|
<br /> ""1,0 6
<br /> e
<br /> 12/12/60
<br /> 4. ANY SWIMMING POOL CONSTRUCTED AFTER THIS DATE ~HALL BE, ! I
<br /> IF POSSIBLE, A ,
<br /> ,I
<br /> JOINT FACILITY OF A PARK AND SCHOOL, WITH CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS WlTH RE- "
<br /> SPEeT TO THE PRECISE PERIODS IT SHALL .BE THE EXCLUSIVE USE Of EACH AGENCy, II
<br /> THEIR RELATIVE LIABILITY, THEIR RELATIVE RESPONSIBILITY fOR MAINTENANCE
<br /> AND ALL OTHER PERTINENT ITEMS.
<br /> III OPERATION
<br /> ,.
<br /> , I. IN THE JOINT USE OF FACILITIES, ~HE LLABILIT~OF THE CITY .AND OF THE Dls-
<br /> I; ,I
<br /> , TRICT AND THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE AND UPKEEP SHALL BE CAREFULLY
<br /> ,
<br /> SPELLED OUT IN CONTRACTS BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE DISTRICT. ,
<br /> "
<br /> ,
<br /> " "
<br /> , THERE SHALL BE A SEPARATE CONTRACT FOR EACH ,i
<br /> '. · 2. INTEGRATED SITE DEVELOPMENT AND
<br /> I' "
<br /> OPERAT'ON. I
<br /> . ,.. - -- - - -.
<br /> I .. - -. ,.
<br /> · 3. A SCHEDULE SHALL BE ESTABLISHED, SETTING FORTH THE EXACT HOURS THAT SPECI- I I
<br /> . F I ED SCHOOL FACILITIES SHALL BE RESERVED FOR USE BY THE CITY AND SPECIFIED !;
<br /> 'CITY RECREATION FACILITIES BY THE DISTRICT. "
<br /> ANY USE ~OT SET UP IN THE. :1
<br /> SCHEDULE MUST BE REQUESTED IN WRITING IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN CLEAR LINES OF 'I e
<br /> "
<br /> RESPONSIBILITY AND LfABILITY. II
<br /> ! "
<br /> 4. THE C,TY.AND THE DISTRICT SHAL( EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITY Of JOINT SUPPORT O~ :1
<br /> "
<br /> SUPERVISORY PLAYGROUND PERSONNEL, WITH A VIEW TO YEAR ROUND AFTER-SCHOOL '. I
<br /> I'
<br /> AND VACATION SUPERVISION, If FUNDS PERMIT. SUC~ A JOINT SUPPORT SHALL BE SET
<br /> FORTH IWA CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE DISTRICT.
<br /> I
<br /> . 5. THE CITY AND THE DISTRICT SHALL ALSO EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITY Of HAVING THE
<br /> CITY ASSUME, OR SHARE, RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF SCHOOL G~OUNDS,
<br /> WITH A VIEW TO MINIMIZING THE DUPLICATION OF MAINTENANCEEQUIPMENT.AND MAXI-
<br /> .' MIZING THE EFFICIENT USE OF EQUIPMENT AND STAFF.
<br /> " IV PLANNING AND COORDINATION
<br /> ;1 THE EUGENE PLANNING COMMISSION SHALL REQUEST THE EUGENE RECREATION COMMISSION,
<br /> THE EUGENE CITY COUNCIL, SCHOOL DISTRICT #4, THE EUGENE PLANNING COMMISSION, II
<br /> THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION, AND THE CITY ADMINISTRATION EACH TO APPOINT ONE ;r
<br /> REPRESENTATIVE ~O AN,'AD HOC. COMMITTEE TO BE CONVENED TO CONSIDER ANY MATTER :1
<br /> REFERRED TO THIS COMMITTEE BY THE CITY, THE DISTRICT OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION. ,I
<br /> "
<br /> THE CITY AND THE DISTRICT SHALL BE KEPT INFORMED ABOUT THE PURPOSE AND PROGRESS !i
<br /> :,
<br /> OF SUCH COMMITTEE MEETINGS. ..
<br /> "
<br /> I
<br /> "
<br /> . AD Hoc - PERTAINING TO, OR FOR THIS CASE ALONE." "
<br /> IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MRS. LAUR I S niAT ITEM 6 BE APPROVED. MOTION. CARRIED. I,
<br /> Ii
<br /> I 7. PETITION FOR MID-BLOCK CROSSWALK ON BROADWAY BETWEEN WILLAMETTE AND OAK STREETS - A PETITION I
<br /> SIGNED BY 13 BROADWAY MERCHANTS AND 143 CITIZENS AT LARGE WAS PRESENTED TO:T8ECOMMITTEE, AND "
<br /> MR. LEW IS, ONE OF THE PROPONENTS OF THE PETITION, APPEARED BEFORE THE COMM I'TT'EETO 'OFFER CER- "
<br /> "
<br /> TAIN COMMENTS. MR~ LEWIS STATED THAT AT THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION A LARGE AMOUNT,OF pEDESTRIAN
<br /> TRAFFIC ARRIVES 'IN THE MID-BLOCK FROM THE PARK BLOCK AREAS,. THAT THE MAIN CENTERS OF BUSINESS :i
<br /> i:
<br /> ON BROADWAY WERE IN THE MID-BLOCK AREAS:AND THAT HE BEliEVED. ATTENTION NEEDED TO BE GIVEN TO :,
<br /> PEDESTRIANS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA TO THE POINT THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OVER VEHICLES. "
<br /> "
<br /> HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE SCRAMBLE-AMBLE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING AT BROADWAY ANDW'ILLAMETTE WOULD ;' I
<br /> MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR. A MID~BLOCK CROSSWALK TO BE INSTITUTED, AND THAT AT THE PRESENT TIME A ~
<br /> NUMBER OF PEOPLE ARE JAYWALKING AT THESE PROPOSED CROSSINGS RATHER THAN GOING TO THE END OF
<br /> THE BLOCK. .
<br /> 'I
<br /> IN THE DISCUSSION THERE WERE SOME WHO AGREED WITH. MR. LEW 1St IDEAS AND OTHERS WHO QUESTIONED "
<br /> "
<br /> THE ADVISABILITY OF INSTITUTING MID-BLOCK CROSSWALKS BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBLE PRECEDENCE AND iI
<br /> OTHER REQUESTS WHICH WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY BE RECEIVED. !I
<br /> " e
<br /> ~ "
<br /> ,
<br /> , THE CITY MANAGER REPORTED IT IS POSS I BLE TO' I NSTALL A CROSSWALK AT TH I S AREA IN ONE OF THREE
<br /> " WAYS: EITHER UNS'IGNALIZED,.PEDESTRIAN.-ACTUATED AND NON-SYNCHRONIZED WITH TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT
<br /> BROADWAY AND WILLAMETTE, OR LASTLY, A .CROSSWALK WITH AUTOMATIC SIGNALS SYNCHRONIZED WITH THE
<br /> LIGHTS AT BROADWAY AND.WILLAMET~E. THE CITY MANAGER POINTED OUT T~E PROBLEMS WHICH WOULD BE "
<br /> ,
<br /> INCREASED CONGESTfON, "
<br /> OCCASIONED BY ANY ONE OF THESE THREE INSTALLATIONS WHICH INCLUDED THE
<br /> i
<br /> ,. SAFETY FACTOR, AND THE FACT THAT MID-BLOCK CROSSWALKS, WHILE OCCASIONALLY USED. IN BLOCKS WITH :
<br /> A GREAT DISTANCE BETWEEN INTERSECTIONS, ARE GENERALLY. SO DANGEROUS. THEY ARE NOT RECO~N I ZED BY i
<br /> THE STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT MANUAL OF PERMISSIBLE TRAFFI.C INSTALLATIONS, NOR ARE THEY GIVEN
<br /> RECOGNITION BY PROGRESSIONAL TRAFFIC ENGINEERS. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT WITH THE DIS- I
<br /> I
<br /> TANCES INVOLVED THERE WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY BE SOME VEHI~LE VIOLATIONS, MORE TRAFFIC CONGESTION,
<br /> :1 AND THAT SUCH AN INSTALLATION, WHERE IT WAS PEDESTRIAN-ACTUATED, WOULD COST APPROXIMATELY
<br /> $3000 . i!
<br /> It
<br /> A SYNCHRONIZED WALK PERIOD, WHERE SIGNALS WOULD :BE .SYNCHRONIZED WITH THE "WALK". PERIOD AT il
<br /> "
<br /> "
<br /> BROADWAY AND WILLAMETTE, "
<br /> WOULD RESULT IN A MINIMUM OF TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND ~EDESTRIAN DAN- I: I
<br /> GER, WAS CONSIDERED TO BE THE LEAST DANGEROUS BUT STILL POSING CERTA1N PROBLEMS AND WOULD
<br /> REQUIRE A~PITAL EXPENDITURE Of APPROXIMATELY $2500 AND APPROXIMATELY FOUR MONTHS FOR COM- I,
<br /> II
<br /> PLETION. I F THE SYNCHRON I.ZED SYSTEM WERE IN ST ALLED, SUCH A CROSSWALK WOULD BE SAFE ~NLY FOR I)
<br /> ABOUT NINE SECOND~ I~ EACH MINUTE. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THERE ARE THREE OTHER
<br /> DOWNTOWN LOCATIONS WHERE SIMfLAR TRAFFIC CONDITIONS PREVAIL AND WHICH COULD.ALSO ~EQUEST SIMI- \l
<br /> LAR INSTALLATIONS. . IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE MAYOR'S TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE HAD DISCUSSED
<br /> THIS PROPOSAL AT ITS DECEMBER I, ,1960 MEET lNG, AND,EXPRESSED THEMSELVES AS BEING ~GAINST SUCH I
<br /> ,
<br /> A CROSSWALK. I
<br /> i' e
<br /> !I
<br /> I
<br /> ~
<br />
|