Laserfiche WebLink
was emphasized and ODOT had an option to construct a wall at the top of the slope to accommodate the <br />widening, thereby saving most, if not all, of the trees. The challenge was that there were no funds currently <br />available for that option, estimated at $600-700,000. He said in the interim, while funding was identified; <br />only trees that would be affected by construction of the wall would be removed. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling commented that a wall had also been planned on the east side of the highway on Willamalane <br />Park and Recreation District’s property, but Willamalane preferred a slope and perhaps the funds for that <br />wall could be used for the west side of that section. Mr. Upton replied that the wall on the east side would <br />actually be on ODOT property and was mandated by two federal permits. It would be necessary to <br />convince the federal permitting agencies that a slope could be appropriately substituted for a wall and even <br />if that occurred there would not be sufficient funds remaining for a wall on the east side. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling commended ODOT for its public outreach regarding the project and efforts to respond to the <br />interests and concerns of interested parties. He felt it was worth the effort to maintain the area in as natural <br />a condition as possible and the council should indicate its wish to have the stand of trees preserved. Mr. <br />Ruiz said staff would prepare language for a motion if that was the wish of the council. Ms. Piercy <br />determined that councilors were in agreement with Mr. Poling’s suggestion. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if the community had the ability to change the designed width of the bridge. Mr. Upton <br />said that would not be possible at this point in the project, but although the bridge would have the capacity <br />for three lanes in each direction in the future it would only be striped for two lanes when completed. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if the temporary bridge would be removed. Mr. Upton replied that it would be removed <br />and the beams salvaged for other projects. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if there was controversy over the bridge design. Mr. Upton said the current configuration <br />was popular. <br /> <br />C. WORK SESSION: <br /> Downtown Outcomes <br /> <br />Mr. Ruiz introduced Dr. Gary Manross from Strategy Research Institute to present the results of a recent <br />survey on the level of public interest and support for downtown revitalization. He said the council’s <br />collective statements developed in previous work sessions had begun to express expectations for downtown <br />and the next step was to consider what projects and initiatives might help to achieve those expectations and <br />the tools that were necessary, including the urban renewal district. He said the focus of the presentation was <br />expectations, projects and initiatives, to be followed by a discussion of tools at a future work session. <br /> <br />Dr. Manross explained the methodology used to conduct the survey and used a slide presentation to display <br />the results. He said on a list of issues of local concern, economic development (jobs) topped the list and <br />most people agreed that Eugene was a great community and they were happy to live there. He reviewed the <br />results for questions related to the City’s budget, adequacy of public parks and open space, the need for <br />urban renewal and more living wage jobs. He said over half of those surveyed were aware of plans to <br />revitalize downtown, almost 90 percent regarded downtown development as important and 75 percent felt it <br />should be made a priority. <br /> <br />Continuing, Dr. Manross said the highest priority elements for downtown revitalization were expansion of <br />Lane Community College’s downtown campus and a veterans’ medical clinic, followed by funds for <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 14, 2009 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />