Item 2A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

streets with similar or higher classification. He acknowledged that judgment was involved in applying the criteria, particularly in situations where streets had yet to be constructed. Mr. Schoening reviewed the formats of the two public meetings held with area residents. Mr. McNeel discussed the informal meetings held with residents, during which residents asked City staff to review their traffic study. Staff met with a neighborhood subcommittee and reviewed the study, which was well-done and used sound methodology. Staff had done a walkabout of the area with residents to discuss improvements and how they fit with the landscape. Mr. McNeel said the residents' traffic study provided good data on only a few of the items the City's matrix considered. The study examined traffic volumes, peak periods, and included some intense origin/destination studies. He said some of the entry points used in the study were not considered entry points into the neighborhood by staff because they were mid-point entrances to part of the neighborhood. Ms. Solomon arrived at the meeting. Continuing, Mr. McNeel said that the study's conclusions were not significantly different from those reached by the City's study, and in fact reinforced that study. However, the neighborhood's analysis of the results differed from staff's. The residents believed there was a lot of through traffic using neighbor- hood streets. However, through traffic uses any interconnected street network, and through traffic was a large component of many areas in the community, particularly at the urban fringe. He said the residents concluded that if they could eliminate through traffic, the streets would not need to be classified as collectors. However, it was very difficult to change drivers' behaviors; if they were using the streets through the neighborhood, there was a good reason for that, and that could not be easily changed. In regard to the future street designs, Mr. McNeel said that like the residents, staff also wished to preserve the trees and open drainages in the area and to retain the narrow streets to calm traffic. The Crest Drive Transportation Study, included in the agenda packet, discussed context sensitive design, which was intended to accomplish those goals. Staff proposed to take a context-sensitive approach to the area in question. Mr. McNeel acknowledged that the City continued to receive feedback that it had not responded to all the residents' issues, and he said he would like to know what the City failed to respond to. Mr. Schoening discussed what happened if the streets were classified as local streets rather than as collector streets. He said the streets under consideration now serve as the primary access routes for emergency response to the area and would continue to do so regardless of classification. Traffic calming options were affected by those emergency services. The streets would be the primary routes for snow removal and ice sanding and Lane Transit District buses would still travel down Crest Drive and Storey Boulevard. The streets would continue to collect traffic from the neighborhood and carry it Willamette Street, 28th Avenue, and Chambers Street. Future street improvements for either classification would be initiated by either property owner petition or council action. The street design process would be context- sensitive regardless of the classification. Mr. Schoening said the street design was likely to be the same in either case; the difference between classifications was the City's assessment policies and the funding sources. Mr. Papd arrived at the meeting. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 2004 Page 3 Work Session