|
<br />rt2i8
<br />.
<br />
<br />1l/21/Q6
<br />..~..~ -- - - - ~._- -"-- ~ -_. ---~- - - -~--
<br />
<br />,- -
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Clif Culp, realtor, said that he felt the general public should pay for the facility since 1
<br />they are the ones benefiting the most. He remarked concerning "inefficiency" of location
<br />of the structure, and said that the assessment district program is bas~d,on assumptions
<br />with regard to ,its paying for itself, cost per car, etc. He said that the City would be
<br />compet{ng'with itself, because of the parking lot at 12th and Oak. Mr. Cu1p also said he
<br />felt the proposed Valley River Shopping Center to be" located north of the Willamette R~ver
<br />would complement rather than detract from the downtown area. He said the district's pro-
<br />vision of additional parking in the downtown area should not be rushed because of the possi-
<br />bility of the Shopping Center. He said the whole matter of additional parking should be de-
<br />layed until p1a~ning is completed for the Central Eugene Project.
<br />
<br />In rebuttal, Ralph Robinson again commented with regard to the City's p1edge~ 'of revenues,
<br />to reduce assessments, and'iaid that the validation program provid~s free parking for the
<br />public patronizing validating stores. He also pointed out that on-street parking revenues
<br />or revenue bonds as a method of fin?ncing a parking structure had been previously rejected
<br />by the voters. . , , _
<br />
<br />James Weaver, land developer, said that. developers of new. properties must'provide, part of
<br />their property for off-street parking, 'and compared the off-street parking structur,e as
<br />the manner in which downtown owners can provide parking: .
<br />
<br />LaVerne JfJohnson again spoke concerning the Corvallis assessment. district with regard to the
<br />test' case as to its legality, and said that all issues were resolved, in favor of the dis- 1
<br />trict. He said experience had shown in Corvallis that properties surrounding the parking
<br />facility have improved dramatically, and that his client is very much in favor of Eugene's
<br />proposed district because they want the benefit they know" can be derived from it.
<br />
<br />Otto Poticha, architect, questioned the method proposed by City personnel for handling any
<br />traffic I;rob1em created by the facility. Norman Jacobson explained that an independent
<br />traffic engineer in Seattle was consulted on this phase of the planning. Mr. Jacobson
<br />also explained ~hat the shopping driver will be using the pa~king structur~ at~ifferent
<br />times than the working driver, so that peak traffic periods' will not coincide. He said
<br />that both 10th Avenue and Oak Street can be used for entrance and exit for the structure,
<br />and that any change in traffic on 10th and Oak can be accommodated by change in the entrances
<br />and exits of,the structure taken into account in the original ?esign.
<br />
<br />Betty Niven, Planning Commission member but speaking at the request o'f Gertrude Kaufman,
<br />prope~ty owner, supported' form'ation of the parking district. Vince Farina, Plannigg Commis-
<br />sion chairman, also supported formation of the district. Harry Ritchie) chairman of the
<br />Chamber of Commerce ticket validation committee', reported on his contacts with merchants
<br />in the downtown area and their favorabt'e response to the validation program.
<br />
<br />Minnie Schmidt; property owner, questioned the reason for large assessments during the first
<br />five years 6f~the program, and the City Manager explained it was because of the retirement
<br />of bonded indebtedness over the 20-year period. :
<br />
<br />C1ar~nce Brown, property owner, object~d to 10catio~ of the propose~ structure, and asked I"
<br />why ~t could not be located on the Med~ca1 Center lot on the east s~de of Oak Street. The
<br />City Attorney replied that private parking lots cannot be acquired through condemnation,
<br />and that it is improbable sale of the property could be negotiated.
<br />
<br />Pauline Hill, owner of part of the prope-r'ty on which the facility is to be built, objected
<br />because she ha'd not received any notice of the proposed dist.i:ict and said that she did not
<br />want to give up ownership of the property.
<br />
<br />C1if Culp again spoke for delay of the project, and"Jim Stevenson again asked why some of ~
<br />the benefited properties were'not bein~ assessed. John Porter, planning director, ~om-
<br />mented on the parking facility's relationship with the Cen'tra1 Eugene Project saying that
<br />the structure would fit very well into the planned Project. Henry Lowry, property owner,
<br />stated he was very much in favor of the proposed district.
<br />
<br />The MayorHqilled2for a vote on the original motion to proceed with formation of the parking assess-
<br />ment district and construction of a 5-1eve1' 668-car parking structure on the west side of Oak Street
<br />at 10th Avenue. All councilmen present yoting aye, motion carried.
<br />
<br />1 Proclamation. Canvass November 8. 1966 Election - A proclamation was presented showing the
<br />following results in the November 8, 1966 election': '
<br />
<br />Councilman Ward 1 John O. Chatt 2,593
<br />Nancy Hayward 2,884
<br />
<br />Councilman Ward 2 James H. Weaver 412 1
<br />Mattie Mae Reynolds 582
<br />) ,David B. White, 1,003
<br />Oscar Sp1iid 1,314
<br />George Wingard 1,535
<br />
<br />Councilman Ward 3 Glen L! Purdy 4,502
<br />
<br />-
<br />
<br />~ 11/21/66 - 2
<br />
|