10/08/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I Engineer -saIa' ther-e 1s no numerical information. fIe added that there should be no change wi th regard to those who now have space on 41 monthly basis. However, a long-term parking demand and supply will create a side effect in the future and .- will have to be taken care of or problems will arise. Questions were raised by Fred Webb, WGN, and Ed Kenyon, Register Guard, with regard to short-term parking required by news media representatives. Traffic Engineer re- i terated that any person if not an employe or employer in the downtown area would have the privilege of parking. The purpose of the ordinance is to keep employes in monthly slots rather than switching to spaces which would be for the use of down- town customers. He recognized the fact that there would be abuse of the free park- ing but expressed the hope that chronic violators could be apprehended. Assistant Attorney Swanson said there are doubts that adequate enforcement of this ordinance can be accomplished, but the only alternative is to place a time limit on parking spaces which was not acceptable to the Downto~ Development Board. Councilman Wood asked if the- proposal is similar to programs in other cities after which it was patterned. Traffic Engineer ar.swered that the models used incorporate a time limit, but the DDB felt that completely free parking should be provided here to give ample time for shopping, especially for those people from outlying areas who do not travel to the downtown area on a daily basis. In answer to Councilwoman Bea1, Traffic Engineer estimated enforcement cost for manpower at about $3500 per month for off-street spaces, $500 for on-street, and e $1100 per month for administrative costs, all included in the Downtown District budget funded through a property and business tax within the District. He added that the program is an innovative proposal, never before tried, and that difficulties would be encountered before its operation is free of problems. Amendments may be required, or additional ordinances needed, but the program does have a lot to offer, he said, in terms of trying to solve the problem of attracting shoppers to the down- town area. Councilman Keller noted tha t he served as a member of the Downtown Development Board and that the questions raised have been brought out many times before. He expressed appreciation for the fact that the Traffic Engineer in working for de- velopment of the proposal never ',wavered, in his determination to initiate a free- parking program and make it work. Comrn 10/3/73 Councilman Williams asked if problems were anticipated with regard to' delivery Pub Hrng vehicles. Traffic Engineer answered that loading and unloading zones will be main- tained, some short-term spaces, and use of alleys for short-term loading and un- loading will be the same as now. I It was understood public hearing on the ordinance would be held at the october 8,1973 Council meeting. e Provisions of proposed ordinance were read which would prohibit parking by certain persons in the downtown development district, thereby leaving parking within the district available to people having temporary business or activity in that area. \? Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Council Bill No. 386 - Adding Sections 5.232 and 5.233 to Eugene Code concern- ing motor vehicular parking in the Downtown Development District was submitted and read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. li.Qll_call vote. _All councilmen present vo~ng-aye, theb~l was declared passed and numbered 16922. -- e --... 2. Repealing Section 5.160 re: Trains blocking railroad crossings -lie -eaT'sEiCtlon 5.160, 'E~~e'i:;e' C~de, r-;;: - Railroad Crossings Regula~ions - s~ate' legis- : 1a~ion now provides that cities may not regulate the leng~h of t~me a tra~n :y t of ~ 'block a railroad crossing. That authority is now vested ~n the stat~. Enac en . an ordinance was requested to bring the City Code into conformance w2th State law. - - -. - - ,.- - .- - .- ~ __ ____._____ -'o-r-~_ _ ------.-. 2.9b 10/8/73 - 2