02/22/1982 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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