Laserfiche WebLink
<br />". <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />M I NUT E S <br /> <br />Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session <br />Eugene Community Conference Center--Studios Band C <br /> <br />March 13, 1986 <br />5:15 p.m. <br /> <br />COUNCILORS PRESENT: Mayor Brian B. Obie; Richard Hansen, Jeff Miller, <br />Freeman Holmer, Emily Schue, Roger Rutan, Ruth Bascom. <br /> <br />COUNCILORS ABSENT: Debra Ehrman, Cynthia Wooten. <br /> <br />STAFF: <br /> <br />Mike Gleason, city manager; Dave Whitlow, assistant city manager; <br />Christine Andersen, Public Works Director; Bert Teitzel, Sandra <br />Gleason, Public Works/Engineering; Nathan Duke, Mike Weishar, Public <br />Works/Transportation; Kirk McKinley, Planning; Russell Mecredy, <br />Citizen Advisory Committee; Jim Gix, regional engineer. <br /> <br />Carole Donigan, KMTR; Jim Boyd, The Register-Guard. <br /> <br />MEDIA: <br /> <br />Mayor Obie opened the meeting. <br /> <br />The Mayor asked staff to include in this session a review of the River <br />Road/Santa Clara Refinement Plan, which is the subject of tonight's hearing <br />He also asked members of the delegation to report on their recent visit to <br />Washington, D.C. <br /> <br />I. 6TH/7TH EXTENSION PROJECT UPDATE <br /> <br />Mr. McKinley presented the staff report on the 6th/7th Extension Project. <br />He said the purpose of tonight's update was to review all the east end options <br />that would be included in the supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. <br />Mr. McKinley also said because the State was proceeding rapidly on preparing <br />the Supplemental Report that it was important that the council present any <br />additional alternatives or issues at tonight's meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Rutan said he thought all alternatives already had been included, and <br />additions would require redrafting the EIS, which had been rejected. <br />Mr. McKinley said staff was developing a supplemental EIS, which would examine <br />right-of-way and cost impacts on the east end. He said if new alternatives <br />were presented now, they might require redrafting the EIS, depending on how <br />much the alternatives differed from present plans. <br /> <br />Mr. McKinley reviewed the updated timeline (March 13, 1986, memo) and the <br />summary of alternatives and preliminary cost estimates that had been <br />distributed. He added that only the east end of the project, from Seneca to <br />Highway 99 or to Garfield, was under discussion. <br /> <br />MINUTES--City Council Dinner/Work Session <br /> <br />March 13, 1986 <br /> <br />Page 1 <br />