Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/15/1984 Meeting M I NUT E S - Eugene City Council City Council Chamber November 15, 1984 5:25 p.m. , COUNCILORS PRESENT: Brian Obie, Cynthia Wooten, Debra Ehrman, Dick Hansen, Freeman Holmer, Emily Schue COUNCILORS ABSENT: Ruth Bascom Special meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. I. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL ELECTION CONCERNING RECONSTRUCTION AND WIDENING OF 6TH AND 7TH AVENUES (ordinances, resolutions distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Pub 1 i c Works Director Chris Andersen presented the staff report, stating that the decision before the council was whether to hold a pUblic election on the first phase of the 6th/7th Widening Project, and, if so, whether a special election should be held on December 20, 1984, or on the next regular general election date of March 26, 1985. Referring to a map of the project, Ms. Andersen reviewed the three phases of the Widening Project as listed in the State Six-Year e Transportation Plan. She then reviewed the following options before the counci 1 : l. Not hold an election and request the State to award the contract for the first phase for the project from High Street to Washington Street. Ms. Andersen commented that the State was hesitant to proceed with this option due to possible litigation involved in its apparent disregard of the Ballot Measure 52 election. 2. Hold a special election on December 20, 1984. Ms. Andersen said staff felt that an election on this date would create a hardship for the electorate. She said staff could only recommend this option if funding for the project were in jeopardy if an election were not held on this date. 3. Include a vote on the project in the next regularly scheduled general election on March 26, 1985. Ms. Andersen said that this option would allow time for the public to be informed of the issues involved in the project and would still allow the same construction schedule as an earlier election. She said the State has agreed to hold the funding for the project if the election is held on March; therefore, staff was recommending this option. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 1984 Page 1 1 Ms. Andersen explained that the State was initiating its Capital .Improve- ment Program Update would be adopting its Six-Year Plan in July 1986, the e process for that adoption beginning in January 1985. She explained that the City of Eugene must have an election on Phases II and III of the widening project, which falls under the Historic Tree Ordinance, in order to be competitive in securing funds for those phases. She said staff was recommending an election be held that would incorporate the widening phases as well as the 6th/7th Avenues Extension Project. Referring to a timeline which will allow for such a process, Ms. Andersen explained that the State was preparing an environmental impact statement for the extension project, to be available for public review in early 1986, with a possible alignment determination by June 1985. She commented that if the City does not have a project listed for construction funding in the draft Six-Year Plan which is presented to the State Transportation Commission, it will be difficult to get a project added prior to adoption of the plan in July 1986. Ms. Andersen then reviewed the proposed timeline for the design and funding of Phases II and III of the 6th/7th Avenues Widening Project and the EIS review for the 6th/7th Avenues Extension Project, the former to begin in December, 1984, and ending in September, 1985, and the latter to begin in early 1985. She explained that the timeline would allow the City to meet deadlines for elections and for incorporation of the project in the State's Six-Year Plan Update. In response to a question by Councilor Ehrman regarding the language of the Historic Tree Ordinance, Ms. Andersen said it was unclear how much preliminary work was required but that any election on the subsequent project phases would have to clearly identify where any impact on historic trees would occur. City - Attorney Tim Sercombe explained that the charter amendment required publication of the proposed widening and designation of those trees to be affected for four consecutive weeks prior to the election, thus requiring specific informa- tion to be developed before any election could be held. In response to a question by Councior Wooten regarding the bids on the project, Mr. Sercombe said the State could keep the bids open with the concurrence of the bidders and delay the award; however, there has been some difficulty with the low bidder and the State was inclined to reject all bids and rebid the project. Responding to a related question, Ms. Andersen said the project plan incor- porated a weave or shifting of the center line three or four feet. She said the plan also included special conditions and requirements for handling trees in the constuction area. She said she was not sure how any more specific conditions for tree maintenance could be incorporated into the plan. She added that it would be possible for the City arborist to review the bid specifications before being submitted for bid. Mr. Gleason said the City could assume greater responsibility for post-project maintenance to mitigate any project shock on the trees. In response to a question by Councilor Obie regarding any financial impact of the two election dates, Ms. Andersen said that staff did not have any projected cost to the City since the project was State-funded. Mr. Gleason explained that a special election would cost approximately $15,000 to $17,000 while the cost of the March election would be shared with Lane Community College and the Eugene school districts. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 1984 Page 2 In response to another question by Councilor Obie, Mr. Gleason explained that a vote-by-mail would require the State to agree to the vote and must be held e on a regular election date. He said that a vote-by-mail election in March would have to be performed in conjunction with LCC and the Eugene school districts. He said the cost of the election would be approximately the same. He said that the Elections Officer had suggested that distribution of a voters' pamphlet would be appropriate. In response to a question by Councilor Holmer, Mr. Gleason said the purpose of a March election would be to take advantage of the full construction season. He said staff has secured an agreement from the State that the project could be under bid and under construction that spring; however, it may create some problem with the contractors to have paving completed by September. The public hearing was opened. Brian Bauske, 1012 West 8th Avenue, said that he had previously stated to the council that any action to remove the trees from the downtown section of the project would result in a public outcry and that it would be difficult to justify the downtown section of the project based on the traffic projection in the environmental impact statement. He said he had supported the project and had voted against the Historic Tree Ordinance. Stating that he had chaired the Design Review Committee which reviewed and modified the design of Phase I in order to save the majority of the trees in that section, he said passage of the ordinance was a public comment against the tree-cutting and the first phase of the project. He suggested that all three segments of the project should be placed on a ballot by the people. He commented that the environ- mental impact statement for the entire project has been prepared and plans for the total project have been approved by the Planning Commission and the City - Council. Mr. Bauske stated that such a vote would allow staff to determine the pUblic's desires were and could possibly generate greater support for the latter two segments. He said a strong case could be made to the State for proceeding with those two phases even if public approval for Phase I was denied, and it might be possible to reallocate Phase I funding for reconstruc- tion of the 1-105 interchange. Richard Gold, 4275 Oak Street, commented that holding another election would be a waste of money. He felt that those people present at the hearing were concerned about the city's environment and that everyone should be more concerned with the environment in the future. Harold Chapman, 51 Chapman Drive, stated that he was opposed to a special election being held in December because it was necessary that all Eugene residents be fUlly informed of the importance outcome of the election to those individuals residing within the metropolitan area. He stated that any election be held in March, 1985, so that all issues could be discussed by the public. Ronald Lovinger, 1445 East 21st Avenue, said he could not believe that the City would incur the expense of an election since the passage of the Historic Tree Ordinance had already expressed the opinion of the Eugene residents in support of the trees. He stated that he had previously testified to the council that the residents of Eugene must share responsibility for its future. He said he supported progressive and enlightened development. Stating that the city trees were Eugene's heritage and formed the landscape e structure, Mr. Lovinger stressed that it would be a tragedy for the city to lose those trees. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 1984 Page 3 Todd Martin, 242 West 6th Avenue, stated that he worked at a business located between Charnel ton Street and Lincoln Street on 6th Avenue. He explained that e widening of 6th Avnue would eliminate the parking area for the business, thus forcing the business to close. He stressed that the City should consider the interests of the small businesses involved in the project area. Carl Hostika, 870 Fox Glen, a member of the Oregon State Legislature, stated that he was testifying in response to concerns that State Highway funds for the project might be lost. He stated that he had been assured by the Deputy Director of the State 'Department of Transportation that there was no imminent danger of loss of State funds but some concern did exist with the low bidder maintaining the bid level if award of the bid was delayed. Mr. Hostika said he was also informed that funds already in the Six-Year Plan would not be lost. He said he pledged himself and other members of the Lane County delega- tion to the Legislature to work with the City and the State to ensure that the City would be allowed to make its own decision regarding the project. He also stated that he would assist in any negotations between the City and the State in developing a solution. Jim Hale, 4064 Meredith Court, said a public mandate was necessary to solve the east-west transportation problems for the next 20 years. He agreed that a single vote on all three phases of the project was the best alternative, stating that stronger support for the western phases would be developed. Mr. Hale doubted that the State would withdraw funding for Phase I of the project. He felt that an election in March or June, 1985, on the entire project will present the necessary mandate which would assure funding for all three sections. He said the main issue was not trees but sOlving the east-west corridor problems for Eugene and Springfield. He said the media attention had e been focused on the trees rather than the policy considerations involved. He said the only alternative to the 6th/7th Avenue Widening Project would be a freeway through the Whiteaker Neighborhood and onto Roosevelt Boulevard. Mr. Hale stated that he was confused why proponents of the Historic Tree Ordinance had suddenly reversed their stand in wanting an election, adding that he felt their present opposition was an attempt to avoid any solution to the transporation problem. Tom Bowerman, 33707 McKenaie View, representing the Citizen's Alliance for Trees, stated that the alliance was not opposed to street and road projects where needed. He said that some aspects of the project defied the compromise they sought. He said that the citizens of Eugene had expressed their position in passing the Historic Street Tree Charter amendment, adding that all litera- ture by both sides of the issue had linked the ballot measure to the widening project. He said that no trade-offs could not justify their support of Phase I of the project. He said the alliance continued to believe that Phase I of the project was unsupported by data and would destroy the downtown. However, he said the alliance supported the need for a solution tot he congestion at the 1-105 and 6th/7th intersection. Stating that the City Manager had explained that federal regulations required that the project begin at one of the project or the other, Mr. Martin said the alliance had been informed by the Federal Highway Administrator for Oregon, through Congressman Jim Weaver, that the federal agency made no such requirement. Stating that the City Manager had also stated that the allocated funds would be lost if the City did e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 1984 Page 4 not construct Phase I, Mr. Martin said the alliance had been informed by State Representaive Carl Hostika that the highway funds would not necessarily be lost and could be reallocated to Phase II or III. Mr. Martin said the alliance - did not feel the widening project was justified, stating that planning data indicated that Level of Service E would not be reached in any portion of Phase I other than at the intersection of 6th Avenue and High Street. He added that the accident rate of Phase I was lower than the other two phases and that the worst carbon monoxide concentration was in the intersection of 1-105 and 6th and 7th avenues. Mr. Martin said that if the City wanted to demonstrate a serious commitment to making Eugene a livable community it would reassign funds to transportation improvements to Phases II and III were needs existed and promoting the city by reducing the influence of the automobile by such measures as restoring the transit goal to 15 percent, promoting flextime employment, creating carpool/ transit lanes during rush hours,'and exploring a light rail from West Eugene to the University and to Lane Community College. Mr. Martin stressed that the Federal Highway Administration was willing to fund the 6th/7th Widening Project by starting with Phase II and that the State was willing to reassign money designated for Phase I to Phase II and was willing to consider redesignation of Highway 99 from through downtown onto 1-105. He said a common ground must be found. He suggested that careful research and negotation between the involved players must be performed before any election was held. Richard Guske, 278 North Grand Street, stated that he had little to add to the previous testimony. He said his major concern was that the staff assistance e received on the project in terms of the research and the techniques had clouded the issue and should be improved. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Gleason, addressing the comments that he had misled some individuals, stated that he had been involved with the project for four years. He explained that the City had gone for 15 years without a State Highway Department-funded project of any significance and had spent great energy in maintaining the funding for the current project. He said it was his opinion that Phase II would not be included in the State's Six-Year Transporation Plan if the City did not construct Phase I of the widening project. Ms. Andersen stated that staff had extensively discussed with the State Highway Department obtaining continued support for funding of Phase I. She said she appreciated the support of the Legislative body in their continued work with the State Highway Department on the project. She felt that a risk was involved in not constructing Phase I and attempting to reallocate the funding to another phase. Councilor Obie said his greatest concern is with the risk facing the community in reaching a decision on the project. He said an election covering all three phases was appealing because it would demonstrate the impact of the entire project on the community and will create a greater interest on the project. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 1984 Page 5 In response to his question to staff regarding an analysis of the impact on trees within the entire project area, Mr. Gleason stated that in a March e election the City could not pinpoint the trees to be eliminated in Phases II and III. Stating that staff had been criticized for not having sufficient public input for Phase I, he explained that the City did not control the public input process and it was only later that the staff, at the request of the council, prevailed upon the State to add additional public hearings. He said staff would like to design Phase II so that public input was possible and so that impacts could be mitigatted. He said an election in March would require either a general analysis or a process so fast that it would preclude any public input. He stated that it might be difficult to convince the State to allow the City to design Phase II of the project until a public vote was held. In response to a related question on the two election dates, Mr./Gleason said staff was recommending a March election on Phase I, and if the vote were favorable, then hold another election in May through August on the subsequent phases of the project and the extension project. He said a vote on the entire project by August would still allow time for submission of the project to the State for incorporation in the Six-Year Plan. Ms. Andersen added that no activity would occur between December and March that would involve a decision by the State regarding the construction process. In response to a question by Councilor Obie regarding an election time schedule, Mr. Sercombe stated that at least 35 days before an election was needed to publicize a measure on the election. He stated that staff would have to know the design details for Phases II and III by mid-February in order to properly notify the public. Responding to a question by Councilor Wooten regarding designs for Phases II e and III, Mr. Gleason explained that the State project was supported by Federal Highway funds. He said the City could possibly obtain the right to perform the design work and then propose that the phases be included in the State's proposed Six-Year Plan. He said that includsion of the design in the plan did not guarantee any funding. He said that inclusion of the design in the plan did not guarantee any funding. He said it was his opinion that there was no chance that funds would be reallocated from Phase I to Phase II because the State was hesitant to commit to a project that was not supported by the community. He said the State'wished to complete projects funded by the Federal government because then it could receive a reallocation from the pool from those states that could not complete their projects. Ms. Andersen said the risk existed in asking the Transportation Commission to substitute Phase II for Phase I in the Six-Year Plan. In response to a question by Councilor Wooten regarding Phase I, Mr. Sercombe stated that it was his opinion that the City would prevail in any litigation resulting from the City and State proceed- ing with Phase I of the project. He said the question still remained of convincing the State to proceed without an election being held. He said the State wished to have a vote by the people before proceeding with Phase I of the project. Councilor Hansen stated that few trees in Phases II and III of the project would be affected by the Historic Tree Ordinance. He asked if staff could determine the path of the project for Phases II and III and identify the trees to be affected in time for an election in March. Ms. Andersen said the State e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 1984 Page 6 \ - 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 I reach back and rescind a contract. He said the only actions required by the City had already occurred; therefore, there were no agreements to be affected -- by the charter amendment. He explained that the State would like to have the vote because of the possible impact of any litigation related to the contract. In response to another question by Mayor Keller, Mr. Sercombe explained that any litigation involved would probably cause a delay of at least a month, adding that even that short a delay would affect the construction sequence. Councilor Wooten stated that she supported the Historic Tree Amendment; she did not feel that supporters of that amendment were voting on the widening project. She felt that the two were separate issues. She said she supported holding a March election but would prefer the project to begin with either Phase II or III. She still felt that avenues were available for compromise or design such that the remaining units could be included in the State's Six-Year Transportation Plan. Ms. Wooten did not feel that a package on all three phases was appropriate, stating that the pUblic needed time to consider the entire project. She felt that the City Council should become more involved in design work with the State and the staff. Councilor Obie said that the primary players in the process were the citizens of Eugene. He stressed that a vote by the people was imperative before any action was taken. He said it was necessary to provide direction to staff and to educate the pUblic on the entire project. He said he favored the March election based on time and cost considerations. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, that the City Council tentatively schedule an election for March 26, 1985, that staff research and report back to the council the issues regarding the e potential scheduling of Phases II and III, and that the City open discussion with Lane Community College and the Eugene school districts on the potential of voting by mail. Councilor Schue said she supported the motion, stating that a vote of the people was necessary. She did not believe that the Historic Tree Ordinance had made the decision on the widening project. She agreed that a March date for the election was appropriate; she also supported investigating the possi- bility of a vote by mail. Councilor Ehrman said one of the individuals testifying stressed the need to seek common ground with the voters. She said she would support having an advisory vote on the entire project in conjunction with the March vote on Phase I. She said this would inform the voters of whether the widening project would be constructed. Councilor Holmer supported Ms. Ehrman's suggestion of an advisory vote in conjunction with the March election. He said he supported the motion because making a tentative decision on a March election was appropriate. He said the election should incorporate consideration of the entire project. Councilor Hansen said he supported the motion. He felt that staff had ade- quate time to develop information on Phases II and III so that an actual vote on those phases could be held in March. He urged staff to proceed with that study. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 1984 Page 8 I' ( Councilor Wooten said she supported the motion because of its tentative nature. She did not favor the advisory vote on all three phases based on the e considerations expressed by staff. She said she will study the information presented by staff on the remaining phases, but she did not want her vote to imply that she would support a vote on March 26, 1984, on all three phases. In response to a question by Mayor Keller, Councilor Obie stated that his motion included direction to staff to present information on the potential impact and potential of voting on Phases II and III in the March election date. He felt that the comments of the other councilors were incorporated in the motion. Mayor Keller said he did not understand the motion to include an advi sory vote. Mr. Obie said the council could later decide whether the vote would be advisory or not. Mayor Keller said he felt it would be appropriate to address all phases of the project. He said the city must resolve its transporation and related issues; he said the public must make a decision. He said it would be inappropriate to have staff spend time pursueing Phases II and III if Phase I was not constructed. He said he has dealt with the public' compromises on traffic; he said he was not entirely impressed with what had been developed. He felt that it would be more appropriate to place as much as possible on the ballot. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 6:0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. e ~4~ Micheal D. Gleason Ci ty Manager (Recorded by Thorn Strunk) TS:ky/0009C e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 1984 Page 9