CC Minutes - 01/21/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

that the City used urban renewal and parking fund reserves to build parking structures, and covered the cost of parking operations with the current rate structure. Mr. Meisner asked if staff considered downtown parking demand from new development in the context of what already existed. Mr. Luell reminded Mr. Meisner that the downtown was exempt from parking requirements. However, acknowledging that there was a practical demand for parking, staff modeled parking as part of the Central Area Transportation Study (CATS) to predict future demand and determine how to meet the demand. Results predicted demand for about 3,000 new spaces in the west end of downtown and the 5th Street Market area at the end of the 15-year planning period. If the City were to build all those spaces now, it might have enough parking until it reached that year. Mr. Meisner asked if modeling factored in the possibility that a parking space could serve a resident who both lived and worked downtown. Mr. Luell said that such parking, known as shared parking, was recognized in the demand projections. Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Luell confirmed that the Parking Fund had revenues of approximately $4 million. The remainder of the fund constituted reserves for capital, etc. Ms. Nathanson referred to the first objective listed in the overview regarding the need for an efficient and appropriate level of service. She said that the council sometimes received letters from people who raised questions about the appropriate level of parking enforcement activity in downtown. In some cases, the concerns were raised regarding private lots. Ms. Nathanson said that the issues of accountability and equity were important to her, and asked how the City could begin to meet the objective. Ms. Elmer responded that in recent months the City had been approached by Downtown Eugene, Inc., who wished to play a more active role in the Parking Fund. Staff had agreed to work with DEl and the downtown merchants on a joint approach that focused on customer service. In addition, the issue of the need for similar standards for private and public parking facilities had come up. Ms. Elmer said that citizens wanted "seamless service" and did not know or care who provided parking. Another idea that had come up was that of integrated parking signage for downtown that included signage for alternative modes. Ms. Nathanson asked that staff prepare a brief memorandum regarding the third objective listed in the fund overview, which called for supporting the implementation of council goals by funding promotion of alternative modes that support compact growth/growth management. Specifically, she asked for information about relationships between the location of downtown employee parking and customer parking and its distribution. She was interested in knowing if available parking was in the right place, were people aware of it, how far did they need to travel. Ms. Nathanson said she would like to understand the concepts behind distribution and distance. Ms. Taylor asked why no public parking was provided at the railroad station. She maintained that it had become difficult for people wishing to pick up a passenger or buy a ticket to park at the station. Ms. Taylor said that it would be consistent with the City's goals to make parking easier. She also questioned why residents of the proposed St. Vincent de Paul downtown Iow-income housing development would need parking as she believed the concept of locating such housing in the core close to bus lines was to eliminate the need for automobiles. In response, Mr. Luell said that the railroad was located on private property and the property owners chose the parking arrangement. He noted the presence of public on-street parking in the right-of-way. Regarding the need for parking for the St. Vincent de Paul project, Mr. Luell agreed that the concept was MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 21, 1998 Page 7 11:30 a.m.