Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Mr. Reinhard explained that Alternative One would require no changes in the <br /> . EIS or any further public hearings and therefore rated very high under <br /> implementation criteria. Alternative One, with an elevated section, is also <br /> rated very high and would not require changes in the EIS. The State will hold <br /> a public hearing on Wednesday, December 18, 1985; they will develop a report <br /> by the end of January which will be brought back to the City Council in the <br /> form of recommendations. By mid-February, the City Council will need to act <br /> on these recommendations in order to put the proposal on the ballot in March. <br /> Mr. Miller asked if the other alternatives (the 5th/7th Couplet and the 5th <br /> Avenue Alternative) could still be considered even though they are not <br /> included in the EIS. He also asked why they were not included in the EIS. <br /> Mr. Reinhard responded that the 5th/7th Couplet and the 5th Avenue Alternative <br /> were considered and were rejected earlier in the planning process. The <br /> Citizen Advisory Committee also reviewed them along with a number of other <br /> alternatives. Mr. Gix added that several alternatives, including these, were <br /> investigated in light of the EIS, but there is not enough data to proceed with <br /> them under the present EIS. Mr. Hansen asked if anything could be done prior <br /> to the vote deadline in March, if the City Council wanted to recommend either <br /> the 5th/7th Couplet or the 5th Avenue Alternative. Mr. McKinley said that it <br /> would take considerably longer to get an EIS for these other alternatives, and <br /> probably could not be done within the time frame described; the final EIS <br /> would have to include all the data. Mr. Obie asked if the 5th Avenue <br /> Alternative was possible, and Mr. McKinley answered that it was not entirely <br /> outside the scope of the EIS, but the vote would need to be delayed. Mr. Gix <br /> agreed and said that an additional public hearing would need to be held for <br /> . this alternative. Ms. Andersen explained that the somewhat lower point scale <br /> for these two alternatives was because of the possible need to extend the time <br /> frame. <br /> Mr. Holmer asked what the price tag for the project would be and Mr. Reinhard <br /> responded that it would be $16 million, based on the draft EIS. <br /> In response to Ms. Ehrman's concern, Mr. Gix explained that when the State <br /> Transportation Commission decides what projects will be in the Six-Year <br /> Highway Improvement Program, they want to be sure that the project can be <br /> built; this requires a vote before a decision to include it can be made. <br /> Mr. Gleason added that if the project is not included in the Six-Year Program, <br /> then it will not be funded, and the project would be delayed at least two <br /> years. <br /> Mr. Reinhard continued by giving some background on the 5th/7th Couplet <br /> Alternative. Mr. Hansen asked what kind of response was received from those <br /> who objected to the 5th/7th Couplet's effect on businesses. Mr. Duke said <br /> that there were two problems: l} docking from the blind side by semis would <br /> affect all businesses on the south side of 7th Place; 2} businesses which have <br /> an on-site circulation in conflict with the proposed flow would be affected, <br /> especially those businesses who use the street to get from one side of their <br /> building to the other. <br /> . <br /> MINUTES--City Council Work Session December 16, 1985 Page 2 <br />