Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/09/1984 Meeting . - . \ M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber May 9, 1984 11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Brian Obie, Cynthia Wooten, John Ball, Richard Hansen, Freeman Holmer, Joyce Nichols, Betty Smith COUNCILORS ABSENT: Emily Schue Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENT, AND AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Appointment to the Downtown Commission Ms. Nichols moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to appoint Stephanie Pearl, 1190 Washington Street, to fill the vacant position on the Downtown Commission; term to expire December 30, 1987. Councilor Obie said he appreciated Ms. Nichols motion, stating that it was an issue that the council should quickly resolve. He said he was disappointed with the situation in which Mr. Fraser found himself, stating that his decision to withdraw his name from the appointment was the community's loss. However, he said the council recognized the ability and potential that Ms. Pearl would bring to the Downtown Commission. He stressed the need to create a friendly environment for those individuals who wished to serve the City. Councilor Holmer said he would support the motion, but he wished to stress that Ms. Pearl's appointment would broaden the representation of the Downtown Commission in only one dimension. He said the council had a responsibility to think more broadly in terms of representation to involve a true cross section of the community and to live up to the affirmative action policy adopted by the council. The motion carried unanimously, 7:0. B. Riverfront Thinning Project Councilor Wooten stated that she had received numerous complaints from the residents of the Skinner Butte Park area that trees were being cut down. Having been unable to get straight information on the project, she asked staff to determine the scope of the project and to report to the council. Mayor Keller suggested that the council tour the area. Mr. Hansen agreed that MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 1984 Page 1 - a tour of the area would be appropriate. He stated that clearing brush from the bank area was probably appropriate. Ms. Wooten agreed, but she added that the issues were that of notification and how the plan was being executed. City Manager Michea1 Gleason stated that he will present a report to the council addressing the project. C. Joint City Council/Downtown Commission Meeting In preparation for the joint meeting, Councilor Obie stressed the need for addressing the issues of process and communication with the Downtown Commission. He said that while those two items might not be as great an issue as those items scheduled on the agenda for discussion, he asked the council to consider the need for working in unison with the commission. D. Appointments 1. Consideration of the Mayor's nominations to the Construction Code Board of Appeals, and the Library Board (memo distributed) 2. Consideration of Council Subcommittee nomination to the Disabled Commission (memo distributed) e Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, to approve the following nominations of the Mayor and the Council Subcommittee: Mayor's Nominations To the Construction Code Board of Appeals: Eugene Schaudt, 2730 Harlow Road (Engineer); reappointed; term to expire 1/1/89. James Coates-Chaney, 130 Crest Drive (General Contractor); to fill the position vacated by David Shellabarger, term to expire 1/1/87. Gary Peoples, 3135 W. 14th Avenue (Electrical Journeyman); to fill the position vacated by Ermal Phillips; term to expire 1/1/85. Mayor's Nominations to the Library Board: David Wildermuth, 4856 Donald Street; term to expire 1/1/88. Alea DeJung, 1988 Sylvan Street; term to expire 1/1/87. Council Subcommittee's Nominations to the Disabled Commission: Gigi Aaron, 770 E. 38th Avenue; to fill the position vacated by Pat Farrell; term to expire 1/1/86. The motion carried unanimously, 7:0. 3. Consideration of the Mayor's nominations to the Sign Code Board of Appeals. ~ Mayor withdrew this item from consideration. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 1984 Page 2 E. Announcements - 1. Safety Belt Awareness Week, May 7-13 Mayor Keller stated that .Governor Atiyeh was stressing the importance of Safety Belt Awareness Week and the benefits of using vehicle safety restraints. He agreed with the appropriateness and importance of the measure and encour- aged the councilors to promote the ideas raised in the Governor's memorandum. 2. City Council Meeting of May 21 City Manager Micheal Gleason announced that the council meeting of May 21 had been rescheduled to May 29. A dinner session with President 01um and other representatives from the University of Oregon would occur at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Gleason stated that a business meeting will be held after the dinner session. 3. City Council Revenue Work Session City Manager Micheal Gleason stated that the council still had some revenue work to complete from the previous session. He had suggested that a meeting be held on May 17. Councilors Nichols, Hansen, and Wooten requested that the meeting be postponed. Mr. Gleason stated that staff will reschedule the meeting. e F. City Council Meeting with the University of Oregon Councilor Obie said the purpose of the May 29 council meeting with President Olum and other key officials of the University of Oregon was to explore and share the economic development opportunities and resources available at the University, to expand the partnership developed between the City and the University, and to discuss the Riverfront project. He stressed the need for the meeting to begin at 5 p.m. so that these items could be fully discussed before the 7:30 p.m. regular council meeting. II. ROUTINE ITEM FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL: City Council minutes of the regular and work session meetings of March 12, 1984; work session of March 14, 1984; regular and work session meetings of April 11, 1984; and meeting of April 18, 1984 (minutes distributed) Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, to approve the City Council minutes of March 12, 1984; March 14, 1984; April 11, 1984; and April 18, 1984. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS - A. Supplemental Budget #6 (memo, background information distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. He stated that the Budget Committee had approved the supplemental budget and that Finance Director Warren Wong was present to answer any questions. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 1984 Page 3 ~ - The public hearing was opened. There being no testimony presented, the public hearing was closed. CB 2743--An ordinance adopting a supplemental budget; making appropriations for the City of Eugene for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1983, and ending June 30, 1984; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. Council Bill 2743 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19247). e At 11:47 a.m. the meeting of the Eugene City Council was adjourned to a meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene. Mayor Keller opened the meeting. B. Eugene Renewal Agency Supplemental Budget #6 (memo, background information distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the item. He explained that this supplemental budget had already been reviewed and approved by the Budget Committee. He stated that Finance Director Warren Wong was present to answer any questions. Res. No. 904--A resolution adopting a supplemental budget; making appropriations for Eugene Renewal Agency for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1983, and ending June 30, 1984. The public hearing was opened. There being no testimony presented, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, to adopt, as the Urban Renewal Agency, the resolution. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. At 11:49 a.m., Mayor Keller adjourned the meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency and reconvened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 1984 Page 4 - e e IV. JOB TRAINING CENTER PROGRAM YEAR 1984 GRANT APPROVAL (memo distributed) City Manager Michea1 Gleason introduced the agenda item. Chris Pryor, Chair of the Eugene Private Industry Council, presented the staff report. He reviewed the April 30, 1984, memorandum from the Eugene Job Training Center staff to the City Council which outlined the proposed use of the $1,234,793 12-month grant. He stressed that the intent was to maintain the high level of program performance even under the reduced funding level. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, to approve the operating plan and Job Training Partnership Act grant for the Eugene Job Training Center as recommended by the Eugene Private Industry Council. Councilor Ball commented that Eugene continued to operate the most cost-effective programs in the country despite the budget cutbacks. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. V. LETTER TO SOVIET CITY OF KOMSOMOL'SK-NA-AMURE (memo, letter distributed) City Manager Michea1 Gleason introduced the agenda item. Councilor Wooten presented the report, stating that she had been asked by the Eugene Pairing Project Committee to present a request for the council to sign a letter of greeting to the Soviet city of Komsomol'sk-na-Amure. While no one could have foreseen the withdrawal of the USSR from the 1984 Summer Olympics, Ms. Wooten said the letter as a gesture of peace and friendship was quite poignant in light of that incident. She stated that a description of the Pairing Project and the draft letter had been distributed to the council. Ms. Wooten then introduced Kate Gessert of the Eugene Pairing Project Committee. Ms. Gessert introduced several other members of the committee. She stated that many others were unable to attend the meeting because of school or jobs. She explained that the committee had collected information on Eugene to send to the similarly situated City in Siberia, adding that it was the belief of the committee that anything that lessened tension was helpful in obtaining world peace. Ms. Gessert stated that the committee was motivated by its desire for peace and friendship and its curiosity about the Soviet people. She felt that the committee members had learned much of Eugene during the process. She encouraged the council to join the committee's actions and to sign the letter which would be forwarded with the community portrait of Eugene. Mayor Keller said he felt the project was worthwhile, agreeing that any oppor- tunity to share on a personal level would relieve tensions and that friendships will develop over time as a result of the project. He stressed the importance of the involvement of children in the project. Councilor Wooten said she had distributed the letter to the other councilors. She asked that the councilors sign the letter so that it could be returned to the committee. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 1984 Page 5 e e e Councilor Holmer said he appreciated the comments of Mayor Keller, stating that he had visited numerous foreign cities. While he recognized the importance of communication, he said the Pairing Project started as a peop1e-to-peop1e project; he felt it was inappropriate for the Mayor and City Council to communicate on official stationery to the local government of Komsomo1'sk-na-Amure. He said that such action by the City of Eugene could be interpreted as a sign of support for the Soviet withdrawal from the 1984 Summer Olympics. He said he will not sign the letter, but he will submit a personal letter which could be incorporated with the official letter. Councilor Wooten said she took exception to Mr. Holmer's comments, stressing that the letter was a straightforward gesture which should not be misinterpreted. She said that the letter was a peop1e-to- people gesture. Mayor Keller said that he and the other members of the council would respect the feelings of Mr. Holmer. Councilor Hansen said he will sign the letter but suggested that the letter be addressed to the people of the Soviet city rather than the local government. Ms. Wooten responded that it was the assumption that the local government represented the people and was therefore the logical recipient of the letter. Mr. Hansen stated that he had signed the letter but had crossed out his title of "Councilor." The meeting was adjourned to the McNutt Room at 12:03 p.m. for a joint meeting with the Downtown Commission. Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order at 12:14 p.m. by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. COMMISSIONERS: James R. McCoy, Donald Genasci (until 1:36), David Filer (from 12:23), Thomas A. Schott, Michael Schwartz, Anne Bennett, Hugh Prichard, Stephanie Pearl. IV. JOINT COUNCIL/DOWNTOWN COMMISSION MEETING Mayor Keller welcomed the members of the Downtown Commission. Elaine Stewart of the Eugene Development Department reviewed the agenda for the joint meeting. Downtown Commission Chair James McCoy requested that the discussion topic of communication and process between the City Council and the Downtown Commission be added to the agenda. A. Downtown Plan Time Line Mr. Coy stated that the Downtown Commission had reorganized the time line for the Downtown Plan as requested by the City Council at its April 25 meeting. He stated that the DTC would begin its series of presentations on the plan to community groups that evening. Referring to the Downtown Plan Schedule attached to the May 4, 1984, EDD memorandum to the DTC, Mr. McCoy stated that a pUblic informational meeting was scheduled for June 11 and a public hearing on June 18. He expected the plan to be forwarded by the DTC to the Planning Commission on July 24, with subsequent forwarding to the City Council by the end of August. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 1984 Page 6 e e e In response to a question, Mr. McCoy stated that the DTC would be making its presentations to a wide range of neighborhood, arts, and ~ business groups. Councilor Smith requested that the council be provided with summaries of the public hearings for review. In response to a question on the neighborhood groups requesting the DTC presentation, Mr. McCoy stated that the DTC will be addressing the Neighborhood Leaders and those neighborhood groups bordering the downtown. He added that the DTC was willing to address any group request- ing the presentation. B. Renewal Plan Amendment (Wi11amette and 10th/11th Avenues) Mr. McCoy said the DTC wanted to begin its Renewal Plan Amendment process immediately following the forwarding of the draft Downtown Plan to the Planning Commission in order to provide ample opportunity for public comment on the plan. He said the opening of Willamette Street at 10th and 11th avenues was a major project and required public input. He stated that the council and the Planning Commission will begin work on the plan in September, with construction to begin in November. Mr. McCoy felt that this construction schedule would be inappropriate due to the nearness of the Christmas season. Referring to the May 4, 1984, memorandum, he stated that he supported the EDD staff recommenda- tion that construction be postponed until March 1985. In response to a question, he said the construction period would be approximately four months. Mr. Filer entered the meeting at this time. Councilor Hansen expressed concern with having the mall area torn up with construction during the summer; he stressed that construction should be completed by May 1985. Councilor Wooten said the City Council was the Eugene Renewal Agency and therefore could possibly shorten the time frame for the amendment process. Ms. Stewart agreed that the time frame for the design review could be compressed, but she added that it was still necessary for the Planning Commission to review the plan. Ms. Wooten suggested that some of the public hearings could be held jointly with the Planning Commission. Councilor Obie agreed with Ms. Wooten's comments, stressing the importance of the input of the DTC. He suggested that construction could begin in January or February 1985. City Manager Michea1 Gleason stated that preliminary construction could begin in January or February 1985 but added it was unrealistic to assume that construction could be completed in less than four months. He explained that the purchase and delivery of the mastheads for lighting and signalization would take approximately nine to eleven months and could be done only after the intersection was designed. While he agreed with the need to push ahead with the date, he did not believe that the street could be opened prior to Christmas 1984 or before March 1985. In response to a question on temporary signalization, Mr. Gleason said the key factor was the relationship of the Lane Transit District buses and their ingress/access in the design. He stressed that the signaling must be totally reliable to avoid any accident or tort risk. He added that mastheads would still be necessary for signalization. City Attorney Tim Sercombe said the design and the installation of the lighting and signalization must conform with State statutes. Mr. Gleason said that the City's only protection against tort liability was that the lighting and signalization meet State and Federal standards. In response to a question, MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 1984 Page 7 e e - Mr. Gleason explained that the design process would begin when the plan was forwarded from the DTC to the Planning Commission. He expected the design to be completed by December 1984 and go out to bid in January 1985. While some preliminary site work would be performed in January or February, he said it would not alter the completion date for mastheads installation. Mr. Schwartz commented that a nine-to eleven-month delivery time for the mastheads could postpone completion of the project until December 1985. Mr. Gleason agreed, stressing the need for completion of the design. Councilor Hansen questioned the feasibility of using the present system for signalization and opening Wi11amette Street to one-way traffic. Mr. Gleason responded that it was the expectation that the project would be completed at one time rather than in phases. Councilor Wooten said she appreciated the comments by staff, but she still wanted to compress the amendment process as much as possible. Mr. Gleason said the City was constrained by State statutes which adopted the National Public Works Standards for street lights. Mr. Schwartz asked if it was possible to proceed with the design process while retaining the present mastheads. Mr. Gleason said numerous alternatives were available for the design process but the City would be constrained by the final design. He said he still believed that the earliest project completion date would be March 1985. Councilor Obie stressed that the council and the DTC should be careful not to encumber the process so that construction could begin at the earliest possible date. In response to a question on the opening of Wi11amette Street, Mr. Prichard said the DTC had discussed removing that item from the Downtown Plan to facilitate its completion. He said the majority of the DTC voted to proceed through the public process. He added that the project could not be hastened because of the need for public input. Mr. Filer said Mr. Prichard's comments were correct, stating that the project was developed as part of the refinement plan. He said the DTC felt strongly that all ideas must be presented to the public. Councilor Obie agreed with Mr. Prichard's comments but expressed his concern about the delay of the project. He said the project should be com- pleted as soon as possible and that the council and the DTC should press staff toward its completion. Ms. Bennett said the DTC compromise on the issue was to hasten the amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan in order to synchronize the two plans. Councilor Hansen said that some frustration was being felt because of the lack of progress in the downtown. He stressed that one area in which progress could be made within one or two years was traffic patterns through the downtown. Referring to the need for communication, Councilor Obie said the downtown was deteriorating and that it was the responsibility of the council and the DTC to correct that situation. Councilor Wooten said she shared Mr. Obie's concerns. She said she appreciated the work of the DTC and agreed that the public should have the opportunity to respond to the plan. She also stressed the need to shorten the amendment process. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 1984 Page 8 e e - It was the general oplnlon of the council that the staff recommendation should be adopted but that the amendment process should be shortened if possible, each group making sure not to cause any procedural delays. Some concern was expressed about why the process was not further along. Mr. Schwartz stressed that better communication between the two groups would assist the process. He felt that the DTC had facilitated the process. He agreed that the public process and the Renewal Plan Amendment should be hastened. In response to a question, Councilor Wooten suggested that it might be possible to combine the public hearings for the boards and commissions. Ms. Bennett said the DTC will hold its hearings on the Downtown Plan and then hold its public hearing on the Renewal Plan in August, the input from both to be correlated so that con- struction could begin in December. Ms. Wooten said the integrity of the plan must be maintained. Councilor Ball said he believed that any actions performed during the next three months would not make any difference in the completion of the project. Mr. Schwartz stressed that the project would operate more efficiently if the amendment process was completed earlier. Mr. Gleason stated that Mr. Ball was correct that the project will be delayed until the next construction season if it is retained in the Downtown Plan. He added that Mr. Schwartz.s comments were correct in regard to the amendment process, but he stressed that the key factor in beginning construction was the bid process. Councilor Holmer said that part of the delay was the public process. He suggested that a joint hearing on June 18 would fulfill the public hearing requirement without minimizing the opportunity for public input. He stated that it might be possible to complete the Renewal Plan amendment process by August if the council, DTC, and Planning Commission held a joint meeting. EDD Director John Porter clarified that the July 24 meeting was not a public hearing. He said it would be appropriate to have a joint public hearing with the council and the Planning Commission, stating that the DTC needed time to incorporate any public input from its public hearing. Mr. Holmer said he was only recommending that public testimony be heard at one time. Mayor Keller said he could support that idea, stating that 80 percent of the testimony presented before each group would be approximately the same. Mr. Gleason said that some de nova problems or statutory requirements could exist which a joint meeting would not address. While he said that staff will explore the issue, he reiterated that the project completion date would only be affected by the date when the council approved the final project design and configuration. Mr. Porter added that the council would have to hold a public hearing to hear any revised draft recommended by the DTC based on public input. Mr. Genasci said the DTC must set its priorities after the public hearing before submitting its recommendations to the City Council. He stressed that it was important that the issues not occur simultaneously. Mr. Gleason stated that staff will accept direction from the City Council and the DTC to expedite the process on the project plans and construction as consistent with the law. He said that some other laws relating to changing public works projects were also involved. Mr. Obie added that staff should attempt to have the project completed by May I, 1985. In regard to the joint public hearing, Mr. Gleason said the DTC will go through the hearings process; any change based on public input must go through the Planning Commission and the City Council, at which point a joint hearing could be held. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 1984 Page 9 e e - Teresa Bishow of the Planning Department stated that the Downtown Plan material which specified the June 18 DTC public hearing was already printed and will be distributed in the near future. She said that joint public hearings later in the process might be appropriate. Mr. Prichard said that many people will be attending the DTC public hearing. He suggested that the Downtown Commission sequence be left as scheduled and a joint public hearing be held by the Planning Commission and the City Council. In response to a question on the scheduled public hearing for the Planning Commission, Mr. Gleason stated that the schedule provided only one week of flexibility. Ms. Bishow said the request for minutes of the DTC public hearing would also create a time con- straint. Councilor Obie suggested that a joint public hearing by the Planning Commission and the City Council be held on August 6. Ms. Bishow said the DTC public hearing date had already been published. She explained that those individuals testifying at the hearing and those requiring update information would be notified of future public meetings. Mr. McCoy said he recognized the frustration of the City Council. He said the DTC had been pushing the process by preparing for the project; he did not want to see any delays created by haste. He felt that the process will be done correctly. C. Eighth and Wi11amette Improvement Project Referring to a map of the the project area. Mr. Genasci said the DTC wanted to complete the mall without impinging on the Wil1amette Street site. He said the project was expected to take three months, not including tree planting. and that construction would take place over the summer. Councilor Obie said he was concerned that the retail center developers might expand their stUdy area to include the 8th and Wi1lamette area. Mr. Genasci said it was the contention of the DTC that Wi1lamette Street be the main street of Eugene; he felt it was unlikely that the project area would be impacted by any retail center development. He said the DTC wanted to complete the 8th and Wi1lamette Street area. In response to a question. he said that the traffic on 8th Avenue would carry through as currently operating. Councilor Smith said she had received a petition from surrounding retailers. She asked what efforts toward communication with these individuals had been attempted. Ms. Stewart said that staff had been working with the Eugene Downtown Association but had not contacted the property owners because the DTC had just taken action on the project. Ms. Smith said she was concerned with the City moving ahead with the project if objections were being raised by the retailers. Mr. Genasci said the DTC will attempt to address the concerns of the area retailers but added that Bob Coleman. the project designer, had stated that the actual time the area would be torn up was about one month. He said the other work required was minor and could be performed throughout the summer. Ms. Bennett said that the only comments she had received from retailers were those merchants along Olive Street who were concerned about tree planting. Mr. Schwartz said the mall must still be completed under the agreement with HUD. He said he could support the project if the design was generic enough to allow further opening of Wil1amette Street if so desired. He felt that any retailer would desire the area to be completed to present a better image. With regard to the cost of the project. he said that funding was already approved; therefore. the remaining issue was the completion date for the project. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 1984 Page 10 e e - Councilor Smith said that one of the questions raised by the council was that it did not feel a clear answer on funding had been presented. Mr. Gleason stated that the City could deal with any necessary accounting procedures; he said the City Council must decide whether it wanted to proceed with the project. Mr. Ball temporarily left the meeting at this time. Councilor Obie said he understood Ms. Stewart to say that a public hearing would be held to deal with any controversies created in the process and then the recommendation would be presented to the council. Mr. Gleason stated that this process would be independent of the plan. Ms. Stewart said the project will require the approval of the City Council as the Urban Renewal Agency for funding. She explained that the pUblic will have an opportunity to provide input on the project as revised by the council on May 8. Mr. Obie encouraged the DTC on the process, stating that the council should add some influence and authority to the work of the DTC. He stressed that the public should be made confident that action will occur. In response to a question, Mr. Genasci said the DTC had not discussed the issue of tree planting on 8th Avenue. In response to a question, Mr. Schwartz said the DTC was unified in its recommendation to the City Council to proceed with the project. He said the DTC will proceed with the design work if given that direction. In response to a question, Ms. Stewart explained that all DTC meetings constituted public hearings and that the public could respond to any issues at the DTC meeting the following week. In response to a question, Mr. Gleason stated that the developer was designing a schematic as directed by the DTC. Once the schematics were drafted, the subsequent steps would be further design refinements, bids, and then refining the schematic based on the costs. Mayor Keller said that he would like to discuss the plan with the developer, stating that such input was important. In response to a question, Mr. Gleason said he had not seen the schematic and could not provide any information on preliminary traffic patterns. Mr. Porter said that it was important that the public understand that the two projects were not both under the Urban Renewal Plan. Councilor Obie agreed that contact with the retail center developer would be appropriate. Mr. McCoy said he had discussed the project briefly with the developer. Mr. Genasci also agreed with the suggestion that the developer should be contacted. He clarified that the DTC proposal would not preclude any circulation in the area. Mr. Ball returned to the meeting at this time. Mr. Filer clarified that it was always recognized that retail or professional development would occur along Wil1amette Street. He stressed that it was also recognized that Wi1lamette Street would be rebuilt as the main street of Eugene. He felt that Wi11amette Street should be treated as proposed and not based on any ideas of the developer. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 1984 Page 11 - e - Mr. McCoy said that the DTC voted to proceed with the project although several reasons in opposition had existed. While the vote was not unanimous, he said the DTC wished to proceed with the project. He said he was alarmed with the lack of communication between staff, the DTC, and the City Council and urged that such communication be improved. Ms. Smith temporarily left the meeting at this time. Mr. Schwartz said it was important to complete the project to finish the center portion of the corridor between the train station and 21st Avenue. He said this would provide a basis for futher development and projects. Mr. Genasci left the meeting at this time. D. Broadway Improvements Mr. McCoy said the DTC suggested that the design work proceed so that some cost estimates could be developed. Councilor Holmer commented that the parking meters on the north side of 8th Avenue between Pearl and Oaks streets would have to be relocated for two-way traffic. Ms. Smith returned to the meeting at this time. E. Other Items Councilor Obie, responding to the comments of Mr. McCoy on the communication between the DTC and the City Council, said the frustration experienced by the DTC on the 8th and Wi11amette Street project was comparable with the council's in regard to the 10th and 11th avenues project. Based on this idea, he said he would be supportive of moving ahead with the project once the issues raised during the meeting were addressed. He said the responsibility for the project was being placed on the DTC. Councilor Ball said he expected the DTC to act autonomously in completing the project. Mr. Schwartz said the DTC was in general agreement on opening Broadway; he asked for clarification of whether that issue was outside the DTC boundary. Ms. Stewart said it was outside the Urban Renewal boundary, therefore renewal funds were not available for the project. Referring to Mr. Ball's comments, he felt the council was not completely clear in its position on the 8th and Wi11amette project. He said he objected to the choking off of 8th Avenue. He felt the council should give a positive statement to the DTC. Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to approve the revised improvement plan by which 8th Avenue would not be choked off, that the DTC provide the opportunity for public input at its next meeting, and that the DTC address those concerns and support the general concept of the funding program. In response to a question, Councilor Hansen said he would leave it up to the DTC to contact the developer. He felt that the project would proceed nonetheless. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 1984 Page 12 >-e -- - Mayor Keller stated that the developer will be contacted in an attempt to obtain his opinion on t~e proposed project. Mr. Schwartz said it was important that the council and the DTC meet more often to address problems of the downtown. He suggested that such meetings be held on a quarterly basis. Mayor Keller agreed, adding that Ms. Smith's request for an update on the DTC process was appropriate. Councilor Smith suggested that the update could be scheduled for a dinner meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 1:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~~. ~c~~.~lea n- Ci ty Manager (Recorded by Thorn Strunk) MDG:TS:pv/CM8b1 MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 1984 Page 13