Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Council Chamber <br /> Eugene, Oregon <br /> October 8, 1973 <br />.' The regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, ,Oregon was called to order <br /> by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on October 8, 1973 in the Council Chamber <br /> with the following councilmen present: Mrs. Beal, Messrs. Williams, McDonald, Hershner, <br /> Mrs. Campbell, and Messrs. Keller, Murray,and Wood. <br /> I - Public Hearings <br /> A. Vacation of utility easement between City View and McKinley south of 20th (Powell) <br /> Recommended by the Planning Commission on July 24, 1973. <br /> Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. <br /> Council Bill No. 385 - Vacating utility easement between City View Street and <br /> McKinley Street south of 20th Avenue was submitted and <br /> read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present <br /> requesting that it be read in full. <br /> Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the council bi~l be read the second <br /> time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that <br /> enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was <br /> read the second time by council bill number only. <br />. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the council bill be approved and given <br /> final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was de- <br /> clared passed and numbered 16921. <br /> B. Code Amendments <br /> l. Adding Sections 5.232 and 5.233 re: Downtown Free Parking Program <br /> Downtown Free Parking Program - Counc~l members were furnished with copies of <br /> ordinance setting forth regulations which would provide a free parking program <br /> for the benefit of shoppers rather than employes and employers in the downtown area. <br /> Ai Williams, traffic engineer, reviewed changes to be made in the ordinance prior <br /> to enactment at the October 8 Council meeting. section 5.323 would provide forI <br /> boundaries beyond the District to prevent parking across the street from a boundary <br /> of the District. Section 5.233, which requires employers to supply the City with <br /> a list of employes' automobile license numbers, will be changed to provide for a <br /> supplemental list as needed such as when temporary employes are hired during the <br /> Christmas season. He added that a penalty clause has not been included because <br /> the ordinance will come under a section of the Code in which there is already a <br /> maximum $50 fine, thereby giving administrative staff authority to establish a <br /> fine up to that amount. It is anticipated a $20.00 fee for violation will be es- <br />. tablished. Traffic Engineer reminded the Council that the proposed program is for <br /> unlimited free parking for customers of businesses within the District. This <br /> ordinance basically is to keep cars now parked on a monthly basis in the spaces <br /> they are now occupying rather than moving into spaces used by people doing business <br /> in the central district. He said it is not anticipated a smooth free parking pro- \ <br />I gram will be in effect immediately on the first day of operation, now scheduled <br /> for October 15. Problems are anticipated as with any new program but staff feels <br /> they can be worked out. <br /> Councilman Hershner questioned whether the regulations would deprive employes in <br /> the downtown area of the right to park in the downtown area at any time. Traffic <br /> Engineer said that before any prosecution, an investigation would determine whether <br /> a car was parked while the owner was working or shopping. Assistant Attorney Swanson <br /> added that the language is such that the regulation does not apply to an employe <br /> any time when not engaged in employment. <br /> Anwering other questions from the Council with regard to two cars in one family, <br /> use of a car for transportation of an employe with subsequent use for shopping, <br /> etc., Mr. Swanson answered that there is no prohibition any time a person is not <br /> engaged in employment in the downtown area. Mrs. Beal questioned the prohibition <br /> against persons registered as guests in a motel or hotel within one-half mile of <br />'. the District, saying she thought that would discourage out-of-town people who may <br /> shop and not be able to have parcels delivered. Mr. Swanson agreed tha t was a <br /> valid point and suggested amendment of the applicable section. <br /> Councilman Murray asked if there was current information on the number of employes <br /> downtown in relation to the number of available parking spaaes for them. He thought <br /> it would be unfortunate if the program resulted in making parking lots of nearby <br /> re~it!.~~t:~al ~!!as for emp~oyes who could n~t locat_e.!",ont3IYJ?ii~~~!1g_~pace. Tra!.fi..~~ <br /> 2.9~ 10/8/73 - 1, <br />