11/15/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

\ - has performed some preliminary survey work on Phase II. While she felt that staff could develop a preliminary design for Phase II in time for the March e election, she said it would not allow any time for citizen involvement or for proper public notification. Mr. Hansen asked if a detailed design was necessary for the election, stating that a process as followed by the Design Review Committee for Phase I would allow for adequate public input. Mr. Sercombe explained that Section 4 of the Charter Amendment required that a map and description of the widening and removal of historic street trees be published for four consecutive weeks before the election. Mr. Hansen urged that staff to continue its work if a decision was not required during the present hearing. Councilor Ehrman asked if a vote on the entire project could be held without the tree issue, stating that she saw the two as separate issues. Mr. Sercombe said the council could schedule an advisory vote that would not implement the provisions on the widening project. In response to a question regarding the division of the project into phases, Ms. Andersen said staff would like to have a vote addressing the entire project. She said staff was concerned with performing a preliminary design which limited design options, stating that staff wanted adequate time to develop a design addressing both the trees and the widening project. In response to a question by Councilor Holmer regarding the T-2000 Plan, Ms. Andersen said the plan was adopted in 1978 and included the 6th/7th Avenues Widening Project at that time. She explained that the phasing of the projects was generally for construction and funding purposes. Mr. Gleason said staff was attempting to combine Phases II and III into one project. . In response to a question by Councilor Schue regarding staff's opinion on Phase I, Ms. Andersen said the decision to start with Phase I was made by the State on the basis of starting at one end of the project or the other. She said that staff believed that Phase I will eventually be needed. Mr. Gleason explained that the 9,000 or more people working in the core area and the 5,000 or more individuals working in the University area generated traffic, adding that the area of Phase I acted as a collector while the areas of Phases II and III worked as through streets. He said staff felt that the capacity for both streets will be needed earlier than the 20 years as projected. In response to a question by Councilor Hansen, Dave Reinhard of Public Works stated that approximately 50 percent of 6th and 7th avenues were four lane and at the actual width of the final project. Mr. Hansen asked if there was any indication that the T-2000 Plan projections were not accurate. Mr. Gleason said the T-2000 Plan recommended four lanes for 6th and 7th avenues. He stated that incorporating the new land use data into the plan will probably increase the original projections. He stated that no projection figures will decrease the current traffic loads; therefore, he said the projections were conservative. In response to a question by Mayor Kellert Mr. Sercombe said he believed that the State could perform Phase I of the project without a vote of the people. He said the only existing agreement regarding the project was between the City and the State in August, 1984. He did not believe that a law passed could not e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 1984 Page 7