Item 4 - PH on River Ave.LID - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mary O'Brien, 3525 Gilham Road, asked, regarding information on the MOU for the WEP, what "facilitate delivery of a new city street" meant. She noted that County Public Works Director Ollie Snowden had asked who would pay for the cost of this new city street if the $17.7 million approved by the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) did not cover its total cost. She related that he also wondered which agency would be responsible for constructing the separated connection of the WEP to Highway 99. She recommended getting the answers to these questions and holding a public hearing prior to signing an MOU. She said, should a new city street be needed for the WEP project, the whole process should be opened to alternative street approaches, but to date, these approaches had been kept off the table as it had been presented to the voting public as a state highway. She thought the City, should it enter into the MOU, could be forced to pay for part of the construction and maintenance of the project. Gordon Howard, 425 River Avenue, was present to speak to the council on what he considered to be unethical behavior regarding the formation of a local improvement district (LID) to improve River Avenue. He related that City staff had asked the Hearings Official, Milo Mecham, not to send his report to the City Council. He thought this was due to staff having received signed remonstrance forms fi.om 31 of the 33 land owners that would be affected by assessments for street improvements. He thought that staff was withholding the Hearings Official report and other information. He opined this was unethical behavior. He likened the proposed annexation to an "end run" around the will of the people. James Reed, 990 Crest Drive, spoke on behalf of a large group of people in his neighborhood concerned with and opposed to the designation of Crest Drive as a collector street. He asserted the plan could just as easily be executed with local street designations. He said staff had yet to answer most of the questions asked at the neighborhood meeting with City staff and elected officials. He asked the council to consider the merits of the anonymous web-based comment form and weigh the comments against the active public comment that has gone on throughout this issue. He also asked staff to provide the agenda for the next neighborhood meeting at least a week prior to the meeting date. He recognized, on a positive note, that City staff had met with neighborhood representatives on street designs and pedestrian amenities that were in accordance with what neighbors believed would be acceptable. He conveyed the neighborhood's desire for some level of commitment on these ideas. Kevin Matthews, 120 West Broadway, president of Friends of Eugene, called the alleged shift of the WEP fi:om a State highway to a city street a "fundamental change." He asked why this conversion was suggested to occur. He asserted that "shuffling" a project fi:om one jurisdiction to another without any public input would not solve transportation issues in West Eugene. He predicted that the project would not come to fruition because of fundamental federal, State, and local problems with it. He recommended asking questions first and signing the MOU when the time was appropriate. Phillip Farrington, 1160 Monroe Street, vice president of the Oregon chapter of the American Planning Association, spoke in support of the resolution to oppose Ballot Measure 37. He said just compensation laws were already on the books for the regulatory taking of property. He predicted that the passing of the Ballot Measure would present an exorbitant cost to the State of Oregon and local jurisdictions and would cause irreparable harm to planning and land use. Chuck Meeker, 309 River Avenue, owner of Clemens Marina, conveyed the opposition of the property owners on River Avenue to the proposed street improvements. He explained that they were not opposed to street improvements per se, but could not afford the assessments, projected to be more than $1 million. He called the project "over-built" and extreme. He reiterated Mr. Howard's statement that 31 of 33 property owners had signed letters of remonstrance. He stressed that no businesses relied on pedestrian traffic for their business and felt this indicated that large sidewalks on either side of the street were unnecessary. He MINUTES---Eugene City Council September 13, 2004 Page 2 Regular Session River Avenue Exhibit C