04/29/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e street or intersection. This is the missing link. There is an existing council policy relating to diverters and staff is not in a position to make a choice about whether that policy .should be followed or not. Mr. Obie thought that there were of these diverters. Council and about installation in this area. ordering them to be installed. Ms. Miller explained that she had understood Mr. Obie1s concern to be with the diverter at 10th and Tyler and that diverter had already been installed before the council could act. She thought staff should proceed with installation of the other two diverters based on the fact that she thought only one diverter was Mr. Obie's concern. She reiterated her desire to discuss the diverter policy while the temporary diverters are in place. The staff can gather information and the council can review the policy. She did feel the council would not have been acting in good faith with the neighborhood if they had halted installation of the trial diverters. Mr. Gleason added that he had recommended installation of those as they had gone through the process. He had not understand Mr. Obie1s position and had thought that Mr. Obie was concerned with only this diverter. The question of proceeding came up. The diverters were temporary. Citizens had gone through the procedure. Mr. Gleason accepted the responsibility. He said if council so wished they would have them removed. choices to be made in regard to the installation staff were well aware that he was concerned He felt some councilors acted in bad faith in Mr. Hanks reviewed the diverter policy as a whole. The policy was established in Resolution 2414 adopted in 1975. It had as its goal the increased livability of the neighborhood by a reduction of through traffic on neighborhood streets. Any person or organization can request a diverter. Staff makes a preliminary investigation when they receive the request. If it is an arterial street, it is automatically rejected. Staff checks with the Fire Department, 4-J, LTD, and Medical Services to see if a diverter would hamper services along the street. They then proceed with a traffic study to determine if there is a through traffic problem. If it is a problem solvable by a diverter, they look to see where the traffic will go. They then proceed to the design process. After they get the precise location, they go back to the agencies. They define the area of impact. The area is polled to determine their response to the plan. Responses range from 25% to 30% response rate. If the response is unfavorable, they drop the project or go to redesign. If there is a favorable response, a public hearing is held. If after all this process the response is favorable, they will install a trial diverter. After one month, they study the traffic, then pol' the neighborhood and conduct a staff hearing. They then make a recommendation to the City Council. In the future the recommendation will include the improve- ments to arterials or street improvements if needed. After council approval, the diverter is put in the capital improvements budget. Mr. Hanks asked council for direction for the future. Acting Mayor asked if council would like to hear from Tom Andersen. She noted this was his third time testifying on this topic. Tom Andersen, the diverters seven streets 7th, and 8th. 790 West Broadway, chair of the Wests ide Quality Project, had one of in front of his house. The neighborhood is from 13th to 7th and run east/west. Four of these seven are arterials--13th, 11th, Three streets are neighborhood streets. Cars often get off the MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 29, 1981 Page 5