Laserfiche WebLink
source of funding. Mr. Henry added that staff did not anticipate increasing the capacity of the <br />existing storm water system. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Henry <br />anticipated that the City could be adding more pervious surface to the project than currently <br />existed. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr commended the staff work. He noted his first conversation with former Planning and <br />Development Department Director Paul Farmer concerned the street reopening. He thought the <br />project would result in a wonderful addition to downtown. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner indicated he was prepared to support the financing plan. He commended staff for its <br />work on the reopening and for doing it so promptly. He believed that the project would be ready in <br />time for the next Eugene Celebration. <br /> <br />Regarding the October 1999 draft Arterial and Collector Street Classification, Mr. Meisner recalled <br />that his objections to the plan were that every street in the downtown grid was a collector and <br />there were no local streets for collectors to collect from. He was prepared to defend that <br />classification, although he acknowledged Ms. Bettman's concerns about what systems <br />development charges could be used for. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner also was not enthusiastic about widening the lanes beyond ten feet. He thought <br />narrower lanes could accommodate traffic safely. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner noted he had a video on narrower streets and invited councilors to call him if they <br />wished to view it. Mr. Kelly encouraged councilors to borrow the tape. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly commended the collaborative process used to arrive at the design, saying it balanced <br />several competing interests quite well. Regarding lane width, he reminded the council that it <br />delegated approval of the design to the Planning Commission, and suggested it respect that <br />recommendation. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the downtown property owners' contribution and the proposed <br />promissory note. Regarding the systems development charge question, he was unable to reach a <br />personal resolution on the topic at this time and deferred to staff on the issue. Mr. Kelly thanked <br />staff for its progress on the design standards. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 determined from Mr. Corey that staff believed the project could be done with the funding <br />in place. Mr. Pap8 asked if Mr. Corey believed the design proposed was a good start to making <br />Broadway a <br />"Great Street." Mr. Corey said yes. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked what lessons the City learned from past street projects in terms of bettering <br />the project at hand. She noted that the goal of the street reopening was to revitalize the <br />downtown, and asked how the street design supported that goal. For example, what would <br />change about street vending and the way the plaza was used? Mr. Corey reminded the council <br />this was his first City project. However, he believed that the staff had been informed by past <br />street projects about things such as scheduling, and had done outreach to local contractors about <br />past projects. In addition, the process of developing the conceptual design brought in many <br />interest groups and no single entity owned the design. He said that the design would <br />accommodate both street vendors as well as connect to the plaza. He noted the public input the <br />staff had received on the topic. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 16, 2002 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />