11/15/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In response to his question to staff regarding an analysis of the impact on trees within the entire project area, Mr. Gleason stated that in a March e election the City could not pinpoint the trees to be eliminated in Phases II and III. Stating that staff had been criticized for not having sufficient public input for Phase I, he explained that the City did not control the public input process and it was only later that the staff, at the request of the council, prevailed upon the State to add additional public hearings. He said staff would like to design Phase II so that public input was possible and so that impacts could be mitigatted. He said an election in March would require either a general analysis or a process so fast that it would preclude any public input. He stated that it might be difficult to convince the State to allow the City to design Phase II of the project until a public vote was held. In response to a related question on the two election dates, Mr./Gleason said staff was recommending a March election on Phase I, and if the vote were favorable, then hold another election in May through August on the subsequent phases of the project and the extension project. He said a vote on the entire project by August would still allow time for submission of the project to the State for incorporation in the Six-Year Plan. Ms. Andersen added that no activity would occur between December and March that would involve a decision by the State regarding the construction process. In response to a question by Councilor Obie regarding an election time schedule, Mr. Sercombe stated that at least 35 days before an election was needed to publicize a measure on the election. He stated that staff would have to know the design details for Phases II and III by mid-February in order to properly notify the public. Responding to a question by Councilor Wooten regarding designs for Phases II e and III, Mr. Gleason explained that the State project was supported by Federal Highway funds. He said the City could possibly obtain the right to perform the design work and then propose that the phases be included in the State's proposed Six-Year Plan. He said that includsion of the design in the plan did not guarantee any funding. He said that inclusion of the design in the plan did not guarantee any funding. He said it was his opinion that there was no chance that funds would be reallocated from Phase I to Phase II because the State was hesitant to commit to a project that was not supported by the community. He said the State'wished to complete projects funded by the Federal government because then it could receive a reallocation from the pool from those states that could not complete their projects. Ms. Andersen said the risk existed in asking the Transportation Commission to substitute Phase II for Phase I in the Six-Year Plan. In response to a question by Councilor Wooten regarding Phase I, Mr. Sercombe stated that it was his opinion that the City would prevail in any litigation resulting from the City and State proceed- ing with Phase I of the project. He said the question still remained of convincing the State to proceed without an election being held. He said the State wished to have a vote by the people before proceeding with Phase I of the project. Councilor Hansen stated that few trees in Phases II and III of the project would be affected by the Historic Tree Ordinance. He asked if staff could determine the path of the project for Phases II and III and identify the trees to be affected in time for an election in March. Ms. Andersen said the State e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 1984 Page 6