|
<br />..'..~~ it; ~-l
<br />Counciimen WllLiami and Moh;.referred to the stat~me.nta:pproved by the Council
<br />which appears in tju~:. ;joter' s: 'Parnphlet,.whicb indicates. right-of-way acquisitioI:l. of
<br />. . ~.. '.: . ','. -" '. - " , . ,-
<br />the Parkway as one of thepz;oj"ectsffb:f. which - the funds will be used, and ask~d
<br />'whether affirmation of ,that statement is what is required. Manager said it was
<br />- ' felt clarification of the Council's intent, having enough information before the .~~
<br />'. voters as to what use is intended for funds from the bond issue, might remove the',..<'
<br />- question of controversy about this project and would not be a matter of considera-
<br />.tion by the voters in casting their ballots on the bond issue. He suggested the I
<br />'alternative of submitting at the next election clarification of this particular
<br />question and saying in the meantime that funds from this bond issue, if approved,
<br />,would not be used for the Amazon Parkway until that issue is settled.
<br />
<br />Discussion followed on items listed in the voter's pamphlet statement and the
<br />.Council's authority to cancel or substitute projects, possibility of removing :
<br />chance for litigation if the Council states clearly at this point that none of
<br />. the funds derived from this ballot measure will be used for right-of-way purchase I
<br />rfor any major new construction, and question of whether any statement would bind
<br />,future Councils' actions.
<br />
<br />Councilmen Hershner and Williams felt there would be further confusion in the
<br />voters' minds were the Council to make a statement at this time contrary to the' .:..
<br />position taken in the voter's pamphlet statement. Mr. Swanson said anY,actiorz
<br />taken at this time would not bind future Councils, but at the same i:Jme would no.t,
<br />Change the situation with respect to attendant risks in action taken by future
<br />'Councils.
<br />
<br />.. Ed Kenyon, Register-Guard reporter, asked if there would be grounds -for legal ;~.:-
<br />"action should a person holding property for sale to the City for right-of-way fo':r.:~,
<br />new construction miss that opportuni ty. Mr. Swanson expressed no opinion but s~i d.'
<br />there was no attempt to make the list of projects in the pamphlet statement de-
<br />terminati ve; the Council would still have the power to use the funds as it de-
<br />I termines is necessary. The statement was designed to give some idea of what
<br />was_ tr~~n~ to.be..acc:>mplished with the_ ~ney being asked._ ___._
<br />
<br />Betty Niven, Planning Commission member, said nothing has been said about those I
<br />people who may be unhappy if right-of-way is not acquired for the '.Amazon Parkway. \
<br />, She noted that this arterial has been planned for twenty years and right-of-way "\ ,\\
<br />for its ali gnment protected. ,h i
<br />
<br />Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the Council reaffirm its statement
<br />in the voter's pamphlet with regard to Ballot Measure No. 52, and urge Eugene citizens
<br />, to read the statements in the pamphlet.
<br />
<br />Ralph Aldave, attorney, said that any new arterial route cannot be detetmined except
<br />by formal action of the Council. He said there is no question now but that DEQ will '
<br />'be concerned about any new route, and money should not be cOnmlltted to acquisition
<br />. of right-of-way for a project such as the Amazon Parkway until environmental impact
<br />.;:::t;:;:\. . statements are made and the route approved. He said if the Council's-pos-itiotl re-
<br />: mains the same - to purchase right-of-way with a portion of the bcmd issue - there i
<br />' will be those who vote against the measure for that reason. ~
<br />I
<br />./
<br />
<br />rIn-- a~swer to Councilman Bradshaw, Manager said both the Planning COnmllssion and the
<br />('"Council approved the Amazon Parkway route in 1964. Councilman Hershner said if the
<br />measure passes and if the Counc:il decides to use funds to purchase right-of-way
<br />every consideration would be given to the environmental impact. It would not appear
<br />to be relevant to the motion stated since future Councils would not be bound by this
<br />! Council's considerations. .
<br />~
<br />. Steve Hewi tt (no address gi ven) opposed the motion, stating that if funds from the
<br />bond issue are to be used for right-of-way purchase it should so state clearly in ,
<br />" the ballot ti tIe. Mary Briscoe, president of the League of Women Voters, distributed;
<br />, to Council members copies of statement of the League's _ posi tion wi th regard to the f
<br />i Meas ure . I Comm
<br />. li/l/72
<br />Lack of time prevented further discussion and the Chair declared that no action File
<br />'would be taken, but that the item would be put on the consent calendar for the
<br />, !Ng~c:m1l:!e;r; 6 _ Council meeting.
<br />": "'. ,,__, .", 4 _". .___~ ___._ ~_ _"~~_ _. _ ___'__ . ........... __" . _.~_ __ __.___'
<br />
<br />
<br />.- '-. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that Items A through N above be ap:!?roved, ~ffirmed, and
<br />filed as noted. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, motlon carrled.
<br />. ,
<br />- . ,.
<br />
<br />
<br />III - Items Not Previously Discussed . .,
<br />A. Sidewalk Variance Laurelhurst Drive north of. Royal ,- Plannlng Commlss'lon on
<br />October 9, 1972 r~commended approval of req~est for waive~ of si~ewalk construc-
<br />t.i,.Qn in fn;mt of one lo.cati9n on t~e we~_ts:I,.de of Laurelhurf:lt Dr:I,ve north of
<br />
<br />Royal Ayenue'. 332-
<br />
<br />11(6(72 - 10
<br />
<br />. -
<br />
|