My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06/09/1975 Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
Historic Minutes
>
1975
>
06/09/1975 Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2007 6:23:03 PM
Creation date
11/2/2006 5:11:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
6/9/1975
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Springfield, since LCOG's development staff has been charged with preparing an economic de- <br />velopment plan for the metropolitan area. He appreciated the concerns expressed and said <br />they were on record and a part of the resolution. So the Council could proceed, then if ... <br />at any time the association's program became incompatible with Eugene's stated goals ~ <br />and policies, the city could withdraw. He suggested that Councilman Hamel as a member <br />of the group could make periodic reports to the Council with regard to the association's <br />activities. <br /> <br />Councilwoman. Beal said that the city in endorsing the proposal would be considered an <br />official member of the group and thereby expected to contribute; to what extent, no one <br />knew. She suggested the proposal should be turned back to LCOG and then when informa- <br />tion was gathered from that quarter a decision could be made on a more definite basis. <br />Councilman Hamel said everyone concerned with the proposal had the same concern, but <br />they felt the only way to find out was to "dig in" and get started. He suggested going <br />ahead with it to see what would develop, because it was something that would take time, <br />not something that would happen overnight. But Mrs. Beal thought if the program was <br />officially adopted by LCOG, then it would be known what staff and costs would be con- <br />tributed by other agencies, what commitments would be made by Eugene, etc. <br /> <br />Vote was taken on the motion as stated. <br />Murray, Beal, Bradley, Haws, and Shirey <br />Williams, and Hamel voting no. <br /> <br />Motion carried - Council members <br />voting aye; Council members Keller, <br /> <br />II-A-l <br /> <br />N. Traffic Diverter POlicy Statement was recommended by the Planning Commission on <br />May 19, 1975. In adopting the statement, the Council would: <br />(1) Recognize the positive value of traffic diverters for improvement of <br />living environment, particularly in older residential neighborhoods <br />having gridiron streets used by traffic neither originating nor terminat- <br />ing .within the neighborhood; <br />(2) Accept final responsibility for location, timing, and installation of traffic <br />diverters, recognizing that effective citizen input is a necessary and valuable <br />part of the process; and <br />(3) Recognize that a procedure would be required for processing traffic diverter <br />applications, that procedure to be stipulated by staff in accordance with <br />applicable codes and related policies. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />The planning Commission also recommended consideration of traffic diverter pro- <br />cedure proposal: <br />(1) A proposal for a diverter may be made by any individual, group, organization, <br />or agency in the city, or may be included as part of the land use and cir- <br />culation component of a neighborhood refinement plan. Preference may be given <br />to a proposal accompanied by evidence that it is endorsed by people living <br />in the area in which the diverters may be installed. <br />(2) Following preliminary staff report and description of the request, Council <br />approval will be required prior to staff research with regard to approaches, <br />locations, and designs applicable to a particular area. <br />(3) Following research, various designs and locations shall be tested in the sub- <br />ject area, during which time close liaison will be maintained with applicant <br />and affected neighborhood groups, and .necessary local meetings will be held. <br />(4) Following adequate testing period, staff evaluation will determine the <br />advisability of a permanent diverter system based on but not limited to <br />(a) Reasonable likelihood that through traffic would be reduced; and <br />(b) The diverter system will not significantly impede pedestrian and <br />bicycle circulation, emergency vehicle service, delivery of pUbiic <br />services, and adequate mass transit system. <br />(5) Public hearing will be conducted before the City Council after which the <br />staff's recommendation may be approved, modified, or denied. Approval shall <br />be contingent upon but not limited to the same findings required of staff. <br />(6) If the permanent diverter system is approved, installation shall proceed <br />according to normal budget and construction processes. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />6/9/75 - 16 <br /> <br />'3\~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.