05/22/1989 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Mr. Green asked about recommendations from Lane Transit District regarding alternative access to the area. Mr. Williams responded that LTD had no proposed routing on 5th Avenue and had expressed no concern regarding the diverter. Answering a question from Ms. Bascom, Mr. Williams said there had been discussion of a raised crosswalk in the area, but the Transportation Division and neighborhood had concluded that would have no effect on traffic movements. Responding to an inquiry from Mr. Holmer, Ms. Schue recalled a public hearing at the time the council approved the installation of a temporary diverter. She added that the council, at that time, considered a permanent diverter inappropriate until the completion of construction on 6th and 7th avenues and on the Chambers Connector. Ms. Bascom described the issue as a complicated one. While she understood people's frustration at the inconvenience of access to businesses, she considered it important to protect streets adjacent to the Chambers Connector from spill-over traffic resulting from the improved arterials. She observed that as 5th Avenue is improved in the downtown area, additional traffic will be generated off the Chambers Connector. Mr. Boles commented that a permanent diverter would help assure that 5th Avenue continues to be considered a residential street in accordance with the adopted plan. e Mr. Green recommended that businesses contact those patrons who signed the petition opposing the diverter and offer a discount if they are able to continue doing business. He maintained that if residents are willing to be inconvenienced by the diverter, merchants also should be expected to accept it. Ms. Ehrman also expressed support for the diverter, but recognized the difficulty of balancing needs in a mixed neighborhood. Mr. Holmer said Resolution No. 2414 was the basis for the administrative order being considered. While it was appropriate for that order to come before the council for approval or rejection, he found it unnecessary to conduct a public hearing on installing a temporary diverter and then to repeat the process to decide whether it should become permanent. He held the City Manager completely accountable for the decision. Ms. Schue's opinion was that arterial traffic belongs on arterial streets and residential streets are designed for the use of those living on them. She observed that the petition from those opposing the diverter appeared to be signed primarily by citizens who do not reside in the affected area. Mr. Bennett concurred with Ms. Bascom's description of the issue as complex. He recalled that at the time the widening of 6th and 7th avenues was being planned, support of residents on adjoining streets was obtained with the e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 22, 1989 Page 6