HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/22/1981 Meeting
M I NUT E S
e Eugene City Council
City Council Chamber
June 22, 1981
7:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gretchen Miller, Betty Smith, Mark Lindberg, D. W. Hamel,
Brian Obie, Cynthia Wooten, and Eric Haws.
ABSENT: Councilor Emily Schue and Mayor Gus Keller.
Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called
to order by Her Honor Acting Mayor Gretchen Miller.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Consideration of Permanent Street Closure of 24th Avenue, West of .
Grant Street (memo distributed) 0
.
Dave Whitlow, Assistant City Manager, introduced Jim Hanks, Public Works.
Mr. Hanks stated that this public hearing is to consider permanent street
closure of 24th Avenue, west of Grant Street. There has been a physical
-- closure of this street since July 1978 to reduce speed on 24th Avenue and on
Arthur Street. There has been a total reduction of through traffic in the
neighborhood from 401 cars to 31 cars. This survey was taken during six hours
of peak traffic time within a 24-hour day. This particular item has extensive
history. In 1971, the first problems were noted. In July 1977, staff began
a study and installed a trial diverter in 1978. Staff has attended neighborhood
meetings and this is the third proposal which staff has suggested. Staff feels
it has the support from the majority of the neighborhood. On March 12, 1981, a
survey of the neighborhood showed that 57 people were in favor of making this a
permanent closure and 37 people were against it. Mr. Hanks showed various
slides. Through traffic had been using 24th Avenue and Arthur Street to avoid
the 18th and Chambers traffic light. There are extreme grades on Arthur Street
between 23th and 24th avenues. There is no reason for through traffic to use
this route, especially since the 18th and Chambers intersection has been
improved. He noted traffic counts prior to and after installation of the
diverter. Traffic has been redirected to 22nd Avenue and Grant Street.
Mr. Hamel asked why the barricade could not be taken down now for a traffic
count since the 18th and Chambers intersection has been improved. Mr. Hanks
responded that it could, but he thinks the problems are still present on Arthur
Street due to the grade. Mr. Hamel asked him if he felt the same type of
traffic problems would occur there now. Mr. Hanks said he did not think they
would since 18th and Chambers was improved. Ms. Miller asked if one-way
diverters had been considered. Mr. Hanks stated that that had been one
.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1981 Page 1
proposal but the neighbors rejected it. Other proposals were considered but the
e neighbors could not agree on them. Ms. Miller stated that in one letter the
council received regarding the survey, questions were raised as to whether some
of the survey information was compiled from telephone inquiries. Mr. Hanks
responded that both telephone and public meeting comments were included. Staff
tallied how people felt. Joe Hessler, Public Works, stated that in conducting
this survey count, staff had mailed a questionnaire to residents, and written
responses, as well as telephone responses, were included. Ms. Miller asked if
the phone comments were in response to a survey that staff had mailed out. Mr.
Hessler stated that they were. Mr. Lindberg asked if the survey responses in
response to the questionnaire were similar to the unsolicited responses at the
public hearings. Mr. Hessler stated that the staff hearing results were
slightly more positive toward making the diverter permanent. Mr. Hanks added
that both results showed that the majority of residents were in favor.
Ms. Smith asked if people were told that this street would be reopened after
18th and Chambers was improved. She noted that she had received a letter
stating that someone had been told that. Mr. Hanks stated that to his know-
ledge, no one was told that. People were told that the situation would be
re-evaluated but that this was part of the diverter process. He feels the
misunderstanding may have come from comments made before the widening. They had
felt they would reconsider this closure after the 18th and Chambers intersection
was improved but that was never decided. Any change in the street closures
would be subject to council action.
Public hearing was opened.
e Jacqueline Thomas, 2155 West 22nd Avenue, stated that she is against the perma-
nent closure and is in favor of 24th Avenue being reopened. She feels it is
dangerous now on 22nd Avenue for children and animals. She feels 24th Avenue
should be reopened since it was designed for arterial traffic. Another route
would be needed if it were closed permanently. She would suggest reopening it
on at least a trial basis.
Stephen Stone, 1787 West 24th Avenue, stated that he lives east of the closure.
The same sltuation exists on Arthur as there was between Arthur and Garfield
with the grades and turns. It is the same situation that residents on Arthur
objected to. He is in favor of the permanent closure.
Robert Smit, 1824 West 24th Avenue, provided photos to the council. He stated
that the incline of the hill is a problem with cars racing by and being scraped
on the pavement due to the hills. He noted that the photographs he presented to
the council showed the traffic hazard. He would like this street to be closed.
He lives near the closure. He would, however, like the signing corrected for
better visibility and more accuracy. There needs to be emergency vehicle access
but now motorcycles travel down that street at about 40 mph. There are bar
types of closures that could be used to stop traffic, except for emergency
vehicles.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1981 Page 2
Irene McDonald, 2310 Grant Street, stated that she has lived in West Eugene for
- 25 years and is familiar with the traffic patterns. She lives at the corner of
23rd and Grant. According to staff, the survey says there has been only a
25-percent increase in traffic but she feels even one percent is too dangerous
on this substandard street. It is dangerous because of the hills. She thinks
the street is less than 28 feet wide and if people park on both sides, then only
one-way traffic can go through, making a dangerous situation. Perhaps bumper
strips could be installed or 24th Avenue could be a through street to City View.
If 24th Avenue must be closed, it could be closed at Chambers rather than at
Grant. She feels that this closure serves only a special group of people.
Traffic is being removed from one street and being placed on to another. She
does not feel that it is fair.
Virginia Burgoyne, 1955 West 23rd Avenue, stated that she is against the perma-
nent closure. She has lived at her current address for about 30 years and
has seen lots of changes as well as inconsistencies within the government. They
were told to base all their actions with regard to their property on the fact
that 24th Avenue would be a through street and that 23rd Avenue would never be.
This is a traffic matter. She did not support closing a street that has had so
much money spent on it for traffic lights. Now their street has the kind of
traffic that caused objections from residents of 24th Avenue. She feels this is
putting the problem from one place into another. She feels residents on her
street are facing the same problem that the residents on 24th Avenue had, so she
asked if her street would be closed also. She feels this issue is being
addressed in the wrong manner. She attended a neighborhood meeting last week
of approximately 20 people. She was the only homeowner at the meeting. She
does not think she will ever attend another neighborhood group meeting and does
e not feel the homeowners are being represented or given a chance to respond.
City employees and renters, as well as students, were present at the neighbor-
hood meeting but she does not feel that there was representation of the home-
owners. However, she is appreciative of many things that the City government
does, but she does not feel this proposed action is correct. She thinks this is
a traffic matter which is being addressed from the wrong viewpoint and that the
wrong things are being done.
Keith Phinney, 2230 Grant Street, stated he was against the closure. He had
been looking at "old" traffic figures as indicated on the slides. After the
18th and Chambers intersection was improved, there was a 25-percent increase in
the traffic on Grant Street and a 25-percent decrease on Arthur Street. He does
not feel this is logical reasoning. Although there was possibly a traffic
problem on Arthur, he wondered why one should transfer the problem from a
34-foot-wide street and place it onto a street that is only 26 feet wide and
which is not capable of handling increased traffic. This has already caused a
problem at 22nd Avenue and Grant. There will be accidents from cars going
sideways onto Grant from 22nd when they must swing wide to make the corner. He
feels Arthur Street is more able to handle the traffic than Grant Street and
thinks this is a wrong move.
Tim Carmichael, 2240 Arthur Street, stated that he is in favor of the permanent
closure Slnce it caused an overall decrease of traffic in the neighborhood. The
traffic speed has also decreased. He feels that Mr. Hamel's suggestion to
reopen the street for more study would not work because it would be an open
e invitation for people to again use Arthur as a speedway.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1981 Page 3
Ms. Burgoyne stated that if staff wants to close a street, Arthur Street
- could be closed. Then a through street could be put on 24th Avenue to City
View. She noted agreement with Ms. McDonald in regard to the traffic bumps.
Mr. Stone noted that he felt the process of developing this proposal was excel-
lent. Everyone had had a chance to speak and provide input. He commended those
City employees that have been working on this project. This proposal had the
least number of problems attached to it of any that were considered.
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Hanks stated that two letters were received in favor of the closure and one
letter in opposition. The possibility of closing Arthur Street was discussed,
but staff felt it would be better if 24th were closed at Grant since Garfield
and Grant are steep. The reason that 24th Avenue had not been extended was due
to terrain problems between Cleveland and City View. In regard to speed
bumps, this could be a severe liability for the City and could cause more
problems for emergency vehicles than for passenger vehicles.
Mr. Obie asked why 24th Avenue could not be closed at Chambers. Mr. Hanks
stated that placement of a partial diverter was proposed but the neighbors were
opposed to it. Ms. Smith asked why this problem is being transferred from a
34-foot street to a 26-foot street. Mr. Hanks stated that the volume of traffic
on Arthur Street had been decreased by 1,000 cars and the increase on 22nd
Avenue was only about 200, with the increase on Grant Street about 100. As he
has noted before, the traffic volume of 600 to 800 cars per day is when people
notice and complain. Ms. Smith asked about the potential problem of the width
of the street and parking on both sides. Mr. Hanks stated that a narrower
e street tends to discourage traffic and that 24th Avenue and Arthur are wider
than Grant or 22nd Avenue.
I~S. Wooten asked if there are more accidents since 1978 or if there is increased
danger on other streets since the traffic diverter was installed. Mr. Hanks
stated that there are not more reported accidents but generally single-car
accidents hitting parked cars are not reported. Ms. Wooten asked if 23rd Avenue
is paved. Mr. Hanks responded that it is not as a petition has never been
submitted and it is not part of the dusty roads project.
Mr. Lindberg asked whether emergency vehicles can get through. Mr. Hanks
responded that they can. Mr. Lindberg asked if motorcycles are still able
to get through. Mr. Hanks stated that anything that is done to allow emergency
vehicle access will also allow access for motorcycles. The diverter should have
a pleasing appearance and the appearance of this project will depend upon
whether the neighbors are willing to maintain landscaping. Mr. Lindberg asked
how much the project would cost. Mr. Hanks stated it would cost between $10,000
and $12,000 and that it is in the Tier II budget for next year, not in the
current core budget. Mr. Lindberg asked about the cost of increased police
patrols as opposed to the diverter installation. Mr. Hanks responded that
increased police patrols soon become much more expensive than a diverter.
Enforcement would be very expensive for this area. Mr. Lindberg noted that
there are pros and cons when traffic diverters are proposed in conjunction
with neighborhood needs. He thinks diverters are good if they are part of the
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1981 Page 4
- - --
comprehensive plan for the area or are installed in crisis situations but
e otherwise, like in this instance, he does not think they are good. He would
rather see another alternative pursued, such as reopening the street on a
trial basis. He will vote against the motion.
Mr. Obie noted that it is difficult to represent the views of a divided neigh-
borhood. He supported the trial diverter due to the roller coaster effect of
this street and he will still support it. There is a sky jump on both streets
and it was used on 24th Avenue on a regular basis which was very dangerous. He
is emphathetic to the problem on Grant Street, but he feels that reducing the
number of cars on Arthur Street compares very favorably with the small increase
on the other streets.
Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to recommend permanent
closure of 24th Avenue west of Grant Street.
Mr. Hamel stated that he has voted against every diverter proposal since he has
been on the council. He feels this is moving a problem from one area to another
and that it is a IIcop-outll to a traffic problem. He feels this should be
studied in a comprehensive manner and will vote against the motion.
Roll call vote; motion carried 5:2 with Councilors Lindberg and
Hamel voting no.
B. Consideration of City of Eugene 1981-82 Annual Budget (memo
distributed)
e Mr. Whitlow stated that staff is not asking for council action tonight on the
budget considerations; that will occur on June 24, 1981. This is a public
hearing on the annual budget and on State and Federal revenue sharing funds.
Public hearing was opened.
Karen Lansdowne, 10 Donovan Drive, stated that she appreciates the opportunity
for the neighborhood associations' involvement in the budget process from the
early stages. She is delighted there are plans for capital improvements within
Tier II and she in favor of the Tier I and Tier II budget approach. Lots of
work has gone into this budget preparation and she recommends that it be pre-
sented to the public.
There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed.
Mr. Whitlow explained that Ms. Lansdowne's comments referred to the inclusion in
the budget of some capital improvements projects for neighborhoods that are not
eligible for Community Development Block Grant funding.
II. ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING
Mr. Whitlow stated this is a series of assessment ordinances that was referred
to the Hearings Panel for hearing on June 15, 1981, but due to a lack of a
quorum this Hearing Panel was not held. However, Ms. Wooten continued the
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1981 Page 5
meeting unofficially even though there was not a quorum and allowed those
e present to provide testimony. Three council bills involved are being protested
and they should be referred back to the Hearings Panel for hearing on June 29,
1981. The other five council bills can be given second reading this evening as
no protests were received. Ms. Wooten indicated that the lack of a quorum at a
Hearings Panel was an unprecedented situation. The council bills being pro-
tested are of a complex nature so it was suggested that they be referred back to
the Hearings Panel. Apparently Mr. Hamel had expected to receive a call if
there was to be a Hearings Panel meeting and since he did not receive a call, he
did not attend. There will, however, be a Hearings Panel on June 29, 1981. Ms.
Miller indicated that this is not an unprecedented situation and it is something
that occurs since these are not typically scheduled as a regular meeting.
The following council bills were read the first time June 8, 1981, referred
to the Hearings Panel for hearing June 15, 1981, and are being brought back for
council consideration to levy assessments as proposed.
CB 2312--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer,
and storm sewer within and adjacent to Royalwood Subdivision
(80-22)
Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved
and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present
voted lIaye;1I the bill was declared passed and numbered 18817.
CB 2313--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer,
e and storm sewer to serve Luella Subdivision (80-25)
Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved
and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present
voted lIaye;1I the bill was declared passed and numbered 18818.
CB 2314--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer,
and storm sewer within and adjacent to Shasta Gardens Third
Addition (80-26)
Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved
and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present
voted lIaye;1I the bill was declared passed and numbered 18819.
CB 2315--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer,
and storm sewer within and adjacent to Nolan Industrial Park
Third Addition (80-34)
Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved
and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present
voted lIaye;1I with Councilor Obie abstaining due to confl icts of
interest; the bill was declared passed and numbered 18820.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1981 Page 6
CB 2316--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer,
e and storm sewer within and adjacent to Isabelle Plat (80-40) .
Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved
and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present
voted "aye;" the bill was declared passed and numbered 18821.
The following council bills were read the first time June 8, 1981, referred to
the Hearings Panel for hearing June 15, 19S1, held over, and are being referred
to the Hearings Panel to be held June 29, 19S1.
CB 2311--An ordinance levying assessments for sanitary sewer to serve
properties on Jefferson Street between Cheshire Avenue and River
Street (80-19)
CB 2317--An ordinance levying assessments for storm sewer north of Cal
Young Road from Fir Acres Road to 450 feet northwest (within and
adjacent to proposed Craviotto-Stratton Subdivision) (SO-57)
CB 2318--An ordinance levying assessments for storm sewer 1,650 feet north
of Royal Avenue from Terry Street to 900 feet east (80-5S)
III. PAYMENT OF BILLS, CLAIMS, AND PROGRESS PAYMENTS (distributed)
Res. No. 3536--A resolution authorizing the payment for bills, claims,
e and progress payments for the period June 8, 1981, through
June 22, 19S1.
Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution.
Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned to June 24, 1981.
Re~#.
Micheal D. Gleason
City IVlan ag er
(Recorded by Lynda Nelson)
MDG:LN:db/CM7b24
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1981 Page 7