Ms. Damron would be representing the whole group and not just the RRCO. Mr.
Hoobyar affirmed that she would.
Mr. Hill opined that costs for re-engineering the project should come out of Risk Management. He
asked for a response to this.
Ms. Vaughn asked about the minority report.
Mr. Hoobyar stated that he did not see a strong desire on the part of group members for a minority
report. He indicated that he would try to provide the summary report in the nexi week or two.
Ms. Cahill noted that staff had agreed to attend the community organization meetings to "close the
loop. "
Mr. Hoobyar asked if anyone aside from the community organization representative wished to attend the
meetings.
Mr. Hill said he did not want to attend but he wanted to receive any updates and graphics prior to the
City Council work session.
The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
(Recorded by Ruth Atcherson)
M:\2005\Public Works Department\Riwr Awnue Stakeholder Group\
MINUTES---River A venue Stakeholder Group-
Public Works Department
October 5, 2005
Page 12
RIVER A VENUE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
"CLOSE THE LOOP"
RIVER ROAD COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
OCTOBER 17,2005
COMMENTS
Q: Stripping of crosswalk gives pedestrians or vehicles right.....of-way?
A: Pedestrians, but be aware of vehicles not obeying right-of-way laws.
Trees planted at owner's discretion - Concern is ovvners do not live there.
Pedestrian Islands Removed - Concern less safe with just striping.
Concerned about elaborate sidewalks with low number of pedestrians.
Q: Why is project ending short of Beltline?
A: Uncertainty about Beldine work, difficulty with funding, environmental permits.
Future Howard Ave. Improvements are a concern. Speed, Pedestrians, Traffic Safety.
Q: Will this design be used for Horn Lane Improvements?
A: Horn Lane is a neighborhood collector and River Avenue is a major collector, the standards
are different for the different type of street classifications.
PedJBike crossing @ PO needs to be raised due to safety concerns
Center turn lane needs to be broken up visually with median plantings
"CLOSE THE LOOP" - PROPERTY OWNERS COMMENTS
NOVEMBER 1, 2005
Request parking spaces on the north side of River Avenue near bakery for delivery
trucks.
No turn on red for westbound right turning traffic to northbound River Road.
"Protected only" left turn signal for eastbound left from Silver Lane to northbound River
Road.
Install directional sign for eastbound Silver Lane traffic to use River Avenue instead of
using Beltline eastbound on ramp, thus eliminating traffic to merge to the right.
Project is great! !
No pedestrian median islands
Large tree near west end needs to be trimmed regularly
Sight distance for traffic when planting trees near bakery and throughout the project
needs to be considered
What happens when tree roots push up sidewalk.
Street signs coordinated with trees so trees don't hide signs.
Do not to post additional sign on River Avenue to increase the speed limit to allow
vehicles to speed up for Beltline onramp near crosswalk and offramp at east end,
coordinate with ODOr.
C:\Documents and Settings\cecxelf,Local Settings\Temporary Internet files\OLK67\200511O 1 Property Owner Comments.doc
"CLOSE THE LOOP" - SANTA CLARA COMMUNITY COMMENTS
NOVEMBER 3, 2005
Request bicycle pedestrian path connection to Division Street as part of River Avenue
project.
River Road Community Organization concerned about bio-swale and curb design
Life cycle cost of bio-swales
West of Ross Lane on north and south sides of street, there are set back sidewalks. That
setback with street trees should utilize bioswale cleaning of storm water as that area is
most heavily traveled and will need cleaning the most. So request to have bioswales with
trees where ever there is set back sidewalks. Long term cost/benefit analysis would
support use ofbio-swales instead of piping -let's do it right from the start.
Find other streets with bio-swales as an example.
Share bio-swale detail with City Council
Concerned about trees being planted on north side of River Avenue, east of the post
office at property owner's discretion.
Request if ODOT could provide longer eastbound onramp to Beltline
Do options exist to find other City funding to complete bicycle/pedestrian path
connection to Division?
Consider pervious concrete for sidewalks along River Avenue
Keep all stakeholders on board for review in advancement of River A venue design plans
C:\Documcnts and Scttings\ccexclt'\Local Scttings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK67\200SI103 seeo COffimcnts.doc
"CLOSE THE LOOP" - EUGENE BICYCLE COALITION COMMENTS
NOVEMBER 14,2005
Because of the speed of the automotive traffic eastbound on River Avenue, I think that
incorporating pedestrian islands at each pedestrian cross walk would be a safety
enhancement. I strongly urge the council to consider this pedestrian safety enhancement.
I am concerned about the safety of pedestrians crossing River A venue. Striped
crosswalks will not slow traffic. Pedestrian islands would promote safety for pedestrians
and bicyclists in crossing the street and would help slow traffic. Otherwise, I support the
project.
Painted crosswalks will not slow traffic and will likely not make the crossings safer for
pedestrians. National studies indicate the crossings can be safer if the paint is enhanced.
The best way to do this is to include pedestrian refuge islands at the crossings.
I am concerned that adding the center turn lane in the eastern end would encourage faster
traffic than the earlier design (two lanes). This assumption comes from seeing the loss of
friction from oncoming traffic.
Pedestrian Islands requested
Painted cross walks are not recognized by motorized without enhancements
C:\Documents and Settings\ceexelf\LocaJ Settings\Temponuy Intemet Files\OLK67\20051114 ERe Comments. doc
River Ave. Improvement Project
Page 1 of3
CAHILL Michelle R
From: Becky Riley [briley@efn.org}
Sent: Tuesday, November 15t 2005 5:23 PM
To: CAHILL Michelle R; SCHOENING Mark A
Cc: ORTIZ Andrea F
Subj&ct: River Ave. Improvement Project
Comments on River Avenue Improvement Project
I am a River Road resident~ and also a cyclist who uses the riverbank trail system and River Avenue to
get to the shopping areas in Santa Clara, and near Beltline and River Road. I am glad to see
improvements (especially the new road surface and bike accommodations) being made to River Avenue.
and thank the City fOf giving neighborhood residents the opportunity to comment on the design.
Improvements to Beltline underpass and River Road intersection: I support the idea that bike and
pedestrian improvements to the Beltline underpass at the east end of River Ave. be moved up in priority~
as well as improvements to the intersection of River Ave. with River Road. It makes sense that, as bike
and pedestrian improvements to River Ave. are made, improvements to these ends of the street are also
made to ensure that the street is functionally connected to the likely access points and destinations for
pedestrians and cyclists.
The wording of the recommendations from the stakeholder group specified that "operational
improvements" were recommended for the intersection of River Ave. and River Road. I am oot sure if
"operational improvements" includes improvements for pedestrians and cyclist~ but I hope it does--or
that such improvements would be done in any case, or prioritized in the City's future work plan.
Currently, cyclists who use River Ave. are dumped straight into a very hostile intersection. If they are
heading for shopping, they are then forced to mix with cars in turn lanes and again in negotiating
through busy parking lots. The City has recently highlighted with a blue colored surface the segment of
the bike lane that passes through the River RoadlBeltline interchange area. That helps make that one
small segment a bit more visible--one hopesnto drivers, and perhaps a bit safer for cyclists. Yet, the
intersection with River Ave. and areas around it remain "scary" for cyclists and pedestrians.
Improvements to make the area more safe and attractive for cyclists and pedestrians might include
pedestrian refuges or medians in the roadway. landscaping. striped and signed bike and pedestrian
pathways through large parking lots and connecting with sidewalks and street bike paths, bike racks near
commercial establishments. etc.
It has been pointed out that the area near the intersection of River Ave. and River Road already is an
incipient Mixed Use Center. with its mix of high density residential and commercial uses. This area
would function more like a walkable neighborhood center if pedestrian improvements were
incorporated. Indeed~ it seems that these improvements could be relatively easy and inexpensive for the
City to implement (or encourage commercial businesses to install), and that they could have a relatively
speedy and large positive effect in conjunction with the new improvements to River Ave. and the
existing mixed uses in the area.
Preserve and enhance natural drainage and neighborhood charact~r: The proposed design
recommendations from the stakeholder group include installation of standard curbs and gutters for the
full length and addition of a center turn lane at the east end (which had not been included. or deemed
necessary, in the original proposal by city staff). City staff and the facilitator ofthe stakeholder process
12/2/2005
River Ave. Improvement Project
Page 2 of3
have stated that natural stormwater drainage was considered ~ be very important to a majority of tile
st8keholder group. Yet. though there is a vague reference to the curbs and gutters being "consistent with
bioswale design where possible", the written recommendations contain no reoomtnendation to preserve
or enhance the existing natural stormwater drainage system on any part of the street. It also seems that
there was not time in the stakeholder meeting prooess for disc~$$ion of the property owners' proposal tQ
extend the center turn lane, and whether that would effectively preclude preservation of natura1 drainage
(by taking up too much of the right~of.way), or make it more expensive.
I hope the totality of these recommendations will be carefully evaluated and readjusted as necessary
towards the goal of preserving and enhancing natural drainage as a priority on as much of the street as
possible. AU of the streets in'River Road use a natural ditch or similar drainage system. with the
exception of the two "improved" streets-River Road and MaxweU--with their curbs, gutters, and storm
sewers. There are multiple important reasons to preserve natural drainage. It is better than piped
stonnwater systems at preserving water quality and reducing erosion; it preserves street trees and
neighborhood character; it is usually less costly than standard curb, gutter and piped systems (and
should reduce property owners' assessments); and it can do double duty as an landscape enhancement,
increasing aesthetic appeal and making the area more pedestrian--attractive.
Neighborhood residents are frequently heard commenting--at neighborhood association meetings and
elsewhere--about how Wlpleasant and alienating they find River R~ad and Maxwell. Even though these
streets have nominal bicycle and pedestrian "improvements", these are seriQusly under-utilized and
under-appreciated by pedestrians, cyclists and local residents. Instead, the str~ets at~ shunned by
cyclists and pedestrians because of the alienating visual and sensory impacts of more and wider lanes of
fast traffic, and lack of landscaping or safe crossings.
Indeed, River Road and Maxwell are the physical embodiment and constant reminder of City policies
that area residents dislike. and fear might be forced upon the neighborhood under an annexation
scenano--that is, industrial-strength lIone size fits all" city standards that are NOT compatible with our
existing values and neighborhood character. Street trees, landscaping and pedestrian refuges may seem
like relatively small and unimportant parts of a street design. and easy for t19n-resident commercial
property owners who pay assessments to want to dispense with. Natural drainage, too, may seem like an
anachronism to the City's public works staff. However, I urge the City tQ consider how important these
elements can be to the ambience and actual usage of a street by cycl~ and pedestrians-.and also to
protecting air and water quality and preserving neighborhood character. Also consider the resurgent
interest in naturalistic drainage systems in Portland, Seattle, and other communities around the country-
. their water quality benefits are now widely recognized.
River Avenue, as improved, will become aoother embodiment of the City's policies and intentions in our
neighborhood. I hope it will be a better ambassador than River Road and Maxwell, and think it can beu
but only with some adjustments to the recommendations put forward by the stakeholder group. I hope
that bioswales or other natural drainage systems will be preserved or installed on both sides of the
roadway for as much ofits length as possible, eliminating the need for standard (and expensive) curbs
and gutters. I also hope that the extension of the center turn lane will be reconsidered, and eliminated if
necessary to redooe costs and accommodate natural drainage. I believe that two lanes at the ~ end
would be sufficient to aceonunodate current and future traffic loads; and would De a lower cost design
for taxpayers and for property owners, and a less overbuilt roadway more in keeping with our
neighborhood character. Street trees that have already been removed by the City should be replaced.
and new trees planted as per standard City code-.preferably native trees, planted in naturalistic pattern.
Bioswales CQuId double as landscaping stri..~ i."",........ t1... "",.,tUft.v Slntl IIp.thlidc Illdewal1cs. so no
additional planting strip would be J'lP" .
Page 3 of3
Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
Becky Riley
202 Hawthorne Ave.
Eugene, OR 97404
Page 1 of1
CAHILL Michelle R
--~-_.-......................-......~-_.__._._._-_....-.....~...._..-_._-.._.~----~.'._~"""""'~-'---"'-----_._-_._-..........-----_.............-----_._.-.---_.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Richard Hughes [~hheal@yahoo.com]
Friday, November 18. 2005 5:54 PM
CAHILL Michelle R
Hanz Scholz; Yurl Samer; John Belcher; Rex Redmon; Cory Dawson; Greg Paul; Phil Lynch; Alan
Scholz; Jerry Welsh; Joel Wilson; Bill Cole; Mel Huey; Center for Appropriate Transport;
SHOEMAKER lee; Paul Moore; UnknownS; NICHOLSON Paul (SMTP); Dana Corbin; Moriah
Demers; Ellen Cantor; Jet Stout; Eriel Althouse; Milton Takei; Diane Bishop; Dan Robinson; Alice
Pueschner; Lynda Christiansen; Lyndell Wilken; Kurt Jensen: Richard Hughes; Jean Murphy;
Oregon Cycling; Kat Smith; HEINZKILL J Richard (UO); John Hegg; John Rindo; Rhonda Smith;
Melissa Lobofsky; Allen Hancock; Jim Wilcox; Rick Bronson; John Repllnger; REED Mark H (UO);
Karen Stingle: Webb Sussman; Sue Walling
Subject: River Avenue Transportation Improvements--- Design Proposal Fall 2005
Thank you for your excellent presentations regarding the River Avenue Project.
Currently the above project appears practical except for the absence of Pedestrian Refuge
Islands in three locations; in front of the Veterans' Clinic, and where the two bike paths on the
South side of the project meet River Avenue. These islands are necessary for pedesmans(which
includes cyclists walking their bikes) needing to cross River Avenue safely,especiaUy children
and the elderly.Traffic speeds are anticipated to increase with the additional lane being
added,making the road less safe for pedestrians.striped crosswalks provide very little
protection,if any. ,
I recommend that the River Avenue Project include Pedestrian Refuge Islands for the safety
of all citizens in the City of Eugene.
Additionally, projects like this are generally held to standards. The City Council overrode those
standards and made an exception for the River Avenue Project.Since the Council has chosen to
make an exception, the Bicycle Coalition is requesting to be notified when any project is going
to trigger one of these exceptions so that the Coalition has time to
review the project and insure that the exceptions do not prove
hazardous to bicycles.
Richard Hughes
Eugene Bicycle Coalition,member
PO Box 5506
Eugene,OR 97405
541-683-1409
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail. yahoo.com
12/6/2005
CAHILL Michelle R
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Webb Sussman [webbs@mac.com}
Tuesday. November 15, 2005 6:36 AM
CAHILL Michelle R
KELLY David S; PAPE' Gary 0; PIERCY Kitty; Yuri Samer; Sue Walling; Webb Sussman
Some concerns about aspects of the River Avenue project
To the City Council and Project Staff concerning River Avenue,
Thank you to the City Staff for your clear and concise presentation to
the Eugene Bicycle Coalition last night. Based on that presentation
the Eugene Bicycle Coalition has two concerns that we would like Staff
to pass on to the City Council when you present this project to them.
The first concern deals with the project itself and the second concern
has to do with the process the Council imposed on Staff.
Before we state these concerns fully, we want to say "Thanks" to the
staff and the Stakeholders Group for addressing most of the problems
with this project. Everyone worked very hard and we think the results
will speak for themselves. The Bicycle Coalition has one specific
issue concerning the three areas where pedestrians and bicyclists will
have to cross River Avenue.
Bicyclists and pedestrians will be encouraged to cross River Avenue in
front of the Veterans Clinic near the LTD station at the West end of
the project and the areas directly in front of where the multi-use
paths come out on to the road on the South side of the project on
either end of the Waste Treatment Plant. The Stakeholders Group
recommended painted crosswalks in these areas. Studies and our
experience has shown that motorists do not see these painted crosswalks
until they are already driving over them and without additional signs
and increased police patrols the crosswalks will be ignored. By
providing these three refuge islands, pedestrians and cyclists will be
able to safely go from the multi-use path on the South side of the
project to the bicycle lanes and the VA clinic on the North side. The
refuge islands will also serve to slow traffic - a stated concern of
the Stakeholders Group. We ask that these refuge islands be included
in the project.
Our second concern is with the process the City Council has now imposed
on these projects. By creating this special category for River Avenue
as an exception to standards the Council had agreed to and passed
ordinances to enforce, the Council has made every road project in the
City an exception to these standards. This means that Council will now
have to hear appeals on any road project in the City which some group
disagrees and may now have subjected themselves to court challenges
should they deny an exception in some future case. Staff will now have
to take extra time on all projects and budget in the likelihood that
some neighborhood group will petition Council for exceptions.
The Eugene Bicycle Coalition fought hard for those standards because
they meant that we did not have to watch every project that the city
did to make sure the bicycles and bicycle facilities were included.
This is no longer the case. We request that the City notify the
Coalition of ALL Public Works improvements which MAY impact bicycles in
writing. We request that notification be made well before any
deadlines for comment and that we have sufficient time to review the
project with staff before the comment period ends. City Council has
brought this on themselves and us and we are not happy with fact that
they are now allowing exceptions to standards which were agreed to.
Sincerely, on behalf of the Coalition,
Webb Sussman
1
River Avenue Proposed Improvement List as amended and
approved at the third. River Avenue Stakeholder Group meeting
October 5, 2005:
A THREE (3) Lane road for continuous length of River Avenue with center
lane being A turn lane only fully Improved with curb, gutters and storm
drainage. USE OF CURBS AND GUTTERS WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH, AND
SUPPORTIVE OF, BIOSWALE DESIGN WHERE POSSIBLE.
Setback sidewalks both sides (5 FT-WIDE? on west end of River Avenue up
to east end of Post Office. Curbside sidewalk (5 FT- WIDE) on north side
only from east end of Post Office to the east end of River Avenue with no
sidewalk on south side of River A venue EAST OF THE POST OFFICE. Flat
sidewalks to facilitate use of bloswaJes where possible.
Bike LANES on both sides up to east end of Post Office and connected to
bike path at west end of Wastewater Treatment Plant and then
CONNECTING TO A 12 FT. WIDE, MULTI-USE, OFF-STREET PATH on south
side only for continuous/ength of River Avenue.
STRIPED crosswalks (to control speed) at east end of Post Office, Ross Lane
and at the east end bike path across from the Orowheat store and possibly
at the VA building.
No landscaped Islands or planters on any portion of the THREE (3) lane
road. Street trees to be planted at the west end only in the setback
sidewalk area up to the east end of the Post Office. EAST OF THE POST
OFFICE TREES WILL BE PLANTED ON THE SOUTH SIDE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH CITY POLICY. ON THE NORTH SIDE, EAST OF THE POST OFFICE,
TREES WILL BE PLANTED AT PROPERTY OWNERS' DISCRETION.
IN ADDITION, THE RIVER AVENUE STAKEHOWER GROUP ALSO
RECOMMENDS THAT THE FOLLOWING WORK BE ADVANCED AND
IMPLEMENTED WITH THE RIVER AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: .
* OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS TO RIVER ROAD/RIVER A VENUE
INTERSECTION AS SUGGESTED BY CITY ENGINEERING STAFF;
* A SEPARATED BIKE/PED PATH ON SOUTH SIDE OF RIVER AVE,
CONNECTING TO SANTA CLARA NEIGHBORHOOD BENEATH BEL TLINE ON
THE EAST END OF PROJECT
"V~"'t~:
River Avenue Transportation Improvements
Design Concept Proposal Fall 2005
Comments:
N\ V NAAA~ $.<:> M~ EJ\S-r-~D 1; fTM €lv{~lfj)
~ ~eV.s lV/fl1<.vl4 ~I p. frDE -r1IB 6'us,.
ANi) ~;CC5,J( t.E /C> AN,) ~ w'd!.../L... ifNI) ;/iWtF
;pOt< /fU4'hsr Jl~ }J~ ~ ( -r.;/e S1:iJ~lA.!4Lk:. JW.JD
~lL€ LAiV€~ m td-s'f1<6fOSA-C 70 ItAB
~vAJ0 t..~ II- ~ PUW /hIv'D WELL rv1A-~ M~
eO MN\lf7E \D A:t-Jo ~ woRlL. ~ ~~
~\) ~Bt (')\.\~
Optional:
Name: IM\~ ~l-J41{D
Address: --nl trl r:;r#tWtf"" #2- .
R.X~~ 0t'ZG' 774'2-
Written comments received by 11/15/05 will be fOfWarded to City Council in the paCket
for the 11/28/05 meeting. Comments may be mailed to or dropped off at:
City of Eugene Public Works Engineering
Attention: Michelle Cahill
244 E Broadway
Eugene Or 97401
Email: michelle.r.cahill@ci.eugene.or.us
River Avenue Transportation Improvements
Design Concept Proposal Fall 2005
Comments:
fh~~ ( -if ,j ~~~~ ().-(j at~ IJ-JL/
l JjlLJ _~ A1-L~ ~.4J~ _~Hb7AdXJ rrLf1f-.
.~ 0uLL ~ yalt1-A11.&~Ll/}1A fI. 4-Irf4'ALl74 d <? /
{ ..; .AL!-/A( d.L~ J ~1lA L 6J1~ (1.AO/J-'t-d~ ~ LO--rtd cL_ rl/l ~
tlAJ./ \~ bc..((.4.-) - J.h~. 1)::fA/.iJ.. ~~
ILhri./ ()(//Vj.n1A-4h [~.. ~.6aJJ ~t~1QLU4.J
()A.!-: .(l/YL. lJ/ip~ Lli~J~~p Ltb ~~Pr1.a~i
Optional:
Name: &~~~)
I l .
Address: c3/ I ;2 /I '-4../ ())..,LL .
~~-(tl0 Q1tJOt(
Written comments received by 11/15/05 will be foiwarded to City Council in the packet
for the 11/28/05 meeting. Comments may be mailed to or dropped off at:
City of Eugene Public Works Engineering
Attention: Michelle Cahill
244 E Broadway
Eugene Or 97401
EmaU: michelle.r.cahfll@ci.eugene.or.us
River Avenue Transportation Improvements
Design Concept Proposal Fall 2005
Comments:
::r- -#';#1 fld fk eM- Y W<< "u::
;;\~t-~~ ff::t;jz~~7
()6..k:-l ?uAh'1.f. 6.. - ~ M\J)\~ 1lM.~ Wl(\
~ b~ ~V~~ lL(o)Vel<~ ~IA. t\V€A ~ ,
Optional~ .J
Name: ~I
Address: ~ e~ aJ~
~~ .9/'(0,/
Written comments received by 11/15/05 will be forwarded to City Council in the paCket
for the 11/28/05 meeting. Comments may be mailed to or dropped off at:
&ok-
City of Eugene Public Works Engineering
Attention: Michelle Cahill
244 E Broadway
Eugene Or 97401
Email: michelle.r.cahill@ci.eugene.or.us
River Avenue Transportation Improvements
Design Concept Proposal Fall 2005
Comments;
::r. aWl tlk:..sed -!o see 1he fJJ-oj:J()Se~ ~~ A~
I I
~vnv~ 0j --tk t2?.;...- tJ..'-Ie 5~kt.ha{ w}1KJ'1f
_7:-+ IS CA.. l~(ui rl~N ~+ .5V1.l--ks ~ ~ s
bf: ev~,,~. I ~"" p"AcW,l."y~ ~~ -::k See
~ye. a..v-e... /Vb /s 1a.;vJ...r Ii.) 1ka yt}~dwU . ~se
. ~:I~ ~~~;-lo /,~yt~;::~::~:wJ
/~'1? rLvs 80/~ -10 ~ d~~ S'~~ o..J
<:it . h~~ L,.f~.s+e o{} Mo~. ~s well \ :r. Q)~J Se-e.
G\ CM.+h~cJ: {IJ p~d-t'~ ~~ ~y- ~ ",-ve..
d.w...~.()-b o-P ~ QN --{h~ to..l ~
~\c..h J./.! I~+S o-P l~ve:5 -f.o ~k ~ 'rOa.d.
.e?( \C:/<....J. f 0 h +0 c..le~A..r LAp a.f2t.ev- ev-ev.1 y~v:
Optional: II . v
Name; HV1.S+ -
Addresa::,,~t~~~~ ~;4tfe
Written comments received by 11/15105 will be forwarded to City Council in the packet
for the 11/28/05 meeting. Comments may be mailed to or dropped off at:
City of Eugene Public Works Engineering
Attention: Michelle Cahill
244 E Broadway
Eugene Or 97401
Email: michelle.r.cahill@ci.eugene.or.us
River Avenue Transportation Improvements
Design Concept Proposal Fall 2005
Comments:
-::C Ii/( ~ W-<- i 1.,# f) r- 'If. 'f I f1if<< J % >'r<--<
(&t(t-- !1M/vUV-C tMrnrfs t!Jt( (jr ~>A... ~ I /)~d PN
Ikt S"'SrUeDfu7 *8" ~-eN ~~r Jr' 'feu- ItM1v1I1fJWl-ilft'rtIh
eN 1 f ~ ~1 ~t}f1.C(ed t9~t- \l..ejf' 1/ it 't r
;::;C:::' fh,.~ AhC' b('l!tY 11 h'elluy ktf-J [Vt<lc{(Y!*\. ~~ Ab.~
I ~ (;-~ It u 9,. ;r;. fi,v J j f in "e e s It 1t"C. '.1- pteel-f /) J't-(J b f-e. ""1.
1;J 'V{t({cJ(, ~ wfffc.U Jtltt:.. off~tJtY ;I;.e~ dk, 'H. "(
I'
. l"-"l' o~~d ~'f J1~ ..e qi m if Dr( W f ~ IIi rse<'A1 1Le"j
()$oJ 10 Hf'fr b~Cdtd~,:r:- dllf~ tJfY ~f'k_~ v1N, f'~
Clf1. '(? ri- LO ~ ~ K, ~ ;'jel <lJ ~ (i'f1. ~ ~1 ~-"ts ~ LDcnJ(
he iNS docY' -c f
Optional:
Name: Y6rv /My,
Address: /Q'}7 ;711
?;fc! VH-;
Written comments received by 11/15/06 will be forwarded to City Council In the packet
for the 11/28/05 meeting. Comments may be mailed to or dropped off at:
City of Eugene Public Works Engineering
Attention: Michelle Cahill
244E Broadway
Eugene Or 97401
River Avenue Transportation Improvements
Design Concept Proposal Fall 2005
Comments:
::~atu:ai a&f>>~
Addressag3 ~ke;
~ tJU 47;}OL)
Written comments received by 11/15/05 Vim be forwarded to City Council In the paCket
for the 11/28/05 meeting. Comments may be mailed to or dropped off at:
City of Eugene Public Works Engineering
Attention: Michelle Cahill
244 E Broadway
Eugene Or 97401
Email: michelle.r.cahill@ci.eugene.or.us
C'\
\)
River Avenue Transportation Improvements
Design Concept Proposal Fall 2005
Comments:
I ~N--L ~\~ ~ \\)lCf\ 0-& <~ '
Optional:
Name: A~M1S ~ h ~U-Cf\ Ii Vf'....1>
Address :,).:33 ~~ VJ..r 11 \AQ.A~
L~ ,olL d}7YoL{
Written comments received by 11/15/05 will be foiwarded to City Council in the packet
for the 11/28/05 meeting. Comments may be mailed to or dropped off at:
City of Eugene Public Works Engineering
Attention: Michelle Cahill
244 E Broadway
Eugene Or 97401
Emall: michelle.r.cahill@ci.eugene.or.us
River Avenue Transportation Improvements
Design Concept Proposal Fall 2005
Comments:
)
~5("U---
~2)('"u- wM
Y'v\ ~ Jet 1(/ Er~
Q.\ \-,' €-V\.5 \"eAf5
\
~O~hl:S~ . btA+
i"Y\'VcQ. _ ~
WJ+~ -this f('o~ os~j . 1
n 0+- lA./ low }'"'!:J ; ~ I c"..J} {"
~e... ~~re.>e::\-. J lz..hOvJ
-C' ~ - D {hq"" ,
I ~ t-~
e..SC'ec.te\\~
;-" 'f:::k
+-be
-
6fA{~~\ ~[l
..the-. ~ b(... nofJ,,'r.s
~
Cnn.D'1 D..r)c.e J
Optional: , J
Name: ~ L _
Address: ~-,.q~3
~e~~~
,
7JolIl~
,-. +l S+
OfL c:;.-,~
Written comments received by 11/1.5105 will be forwarded to City Council in the packet
for the 11/28/05 meeting. Comments may be mailed to or dropped off at:
City of Eugene Public Works Engineering
Attention: Michelle Cahill
244 E Broadway
Eugene Or 97401
Email: michelle.r.cahill@ci.eugene.or.us
River Avenue Transportation Improvements
Design Concept Proposal Fall 2005
Comments:
:L J.f AU IE CNo4L\<OO. IN Tt/,{:.. tJ:ugL IW R . /J(l~1J:
ro/l 1Jt.P70$'I 8 YiEMS. Tf/:rs ftlJN $tJlI/V05
Vf:-tf
::t:'5LI/NOS
/VeT f-!:fNk,
tioow. TilL THnkL lMJJi. fNrTl.l
:r:-.s titllifJ-l, :;:SUl-,vD ~ U5uf/-L f.(
But LfHJSfi-. (?llaBLtffiJ 5'.
NO
Dz:>
Optional:
Name: K€.\J IN (1 0 TTw I (7
Address: 9-47 J-.d-... 11cfUJ t2.D.
f.Lftr:r:R-ft 6)7- q 7t( 37
Written comments received by 11/15/05 will be forwarded to City Council in the packet
for the 11/28/05 meeting. Comments may be mailed to or dropped off at:
City of Eugene Public Works Engineering
Attention: Michelle Cahill
244 E Broadway
Eugene Or 97401
Emall: mlchelle.r.cahiU@ci.eugene.or.us
River Avenue Transportation Improvements
Design Concept Proposal Fall 2005
Comments:
--.-- /1 - n ..-- ~
...,v KNOUJ 7 I WJZ.. 1"\.Cc:kl) lll11rfu1\Jre~4!W-- .J" .RtVt7~ A v,.
atta Hdd'pti1>. <:Iiii2.1~1/~. la..4A"f: W ttt W/!}"It, ~ A u,y.
U~1Z. ::::;::. !MJ.R.tFlf.. Wrr~ 7&10 rpoJ[l"" Pa.aJ1t
Optional:
Name: ~~~III l:.. ~IF
Address: Ct.tlWJJ.~V1S r1ial2:tl4~ JtiMf"'tJ~
I '
Written comments received by 11/15/05 will be forwarded to City Council in the packet
for the 11/28/05 meeting. Comments may be mailed to or dropped off at:
City of Eugene Public Works Engineering
Attention: Michelle Cahill
244 E Broadway
Eugene Or 97401
Email: michelle.r.cahill@cl.eugene.or.us