12/16/1985 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Answering questions from Mr. Hansen, Ms. Andersen said any additional hearings e on other alternatives must be held by ODOT; the City cannot facilitate ODOT evaluation and public hearings. The record of City hearings will be part of the pUblic record which ODOT will consider. Mr. Gleason said it would probably take ODOT at least six months to evaluate another alternative. Beginning the council's deliberation, Ms. Wooten said she had concerns about all the alternatives. She said all the councilors were reluctant to approve a limited access road through the heart of the industrial area. It appears existing businesses are being sacrificed. She was anguished by the issue, but she was prepared to approve Alternative #1. She did not think the council had enough information about the other alternatives. She was bitter about the "box" the council seemed to be in. However, she was convinced of the need for the project. She wanted the council to participate in the design of the highway, recommend an east end elevation that will protect as many businesses as possible, and be cautious about right-of-way acquisition because it sometimes affects other businesses. Mr. Miller agreed with Ms. Wooten. He said approval of Alternative #1 now will keep the council's options open. Mr. Rutan said approval of Alternative #1 with a caveat that changes might be made later would not be acting in good faith. Ms. Wooten responded that she had suggested approving Alternative #1 with the understanding that the council will consider public comments and work with e ODOT to respond to the comments. The only alternative was to do nothing. She did not think the 5th Avenue route was appealing and the 5th/7th avenue couplet would be dangerous. Mr. Hansen said the only option the council has is to approve Alternative #1. He was not satisfied with the process. He said the council's decision should be definitive. Ms. Bascom said an east/west connector is needed. Phases 1, 2, and 3 of the improvement of 6th and 7th avenues need to be continued. She said it had been cruel to tour the area and find, for example, that The Willamette Valley Company is exactly the kind of business the City wants to recruit. She had reconsidered the other alternatives, but they did not seem adequate. She said proceeding is about all the council could do. Defending the process, Mr. Holmer said the Citizen Advisory Committee had functioned and public hearings had been held. He said a decision had to be made to meet the need. He would support Alternative #1. Ms. Ehrman said the 6th/7th extension will decrease problems on 11th and 18th avenues. She found it troubling that the project will adversely affect some businesses. She said all the councilors seemed to want to direct the staff to mitigate the adverse impacts. Ms. Schue said it was unfortunate the councilor on the Citizen Advisory Committee is no longer on the council. She favored approving the recommenda- e tions of the Citizen Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission. She did not think the council had much choice. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 16, 1985 Page 6