07/29/1987 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

that could develop proposals for the fountain and central space. She said proposals could include a low-cost potential of opening the street to traffic e latert adding that she thought public support existed for some improvements to the area. Mr. Rutan said 90 percent of the comments he had received on the issue had favored the opening. Ms. Bascom said she did not think a majority would favor the openingt but she did favor referring the issue to voters for resolution because it required technical information. She suggested proceeding with a design committee. Mr. Rutan said he heard support for auto traffic and for no auto traffict and he did not think a compromise position would satisfy either group. Mr. Holmer said he had read a draft of the minutes of the public hearingt and it had not changed his mind. He said he still thought the street needed to be opened and he thought specific design options should be presented to the public. He said he agreed with the suggestion to have a design committee consider at least two optionst one with the street open and one without. Mr. Holmer said his contacts conformed more closely to the results cited by Mr. Rutan than to those of the hearing or letters to the editor. He said he thought a specific design should be reviewedt and the option should be left open within the Urban Renewal Plan. He also said he thought public interest in the issue was so deep that the Council dare not act without in some way consulting the generality of public opinion. Ms. Wooten said she thought the Council had an obligation to make a decision before establishing a design committee. Mr. Holmer said he favored making a recommendation to voters, but he thought another option should be available in case they rejected the Council's recommendation. He also said he did not want to make a commitment e until the Council had seen an explicit design. Mr. Miller said he thought a potential development would be a factor in the decisiont and if no development was likely, then money should not be wasted on useless projects. Ms. Ehrman noted that the opening of Willamette Street had been linked to the fountaint the new streetscape design on BroadwaYt and the rest of Broadway. She said she thought the Council had agreed that rest rooms were needed somewhere downtownt and she asked whether expansion of the Broadway streetscape could proceed without a decision on Wi 1 lamette Street. Mr. Farkas said the financing capacity would need to be examinedt but the Council could direct staff to do that. He added that it would make sense to consider the entire project together. Mr. Gleason said the cost of staffing a Broadway project could preclude further deals for major projects on Willamette Street. He said the increment available if not spent on the project would allow investment in Willamette and Broadway. He said that if economics were the driving factort the Council could proceed with design plans and then not implement the plans unless the increment flow was significant enough to make it valuable. He said he thought the issue should be explored in broader terms than just whether to introduce auto traffic. Ms. Ehrman said she understood Mr. Rutan's concern about not counting heads to decide the issue, but she added that her constituency did not appear to agree e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 29t 1987 Page 10