Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
ATTACHMENT C <br /> <br />October 18, 2004 <br /> <br />CITY OF EUGENE <br />CREST DRIVE AREA STREET CLASSIFICATION PROCESS <br /> <br />STAFF REPORT ON PUBLIC MEETING AND DESIGN WORKSHOP <br />What follows is staff's understanding of the predominant message conveyed through the most <br />recent public involvement activities related to the Crest Drive Street Classification process (the <br />August 10 and September 29, 2004 public meetings and associated communication following <br />each of the those two meetings). This understanding is not meant to convey consensus in public <br />opinion, nor does it represent the position of any particular group or organization. It is, however, <br />a summary of consistent public comment received during this process. While there may not be <br />unanimity, there is a great deal of commonality in the voiced public opinion we have received. <br />This predominant message is summed up in two points, with further detail regarding the second <br />point. <br /> <br />1. If the streets must be classified, classify all streets in the Crest Drive area as Local Streets. <br /> <br />2. Continue to work with the City on developing a design solution for Crest Drive, Storey <br /> Boulevard and Friendly Street. <br /> a. The neighborhood recognizes that a Local Street designation means that alternative <br /> sources of revenues (such as SDCs and federal funds) would not be available, and that <br /> the assessment policies for a Local Street are different than the policies for a <br /> Neighborhood Collector. <br /> b. While there may be a certain amount of misunderstanding and disagreement regarding <br /> the nature and character of traffic in the neighborhood, the neighbors do not want <br /> another study conducted or want some other street or set of streets be classified as <br /> Neighborhood Collectors. <br /> c. The neighbors recognize and appreciate the recent efforts on the part of staff to reach <br /> out and communicate with the neighborhood. <br /> d. The first step in a design process has occurred (the September 29 meeting) and the <br /> neighbors want to continue the effort. <br /> <br /> e. A certain amount of trust and good will has begun to emerge and a continued <br /> collaborative effort can significantly improve the city/neighborhood relationship. <br /> <br /> f. The neighbors want to work with the city; they would much'rather there be a <br /> collaborative process rather than a contentious one. Yet, they have said that there can <br /> only be collaboration if the streets are classified Local. <br /> <br /> g. That said, the neighbors are motivated to meet city goals on traffic management, <br /> calming and safety, while addressing the unique nature and character of the <br /> neighborhood and its streets. <br /> <br /> h. In that regard, the neighborhood supports the philosophy of Context Sensitive Design <br /> (CSD), but recognizes that at this time it does not represent any adopted decision- <br /> making approach or design standard. Furthermore, they are not supportive of <br /> <br /> <br />