LUTC Meeting Minutes 2015-06-08

Minutes of Eliot Neighborhood Association Land Use and Transportation Committee 2015-06-08

DRAFT- not yet approved

Minutes submitted by Paul Van Orden (thanks Paul)

Committee Members Present : Phil, Allan, Clint, Paul, Mike, Montserrat (new member)

Others who signed in: Mary Batson, Sharri Miller-Regan

City Guests: Rich Newlands— PBOT, 

Phil suggests we talk about starting the meeting at 7 PM not 6:30 PM. Allan decrees that the meeting shall henceforth start at 7 PM to enable a larger representation of members being able to attend at the start of the meeting.

Allan briefly discusses the last meetings discussion  on the Kaiser Towers project at N Williams and NE Fremont.

Discussion on the Rodney Bike-way:

Rich Newlands, from PBOT explains that even though there were no apparent traffic increases on the side streets, we are responding to the impacts on capacity to pass through for NE Ivy neighbors and other folks at the intersection at NE Rodney and NE Ivy.

Rich notes, PBOT has learned of a new approach that one might call a semi-diverter.  Often these designs are a concern because semi diverters come with fairly high levels of offenders ignoring the traffic control designs.  This new design for a semi diverter that coul deb impleneted to replace the NE Ivy/ Rodney diverter offers a number of protections to keep people from violating the one way driving design of this semi-diverter.  Rich presented the land-use committee with a graphic/ aerial photo that best explains the design

There will be no net parking loss with this design.

The emergency response issue will allow the responders to go right down the street the wrong way, as they do in other one way situations.

A key element of the design is the look and feel of a one way street.   This does not seem to be a concern to have the cars regularly parked on NE Rodney from Ivy North to Fremont to create the one way feel.

The traffic engineers are still exploring if one or two curb extension are necessary in the current design.

A question is asked about how much reduction does one need for the proper reduced crossing distance.  Clearly installing both extensions is better for safety.  It may be overkill in this case.

Rich says we would want to hold another public meeting to get the input from the area neighbors as we move to this new design.   Maybe the meeting could be here at the St Philips church.

Neighbor Mary Batson, a neighbor on NE Ivy mentions she likes this new design from her needs, but wants to make sure that the neighbors on NE Rodney who may not like this design get a chance to comment on it.

Clint asks how easy will it be to do a trial with all the road painting needed to activate this approach?  Rich says he is going to need to check into a bit more to see what our options are going to be moving forward.

Clint also asks about the predicted percentage of bikers who are going to go around and create safety issues.  Clint also suggests a sign to keep bikes in the lane North bound.

Rich discusses the possibility of PBOT exploring speed bumps on Cook and Ivy ( between Williams and Rodney ??)  to offer some help , even thought the numbers do not show a current speeding issue.

Neighbor on NE Ivy, Sharri Miller, mentions that the two of the response folks had to make a judgement call about going through the barrier or divert.  They chose to divert and drive an extra distance to get to a emergency call at her house. Rich says the design was permeable.  They should have known they could go through the design.  Sharri is not a fan of a permanent change being on the table and asks for keeping a flexible mindset, plan and dialog on what works best at this location.

Sharri mentions that Williams and Fremont are already terrible, and Mary Batson says she agrees.

Rich Newlands says going forward, he needs to check if he can more forward as only a test, or if we need a little stronger finalization and support from Eliot.

Montse says she did not think Rodney was an issue running and jogging in the area in the past. She can now see why neighbors are upset at the volume concern.  Why are we building this Greenway at all?  Put some speed bumps and we are good.

Clint says he was initially against the project based on the stop signs, but I did get comments about going to ride some of the greenways, so I did.  I came to like the project.  He thinks doing nothing is the wrong choice.

Paul says he is in support and feels it is a better approach then the last one to balance community perspectives.

Allan asks if Rich wants a letter of support?

Rich says that would be helpful.  They have an engineering kick off today.  it is good to get in the cue for the maintenance PBOT folks to do the install.

Rich wants to have a petitioner to reach out to the neighbors on Cook and Ivy to ask about getting speed bumps.  Rich says we need to get 2/3 (?) of the neighbors support to move forward.  If community approval at that level is gained,  they would be installed every 300 feet , from Williams to MLK.

NEXT ITEM:

Mike Warwick makes a motion to appoint Montse, vote is 5 people in favor, 0 against motion. Zero abstain.  Motion passes.

Sarabeth Long was not present but the group discusses the tree arborist report conflict she brought to our attention with a developers report of trees at 623 NE Thompson being debunked by a experienced arborist for the City.   Errors in the report related to both the size and the actual species being identified completely incorrectly.

There is no more space on the property to put the same girth of trees back on the property.  The developer will likely just pay not the tree fund under the City Tree Program.

Clint says,  ”I want to understand exactly what this means” regarding how this will affect the development going forward or not.  It seems like it will just increase the fee for the developer if they choose to go forward.

Notices received:

3111 NE Monroe is a Short tern rental notice that we received.

436 NE Ivy is a demo request before us.

Montse asks if we can place a limit on the short term rentals that a developer brings forthin their projects?

Montse says she experienced short term rentals in San Francisco. The building next to her had that happen there where many units became short term rentals and the folks renting the units out told their short term renters just to tell folks that they were the primary lessee’s cousin or aunt.

Paul said the discussion is moot with no significant enforcement to date.

Allan says they should just tax people until they get up to $250, since  its a lot of money to do it upfront.

3116 N Vancouver.  City rejected their building proposal on a bunch of grounds,  it is the understanding of the land use committee that there is a number of notable items for the developer on the Bureau of Development Services formal “checksheet” that need to be rectified.  There were quite a few items for the developer to address was one interpretation Mike offered.

Meeting adjourned at 8:02 PM.

Advertisements