Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/16/1985 Meeting .T M I NUT E S . City Council Work Session Wilder Room/Conference Center December 16, 1985 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Brian Obie, Mayor; Cynthia Wooten, Debra Ehrman, Emily Schue, Roger Rutan, Freeman Holmer, Jeff Miller, Richard Hansen, Ruth Bascom, councilors; Mike Gleason, City Manager; Dave Whitlow, Christine Andersen, Barb Bellamy, Dave Reinhard, Mike Weishar, Nathan Duke, Kirk McKinley, Susan Brody, Lee Beyer, staff; Jim Gix, State Highway Department; Jim Boyd, Register~Guard; John Se1ix, KUGN. The meeting was called to order at 5:40 p.m. by Ms. Wooten; Mr. Obie conducted the meeting. I. 6TH AND 7TH AVENUE CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES Mr. Gleason distributed a summary sheet entitled "History of the 6th/7th Extension. II In 1976-77, when discussions were held regarding which corridors and models would be included in the T-2000 Plan, 6th and 7th avenues were - adopted as the primary corridor for development. By 1983, staff committees were appointed, and as a result, the State Highway Division looked at all the alternatives for the project in order to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. The City Council is now responsible for recommending an alternative to the State for review. It will submit a report to the City Council for the alternative chosen and that alternative will be the one proposed to the voters. The law does not allow the city to vote on an alignment before the EIS is approved. Several meetings back, the City Council established a sequence which would allow the project to be voted on in time to be a part of the State's Six-Year Highway Improvement Program. Mr. Reinhard was introduced and referred the council to the memo entitled "Evaluation of the 6th/7th Avenue Extension Alternatives" with matrix attached. This report was prepared at the request of the City Council in order to compare several alternatives at the east end of the project, between Seneca and Highway 99. The report included a general discussion of the alternatives, discussion of evaluation criteria, specific information about each alternative, a summary statement, and recommendations. Using the maps and the evaluation sheet, Mr. Reinhard explained each alternative. He continued by going through the matrix chart attached to the report. Mr. Reinhard commented that the higher cost for the elevated portion of Alternative One would be reduced by lessening cost for right-of-way acquisitions and traffic signals. Mr. Gix added that he estimated the additional cost to be $2-1/2 million to $3 million. . MINUTES--City Council Work Session December 16, 1985 Page 1 Mr. Reinhard explained that Alternative One would require no changes in the . EIS or any further public hearings and therefore rated very high under implementation criteria. Alternative One, with an elevated section, is also rated very high and would not require changes in the EIS. The State will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, December 18, 1985; they will develop a report by the end of January which will be brought back to the City Council in the form of recommendations. By mid-February, the City Council will need to act on these recommendations in order to put the proposal on the ballot in March. Mr. Miller asked if the other alternatives (the 5th/7th Couplet and the 5th Avenue Alternative) could still be considered even though they are not included in the EIS. He also asked why they were not included in the EIS. Mr. Reinhard responded that the 5th/7th Couplet and the 5th Avenue Alternative were considered and were rejected earlier in the planning process. The Citizen Advisory Committee also reviewed them along with a number of other alternatives. Mr. Gix added that several alternatives, including these, were investigated in light of the EIS, but there is not enough data to proceed with them under the present EIS. Mr. Hansen asked if anything could be done prior to the vote deadline in March, if the City Council wanted to recommend either the 5th/7th Couplet or the 5th Avenue Alternative. Mr. McKinley said that it would take considerably longer to get an EIS for these other alternatives, and probably could not be done within the time frame described; the final EIS would have to include all the data. Mr. Obie asked if the 5th Avenue Alternative was possible, and Mr. McKinley answered that it was not entirely outside the scope of the EIS, but the vote would need to be delayed. Mr. Gix agreed and said that an additional public hearing would need to be held for . this alternative. Ms. Andersen explained that the somewhat lower point scale for these two alternatives was because of the possible need to extend the time frame. Mr. Holmer asked what the price tag for the project would be and Mr. Reinhard responded that it would be $16 million, based on the draft EIS. In response to Ms. Ehrman's concern, Mr. Gix explained that when the State Transportation Commission decides what projects will be in the Six-Year Highway Improvement Program, they want to be sure that the project can be built; this requires a vote before a decision to include it can be made. Mr. Gleason added that if the project is not included in the Six-Year Program, then it will not be funded, and the project would be delayed at least two years. Mr. Reinhard continued by giving some background on the 5th/7th Couplet Alternative. Mr. Hansen asked what kind of response was received from those who objected to the 5th/7th Couplet's effect on businesses. Mr. Duke said that there were two problems: l} docking from the blind side by semis would affect all businesses on the south side of 7th Place; 2} businesses which have an on-site circulation in conflict with the proposed flow would be affected, especially those businesses who use the street to get from one side of their building to the other. . MINUTES--City Council Work Session December 16, 1985 Page 2 Mr. Reinhard reviewed the 5th Avenue Alternative. Ms. Bascom asked if . elevation at the east end of 5th Avenue would avoid the dead end. Mr. Reinhard responded that it would be considered, but that even if elevated, five businesses would be displaced and several others affected. Mr.' Reinhard concluded his presentation by explaining that the judgments on the matrix chart are based on the best data they have available. He recommended that the City Council consider Alternative One with an elevated section because others have been studied and are not considered preferable. The elevation for Alternative One would decrease the effect on businesses. Mr. Gix added that there would be a short delay to consider Alternative One with an elevated section in order to have a mini-hearing and gather supplemental information. The other alternatives would require a six- to eight-month delay. Mr. Hansen asked what triggers a delay if The 5th/7th or 5th Avenue alternatives were recommended by the City Council. Mr. Gix explained that because the EIS is published and the businesses have been informed about the proposed draft, if another alternative is proposed which is not discussed in the EIS, then more public hearings will be required. Mr. Gleason added that working outside the EIS violates the Federal Environmental Impact Law and jeopardizes Federal funding. Several council members asked specific questions about the various alternatives, which were answered by the staff. Ms. Bascom asked if the businesses affected by Alternative One would respond more favorably if the eastern section were elevated. Mr. Obie responded that it would make no e difference in terms of their support. He also said that the project is a community issue which has been under consideration for ten to 15 years; $16 million will create many needed jobs and businesses affected will be relocated and reimbursed. Mr. Hansen agreed that it was a community issue but was concerned that the extension is proposed through the heart of the industrial community and does not provide a good solution; he also expressed concern that the City Council is pressured to make a decision under the described time frame in order to avoid a two-year delay. Mr. Hansen said that he was not happy with either Alternative One or One, elevated. Mr. Miller also wished they had more time to consider the other alternatives but agreed that if Alternative One, elevated, would protect the industrial community, it is a better option; he was concerned about the visual effects of the elevation. Mr. Holmer said that either Alternative One or One, elevated, seemed workable. He saw substantial advantages in elevation because of operational savings over the life of the project, but wondered if the added cost would pose political problems in March. Mr. Rutan was also uncomfortable with the time line and believed that the State Highway Department was willing to look at options and work with the City. He was not entirely happy with any of the alternatives. Ms. Schue believed Alternative One, elevated, seemed to be the best solution - with the most substantial advantages. MINUTES--City Council Work Session December 16, 1985 Page 3 Ms. Ehrman agreed that Alternative One, elevated, is the best option even . though displacement of businesses is not pleasant. She does not believe that the City Council needs to reconsider the other alternatives and felt comfortable with the Citizen Advisory Committee recommendation. Ms. Wooten was also uncomfortable with the necessity for making a decision under pressure. She understood the necessity of getting the project into the Six-Year Program, but asked if the project was critical within two years and if waiting would be a deterrent. Ms. Bascom was concerned about receiving an affirmative vote and the need to design a winnable alternative. She expressed her preference for Alternative One, elevated, but did not like being pressured into a decision. After several questions, Mr. Gleason said that all alternatives presented would be workable, but that the State will make the decision. The Ci ty Council can give input, but can only vote on a corridor which is already approved by the State. There was considerable discussion about whether it was necessary to make a decision now, or if it were possible to explore other alternatives and still make the March ballot deadline. Mr. Gix reminded the councilors that the public hearing held by the State is to approve the EIS. If more information is needed, they will continue the study, but there is no project yet. The re needs to be an affirmative vote to have one, in order for the State to recognize a sense of cooperation from the community. Mr. Holmer agreed that -- the City needs to go to the Transportation Commission unanimously committed to the corridor extension, and, therefore, the council needs more time. Ms. Brody reminded the council that the Planning Commission received a wide range of testimony on the draft EIS, accepted the proposal, and recommended elevation unanimously. After more discussion, Ms. Bascom reiterated that there is no expressed sentiment by the council, that we don't need the expressway, and that citizen approval is a requirement in Eugene. The work session was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Re~ ~ e~l ~.~le ~~ - - - Ci ty Manager (Recorded by Judy Jernberg) JJ:pv/EA34 e MINUTES--City Council Work Session December 16, 1985 Page 4