By QUINTON SMITH/YachatsNews.com
Under pressure from some residents to shrink the size of a street project, the Yachats City Council decided Wednesday to look at alternatives before deciding how or whether to go ahead with it.
The council agreed to hold an online, public work session at 9:30 a.m. Aug. 19 to go over possible alternatives to a proposed $165,000 plan to rebuild a 100-yard section of Driftwood Lane adjacent to the city’s 4-acre former ball field. If there’s agreement at the morning meeting, the council said it could approve something when it meets formally at 2 o’clock that afternoon.
Current plans call for a two-lane street, two sidewalks and 18 parking spaces – which some people now say is too big a footprint for the space.
Before then, the council and City Manager Shannon Beaucaire have to figure out how to get information out to residents and businesses and – at the council’s request – ask two or three city commissions to once again weigh in.
The Oregon Department of Transportation has awarded Yachats a $100,000 grant that expires in December 2021 to pay for the bulk of the project. The agency has approved the current design by the city’s engineer and would have to sign off on a new design if the project changes significantly.
The city’s portion is coming from visitor amenity funds – taxes collected from motels and vacation rentals – that must be spent on tourist-related capital projects, which can include parking. That expenditure was approved this spring by the Budget Committee and later by the council.
The city has $250,000 set aside for parking projects, but has not touched the money in at least three years.
The Driftwood Lane project had already been endorsed by two city commissions and approved in a 3-2 council vote in June. It was headed for final approval July 15 when Councilors Leslie Vaaler and Mary Ellen O’Shaughnessey used a parliamentary procedure to remove it from that agenda put it on Wednesday’s agenda.
In the meantime:
- Two residents initiated an email campaign to council members asking people to object to the scope and cost of the project. That generated several dozen objections – and apparently a change of heart by Councilor Max Glenn, who had been a staunch supporter of the current design.
- The Parks andCommons Commission, which in May gave its approval to the project, changed its wishes at its July meeting and asked the city to add language to any accepted bid that would allow it to be scaled back.
- Three residents who are Planning Commission members but writing as individuals, wrote to the council saying the city could do better than what is proposed.
- And, this month residents and current council members began filing for election for two council seats and the mayor’s position in the Nov. 3 general election.
Both Glenn and Mayor John Moore appeared to be open Wednesday to more discussion of changes to the project, both saying they heard objections “loud and clear.”
“Every one of you objected to the scope of the project,” Moore said.
Glenn said he was now opposed to the project eating into green space. “There’s some alternatives … so I’m open to looking at alternatives,” he said.
The only reluctance came from Councilor Jim Tooke, who again expressed his frustration with how city government, its residents and the council address many issues. He said the city’s transportation plan calls for off-street parking, better traffic flow and safe sidewalks. The former ball field is barely used, he said, and two commissions have OK’d the project.
“At some point you have to make decisions on what you want to do,” Tooke said. “Sometimes we just don’t seem able to move forward.”
Jacqueline Danos, a Planning Commission member, said staff distractions and meeting limitations in response to the coronavirus pandemic played a role in the project proceeding without better public knowledge.
That drew agreement from Bob Bennett, chair of the Public Works and Streets commission, which twice approved the project. He said there was not adequate time between the city getting the grant and plans being drawn “for people to realize the scope of the project.”
Bennett said the city has to find a better way for people to understand what projects are in the city budget and see what’s being proposed.
“We stumble sometimes,” Danos said. “But I’m not fan of this; it’s over-engineered. Is there a way to do it outside of a traffic engineer and make it more of a community-center project?”
But it was not clear Wednesday how the city will corral all the objections, comments and ideas on the project — especially after the council asked that Parks and Commons, Public Works and Streets and now the Planning Commission get involved again – and come up with a consensus that might pass muster with ODOT.
No council member, including the two who opposed the project, and no city staff have offered compromises or alternatives – other than to agree to schedule another online meeting with 30-40 people participating.
Beaucaire said the city engineer had sent “quick, down and dirty” sketches of two street designs to her Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, which she tried to put in council packets that stretched to hundreds of pages. She said the city would put all the Driftwood Lane documents in one place on the city website so people can look at all the material.
“We need to try to make sure that people who sent in comments get involved,” Tooke said. “… but we cannot continue to delay.”
Here’s a thought; widen it for one row of parking from the charging station to the church. Make it one way, traffic flow to the north.