11/15/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In response to another question by Councilor Obie, Mr. Gleason explained that a vote-by-mail would require the State to agree to the vote and must be held e on a regular election date. He said that a vote-by-mail election in March would have to be performed in conjunction with LCC and the Eugene school districts. He said the cost of the election would be approximately the same. He said that the Elections Officer had suggested that distribution of a voters' pamphlet would be appropriate. In response to a question by Councilor Holmer, Mr. Gleason said the purpose of a March election would be to take advantage of the full construction season. He said staff has secured an agreement from the State that the project could be under bid and under construction that spring; however, it may create some problem with the contractors to have paving completed by September. The public hearing was opened. Brian Bauske, 1012 West 8th Avenue, said that he had previously stated to the council that any action to remove the trees from the downtown section of the project would result in a public outcry and that it would be difficult to justify the downtown section of the project based on the traffic projection in the environmental impact statement. He said he had supported the project and had voted against the Historic Tree Ordinance. Stating that he had chaired the Design Review Committee which reviewed and modified the design of Phase I in order to save the majority of the trees in that section, he said passage of the ordinance was a public comment against the tree-cutting and the first phase of the project. He suggested that all three segments of the project should be placed on a ballot by the people. He commented that the environ- mental impact statement for the entire project has been prepared and plans for the total project have been approved by the Planning Commission and the City - Council. Mr. Bauske stated that such a vote would allow staff to determine the pUblic's desires were and could possibly generate greater support for the latter two segments. He said a strong case could be made to the State for proceeding with those two phases even if public approval for Phase I was denied, and it might be possible to reallocate Phase I funding for reconstruc- tion of the 1-105 interchange. Richard Gold, 4275 Oak Street, commented that holding another election would be a waste of money. He felt that those people present at the hearing were concerned about the city's environment and that everyone should be more concerned with the environment in the future. Harold Chapman, 51 Chapman Drive, stated that he was opposed to a special election being held in December because it was necessary that all Eugene residents be fUlly informed of the importance outcome of the election to those individuals residing within the metropolitan area. He stated that any election be held in March, 1985, so that all issues could be discussed by the public. Ronald Lovinger, 1445 East 21st Avenue, said he could not believe that the City would incur the expense of an election since the passage of the Historic Tree Ordinance had already expressed the opinion of the Eugene residents in support of the trees. He stated that he had previously testified to the council that the residents of Eugene must share responsibility for its future. He said he supported progressive and enlightened development. Stating that the city trees were Eugene's heritage and formed the landscape e structure, Mr. Lovinger stressed that it would be a tragedy for the city to lose those trees. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 1984 Page 3