Laserfiche WebLink
absorbed on University property, and preferred to see Option 1 taken off the table. She did not <br />think the council would have much control after the code amendment was passed. She wanted <br />to see all parking removed from the grass in the park eventually. She said that if and when the <br />City granted the code amendment, the IGA should be contingent on the code change and it <br />should supercede all preceding IGAs. Then the council could consider WISTEC and whether it <br />wanted to let the organization control the parking lot. She wanted to see the University's impact <br />to be focused north of Leo Harris Parkway. Ms. Bettman suggested that the bicycle parking be <br />professionally managed, marketed, and developed to increase the one percent target. She <br />agreed with Mr. Kelly's comments about monitoring. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that he was supportive of the CPC's goals if not all the recommendations. He <br />agreed with the City and staff analysis about the CPC's status. He wanted to see the City, <br />University, and East Alton Baker Park CPC sit down together and discuss the issues involved <br />before he could support the amendment. <br /> <br />Regarding the grass parking, Mr. Kelly supported Ms. Bettman's remarks regarding a ramp down <br />in parking on the grass so WISTEC had time to work on its alternatives. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly referred to a suggestion in the staff proposal that changed the temporary bicycle parking <br />from going up and down for each game to being established before the first game and taken <br />down after the last game. He did not support that, saying that people would be going through the <br />park and be faced with orange plastic fencing. He wanted discussion of how to improve the <br />aesthetics of the situation. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson said the council needed to consider the location of the transit station. He wanted to <br />know the council's position on the options presented by staff at some point in time. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he was more interested in the outcomes than the mechanism. Eliminating Option <br />1 would probably get to most of his outcomes, but he could accept it if it was workable. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that she sometimes traveled to games by walking, bicycling, and riding the <br />bus, and there was often congestion to the north. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner arrived at the meeting. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that she hoped the City gave more thought to what the City needed to do or <br />what it could do regarding temporary signage or temporary routes or separation of bicycles from <br />pedestrians. She did not want to set up conflicts that created citizen unhappiness with alternate <br />modes. <br /> <br />Regarding bus travel to games, Ms. Nathanson said that the length of time the bus took, <br />particularly after games, was a problem. The queuing system was also confusing and <br />discouraging. Improvements in those areas would help increase use. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that she was having difficulty figuring out why Option 1 was better than <br />Option 2. She asked for staff feedback. Mr. Lowe said that the major issue was operational; <br />Option 1 was further away from the stadium, although only marginally so. He said that LTD <br />suggested that Option 1 it would be a problem for shuttling the disabled between the transit <br />station and stadium but that the University had responded to that concern by providing golf cart <br />shuttles for the disabled. He said the staging area for bus patrons was higher by three or four <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2000 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />