04/25/1988 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e amenities, one of which was the train whistles blowing. Mr. Howe said he hoped that if the whistle free zone was enacted, it could be modified to allow whistles during the daytime. Gerald Morsello, 2643 Kincaid, spoke under other comment. He said he had been raised in a railroad family and he recognized the safety concerns as well as the problems experienced by residents. He said he supported a compromise, and the staff report had been unclear about whether the PUC would consider a compromise according to time of day. Mr. Morsello said it was more important to establish a whistle free zone during the night because lights on crossing arms and headlights of approaching engines had a clearer impact at night. He said more activity by pedestrians, vehicles, and children playing along the tracks occurred in the daytime, and it therefore was important to allow whistles during the day. Mr. Morsello said he, too, used the Amtrak whistle as a measure of time, which he would miss. He also said he felt the whistle provided a form of advertising for an energy-efficient form of transportation. Mr. Morsello requested that if the City Council wished to pass a whistle free zone, it specify nighttime hours in order to satisfy both residents and the safety concerns of Southern Pacific. e Bill Blair responded that he did not favor a modified zone. He said representatives of EWEB had informed him that they favored the proposal. He said EWEB had been given permi.ssion from Southern Pacific to use the railroad crossing as an egress only, and gates were locked from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. There being no further requests to testify, Mayor Obie closed the public hearing. Mr. Reinhard presented staff response to issues raised in testimony. He said the PUC generally did not favor the idea of whistle free zones, and he expected railroad representatives to oppose the idea at a public hearing. Reasons for opposition included safety concerns and workability. He suggested the council discuss whether it favored a whistle free zone and perhaps presenting proposals as first and second choices. Mr. Holmer asked about legal liabilities and the function of the PUC if whistles were prohibited. Mr. Reinhard said he did not believe the City ever could be completely absolved of liability, but he felt Oregon administrative rules provided a sound process for developing whistle free zones. Tim Sercombe of the City Attorney's Office said the discretionary function defense against tort claims in Oregon provided that the City could not be held liable for the effects of City Council policy decisions. He said he believed creation of the whistle free zone would be such a policy decision and would allow a defense against any tort claim. Ms. Schue asked whether gates existed at all crossings in the proposed zone. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 25, 1988 Page 5