Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />M I NUT E S <br /> <br />Eugene City Council <br />City Council Chamber <br /> <br />February 22, 1982 <br />7:30 p.m. <br /> <br />COUNCILORS PRESENT: D. W. Hamel, Eric Haws, Mark Lindberg, Gretchen Miller, <br />Brian Obie, Emily Schue, Betty Smith, Cynthia Wooten. <br /> <br />Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called <br />to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. <br /> <br />I. VIEWING OF SLIDE SHOW ENTITLED "DOWNTOWN GONE UPTOWN" <br /> <br />The council viewed a slide show on the history of the downtown area, prepared by <br />the staff of the Department of Housing and Community Conservation. <br /> <br />II. PUBLIC HEARINGS <br /> <br />A. Broadway-10th Avenue Diverter System (memo, map, and background <br />information distributed) <br /> <br />Micheal Gleason, City Manager, introduced Jim Hanks, Traffic Engineer. Mr. <br />Hanks said that in 1975, the council had developed criteria for evaluating <br />requests for traffic diverters. He said that these criteria centered on finding <br />that a proposed diverter or diverter system would have a reasonable likelihood <br />of reducing the amount of through traffic in an area, thereby significantly <br />improving the living environment for residents. He referred to traffic counts <br />that had been made in the area of the Broadway-10th Avenue Diverter System and <br />noted that the diverters had resulted in reduced traffic on Van Buren, Broadway, <br />and 10th Avenue. He said that it is difficult to evaluate the effect of the <br />diverters on the living environment. Mr. Hanks said that staff had polled <br />neighbors in the area and had held a staff hearing, and the results of this poll <br />showed 72 people opposed to retaining the diverters and 48 in favor. He added <br />that 23 letters had been received on the subject, with 18 opposed and 5 in favor <br />of retaining the diverters. He said that MaryLee Cook of 1573 Tyler had phoned <br />and asked that her opposition to the diverters be read into the record. <br /> <br />Mr. Hanks summarized the reasons that had been presented at the staff hearing <br />for opposition to the diverters: 1) they create confusion for motorists; <br />2) they make it difficult for residents of the area to get downtown; 3) they <br />make it difficult for residents to give directions on reaching their homes; 4) <br />there is no need for them; 5) they are ugly; 6) installation of permanent <br />diverters would be a waste of money; 7) they provide a dangerously short turning <br />radius for vehicles; and 8) they are harmful to the well-being of businesses in <br />the area. He said that the reasons for support of the diverters were: 1) they <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br /> <br />Page 1 <br /> <br />February 22, 1982 <br />