There's a ton of material, and at a glance it looks like rather than letting values drive decisions, the Staff Reports are designed to have too much detail and to slow-walk decisions. There's something weird about all the stuff and clutter. It's like "are you sure you want to do this?"
Maybe this misunderstand things. At the very least, it's a reminder of the vast amount of material we ask Councilors to understand, and a reminder of the time it requires for that understanding. To exercise real oversight and not merely to "rubber-stamp" staff recommendations is a lot of work.
We're just going to look at a few transportation things here.
One of the reports is on the 17 recommended actions arising out of the Congestion Relief Task Force.
|Do we really need a UGB amendment|
for a right-sized Marine Drive?
You might remember from back in 2016 a discussion of some of the Administrative Rules that would govern Marine Drive:
660-012-0065A collector-level Marine Drive for local traffic would not necessarily require an amendment to the Urban Growth Boundary.
Transportation Improvements on Rural Lands
(3) The following transportation improvements are consistent with Goals 3, 4, 11, and 14 subject to the requirements of this rule:
(g) New access roads and collectors within a built or committed exception area, or in other areas where the function of the road is to reduce local access to or local traffic on a state highway. These roads shall be limited to two travel lanes. Private access and intersections shall be limited to rural needs or to provide adequate emergency access.
(h) Bikeways, footpaths and recreation trails not otherwise allowed as a modification or part of an existing road;
(i) Park and ride lots; [italics added]
|The TSP currently calls for a "collector" level Marine Drive|
(Street System Element of February 2016)