02/22/1982 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e improve the neighborhood environment; 2) they create a safer, more pleasant atmosphere; and 3) they reduce traffic noise. Mr. Hanks said staff had found that the diverters would not impede pedestrian or bicycle circulation. He said that referrals on this issue had been made to a number of City departments and public agencies and discussed the responses to these referrals. The Fire Department said that it had no problem with the diverters and that response time was not affected. The Police Department opposed the diverters as having the potential for causing delay in response time and making pursuit of motorcyclists more difficult. The Post Office did not oppose the diverters. School District 4-J did not respond to the referral. The Parks & Recreation Department was not opposed to the diverters. The Public Works Maintenance Division opposed the diverters due to difficulties with street cleaning and maintenance. Lane Transit District did not oppose the diverters but indicated that their presence would, to some extent, limit scheduling options. Mr. Hanks said that staff recommended that the existing diverters be removed and that no further testing of diverters be done in this neighborhood. He noted that this is the second time that diverters have been tested in this area and that the results of the first test had been similar. He said that the staff recommendation is based on the testimony of residents of the area and the response of the Police and Public Works departments. Ms. Wooten asked if the presence of the temporary diverters had in fact increased the response time of the Police Department in the area. Mr. Hanks responded that the Police Department had only been contacted after the diverters were installed, so figures were not available for response time with and without the diverters. Ms. Wooten asked for an estimate of the increased maintenance costs after installation of permanent diverters. Mr. Hanks responded that he did not have an estimate, but that the presence of the permanent diverters would make it difficult for mechanical sweepers to work in the area. Therefore, sweeping would have to be done by hand. Ms. Wooten asked how permanent diverters would differ from the existing ones. Mr. Hanks responded that the permanent diverters would be landscaped. Public hearing was opened. The following people testified in favor of retaining the diverters: H. Thomas Andersen, 790 West Broadway, said that he has lived in the area since 1973. He noted that he is the chairperson of the Westside Neighborhood Quality Project (WNQP), but that he was speaking as an individual since the neighborhood group had agreed not to take a stand regarding the diverters. He introduced several other speakers. Jonathan Stafford, 1060 Madison Street, said that he has lived in the Westside area since 1966. He gave some background information on the diverters. He said that in 1976, the neighborhood had used Neighborhood Improvement Program (NIP) funds to conduct surveys of automobile traffic management and control, including MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1982 Page 2