05/26/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Mr. Ruhoff expressed concern for bicycle safety in the proposed street design. He referred to the council's earlier discussion of bicycle safety and urged that an off-street, separate path be developed. Mr. Ruhoff was upset with the process. The proposal was made by a City depart- ment and designed by a City department. Affected residents had no chance for input until the design was all completed, bids were about to be let, and the utilities were all installed. Mr. Ruhoff said the costs were especially high for churches on the street who own large parcels but do not even have the funds to pave their parking lots, let alone to pay street assessments. He noted that the 4-J School District will be assessed for Cal Young School frontage and that taxpayers will therefore pay for this as well. Mr. Ruhoff concluded by observing that a petition had been submitted to the council with signatures of over 51 percent of the property owners requesting that the project not be built as it is currently designed. e Jim Sutton, 2686 Erin Way, noted that his property fronts on Erin Way and that his back yard is on Crescent Avenue. He was upset and confused by the criteria used in reconstructing the street and in deciding what portion of costs will be paid by the City, the County, and the taxpayer. He noted that the City had initiated the project but would only pay seven and one-half percent of the cost. Mr. Sutton felt that traffic would increase if the improvements are made. He said that at the staff hearings, staff had told property owners that Crescent was considered a residential street, but now it is being called an arterial. He felt that to avoid congestion, the City should install another east/west through street north of Crescent. He said that the speed of traffic will increase if Crescent becomes a three-lane highway. He asked the council not to construct this project which would tax 43 people to pay for a street to serve the whole city. Barry Sterett, 2087 Law Lane, represented the Eugene Swim and Tennis Club which owns 300 feet of frontage on Crescent. He said that many residents in the area had called the club to ask them to join in opposition to the street widening. He said that his organization could not even afford to pave its own parking lot, let alone to pay assessments totaling $30,000. He said that his group would like to see Crescent improved, but did not feel that the scope of the project or the expense was justified. There being no additional requests to testify, Ms. Miller closed the public hearing. Mr. Teitzel noted that there were several letters and a petition on this project included in the council packets. He said that staff had not had time to check the frontage involved in the petition, but that 28 of 43 or 44 lots had signed in opposition. Regarding concerns for on-street parking, Mr. Teitzel said that staff would review the design and try to provide for as much on-street parking as possible. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 26, 1981 Page 10