Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes - 03/08/04 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session Council Chamber--City Hall March 8, 2004 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Gary Pap~, Jennifer Solomon, Scott Meisner, Betty Taylor. His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Mr. Meisner commented that he had attended the Hult Center performance of the Moscow State Radio Symphony Orchestra and it was a wonderful concert. Ms. Nathanson echoed Mr. Meisner's comment. Mr. Kelly expressed concern to the City Manager that the City Attorney, Glenn Klein, had written an amicus brief for the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) on the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) decision regarding PeaceHealth. He said he felt that authorizing Mr. Klein to write the brief for the LOC was a policy decision that should be made by the council, not staff, and based on the council's opinion about whether the LUBA decision was good or bad. He stated that while the brief did not take a position on the PeaceHealth move to Springfield, it facilitated that move. He asked if not bringing the matter to the council constituted policy-making by staff. City Manager Dennis Taylor replied that it did not constitute policy- making because it was the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) that filed the brief, not the City of Eugene, except by virtue of its membership in the LOC. He said that Mr. Klein was not required to seek approval from either the City Manager or staff before performing services on behalf of the LOC as there was no conflict that would have required a waiver. He said that Mr. Klein did provide notification that he was writing the brief. Mr. Kelly reiterated that he felt the council was left out of a policy decision and should have been consulted about its position on the LUBA decision. He also asked Mr. Taylor to respond in writing to two rumors he had heard related to the West Eugene Parkway: 1) did staff receive a status memo from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) last fall, and 2) did ODOT make a formal or informal suggestion that because of traffic volume, the parkway east of Beltline would need to be a City street instead of an ODOT facility? He asked for a copy of the status memo if one had been received, and confirmation as well as an analysis of the fiscal implications for the City, if ODOT had suggested a portion of the parkway should be a City street. Ms. Bettman referred to a memorandum from the Lane County Human Rights Advisory Committee that included a statement that took a stand against domestic violence and was endorsed by the Lane County MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 8, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Commission on Children and Families, the Domestic Violence Council, and the Eugene Human Rights Commission. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved that the council take a stand against domestic violence by officially endorsing the statement ~To the citizens of Lane County" that is included in the packet. Ms. Bettman said that updated statistics showed 13 domestic violence-related deaths in Lane County since September 2003. She said the statistics did not capture the impact of domestic violence on children and others. Mr. Pap6 stated he was astounded by the statistics for Lane County and would support the motion. Mr. Meisner said that typically a request for endorsement would come before the council formally on the agenda, but in the interest of time, Ms. Bettman's motion was appropriate and he would support it. Mr. Poling said that there were more issues regarding domestic violence than people realized and the problems extended beyond the combatants to children, other family members, and neighbors. He said he supported the motion. Ms. Nathanson encouraged assistance, through the Human Rights Commission or Police Department, for those who were reluctant to report a situation because they were not certain it constituted domestic violence or they feared retaliation. Ms. Bettman said the domestic violence outreach initiative was to publicize information about contacts and resources for victims or individuals who were concerned, as well as to reinforce the community position against domestic violence. Mayor Torrey suggested that the City Manager or Police Department contact the New Haven, Connecticut Police Department regarding its exceptional program to prevent domestic violence. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Pap~ reported on the annual United Front trip to Washington, DC. He said the City's primary issues were natural resources and transportation. He said that because of differences among budget requests for reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act, it was possible that there would be a continuing resolution instead of legislation this year. He said the City's three top projects for which funding was requested were the interchange at Beltline and Interstate 5 (1-5), the new federal courthouse district, and design of the new I- 5 bridge over the Willamette River. Mr. Pap~ said he had noted there was still cleanup equipment in the river and he hoped that it would be removed quickly if there was no further need. He noted that during a recent visit to Boise, Idaho he had seen its new city and county combined police and public safety facility. Ms. Solomon arrived at 5:45 p.m. Mayor Torrey reported that the US Army Corps of Engineers reduced funding for the Delta Ponds project MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 8, 2004 Page 2 Work Session and the congressional delegation had been asked to assist in moving the project forward. He said the last $1 million for the wetlands project had been requested from the Bureau of Land Management and he was hopeful that the merits of the project would result in funds. He also thanked Mr. Kelly for his participation in the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development meeting that afternoon and noted that any proposal to the council required the support of 75 percent of the committee. He said that committee members had been provided with copies of his State of the City address and council minutes in order to clarify expectations of the committee. B. ACTION: Approval of a Motion to Change the Date to Consider Adopting an Ordinance that Amends the Riverfront Research Park Urban Renewal District Plan Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Poling, to amend the council motion that ta- bled action on amendments to the Riverfront Research Park Urban Renewal Plan to March 8, 2004, and change the date to March 10, 2004. Mr. Pap~ clarified that the action was being taken at the request of Ms. Taylor, who was unable to attend the March 8, 2004, meeting. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. C. WORK SESSION: Amendments to the Eugene Code Pertaining to the Procedures and Assessments of Public Improvements Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Poling, to direct staff to prepare an ordi- nance amending the Eugene Code pertaining to the procedures and assessment for public improvements to: 1. Change the method of apportioning assessments for alley improvements to a method that is based equally on property area and alley frontage; and 2. Assess all costs associated with alley improvements. City Engineer Mark Schoening gave a slide presentation on the existing assessment methodology and proposed modifications. He said the issue arose from a recommendation of the West University Neighbor- hood Task Force for alley improvements, which resulted in initiation of a local improvement district (LID) to improve multiple alleys in the neighborhood and a council request to investigate funding sources for the City's share and feasibility of amending the code to assess all of the improvement costs. He described the objectives for apportioning costs: simple, fair and equitable; applicable to West University Neighborhood and other areas of the City; and based upon special and peculiar benefits. He reviewed the five methods of apportioning assessments: 1. Existing method - area, frontage and land use factors 2. Existing method with modified land use factors 3. Land use method 4. Alley frontage method 5. Alley frontage and property area method MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 8, 2004 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Schoening illustrated the results of each method for various types of properties within the West University Neighborhood. He said that staff recommended amending the method of apportioning assess- ments to a method based equally upon alley frontage and property area because land use could be transitory in nature and change between the initiation of an LID and the final assessment. He said assessing all costs associated with alley improvements was recommended because of the uniqueness of alleys. He said the tentative working agenda had a public hearing scheduled for April 12, 2004, and council action on May 10, 2004. Mr. Meisner stated he agreed with the second recommendation to assess all costs. He noted that for many years Public Works had maintained a position that the alley assessment methodology needed to be amended and specifically emphasized that land use was a major factor. He said he did not understand the current recommendation that excluded land use as a factor in the apportionment method and could not support that part of Ms. Bettman's motion. He asked for an explanation in writing of why Public Work's position on a land use factor had changed. Ms. Solomon asked when the West University Neighborhood alley improvement project was planned. Mr. Schoening said the project was scheduled for the summer of 2005. He said the sooner the council acted, the sooner property owners could be given information on the anticipated cost. Ms. Taylor arrived at 6:10 p.m. Mr. Kelly complimented the clarity of the information provided in the agenda packet. He said that all five of the methods satisfied State requirements on specific benefit and the issue for the council was equity. He agreed with Mr. Meisner's comments and stated he could not support the staff recommendation regarding the apportionment methodology. He suggested an amendment to the motion that would request a method that would take into account differences between residential types. He said there needed to be more equity between single- and multi-family residential uses. He indicated support for full cost assessment to property owners and assessing across the LID, rather than by segment. Mr. Pap~ agreed with Mr. Meisner and Mr. Kelly and said the methodology should factor in the impact of different uses. He asked if there was an assumption that each square foot of alley would cost the same, regardless of the location and if the costs varied, would there be adjustments. Mr. Schoening replied that costs would likely vary within the LID; however, it would be extremely difficult to structure a construction contract on an alley-by-alley basis. He said the alley improvements would be bid as one project. Mr. Pap~ asked if properties that abutted an alley automatically had alley access if they had street access. Mr. Schoening said property that extended from the street to the alley would have alley access. Mr. Pap~ said that the apportionment methodology should include land use factors that were weighted based on the impact of different uses. Ms. Bettman commented that people who lived on alleys and had no alley access should not have to pay an assessment to upgrade the alley, particularly when there were mixed uses along the alley that included multi- family and commercial. She said the proposed methodology put a burden on single-family homes in an area where single-family home ownership should be encouraged. She said the existing method with modified land use factors could be the fairest approach if the access issue was addressed. She asked if those properties MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 8, 2004 Page 4 Work Session with strip parking along the alley would lose that parking when curbs and gutters were constructed. Mr. Schoening said that alley improvements did not require curbs and gutters; alleys had an inverted crown to facilitate drainage to the middle. Ms. Taylor stated she was opposed to assessing people for something they did not want, particularly if all the costs were assessed. She said she liked the concept of using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for neighborhood improvements instead of assessing home owners. She said the amount of assessment could cause some people to lose their homes. Ms. Nathanson discussed the issue of access, which she said was not a factor in any of the five methods. She commented that a property owner might not have access currently because of a choice to not use the alley for a variety of reasons; however, if the lack of access was because of the poor condition of the alley and subsequent to improvements the property owner used alley access, it was not fair to have others bear the cost. She said it was not clear how to fairly factor in access. She asked if the Planning and Development Department (PDD) had analyzed how the alley assessment apportionment methods would encourage or discourage compact urban growth objectives. Mr. Schoening said he did not think PDD had conducted an analysis of impact. Ms. Nathanson asked that PDD conduct such an analysis and the information be provided to the council. Mr. Poling complimented the quality of the information provided in the agenda packet and agreed with previous speakers that the proposed method should be adjusted. Mr. Kelly asked how staff wanted to move forward in view of the unanimity on the need to modify the recommended method of apportionment. Mr. Schoening said it appeared a majority of the council supported assessment of all costs and inclusion of a land use factor in the methodology. He said he was unclear how to proceed with the issue of access because it was counter to the land use issue in that many of the larger multi- family properties did not obtain access from the alley and if costs were not assessed to all properties along the alley, the properties that were assessed would pay a significantly higher amount. Mr. Kelly said that the issue of access was equally difficult in the case of street improvements and eventually access was factored in so that a property that did not currently have access, but later chose access, would be assessed when the permit was issued. He said that identifying later alley access would be much more difficult. He asked for a memo from staff on ideas for capturing information on alley access after improvements were made. Mr. Meisner agreed that it was difficult to accommodate access in a formula. He said he would not support the first part of the motion and he wanted a land use factor in the methodology. He also agreed with Ms. Nathanson's comments that the issue went beyond paving and supported her suggestion that PDD be consulted because it was a community development issue. Ms. Bettman remarked that she understood the points that were made about the difficulty of including access in the methodology, but people should have the opportunity to opt out of access. She suggested that a curb could be installed along those properties that did not want alley access. Ms. Bettman withdrew item 1 relating to changing the method of apportionment from her motion. The friendly amendment was accepted by Mr. Poling as the sec- MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 8, 2004 Page 5 Work Session ond. Referring to the memorandum from Mr. Schoening dated February 28, 2004, Ms. Nathanson noted that complexity of apportionment methods stemmed from the City Charter requirement that public improvement procedures and assessments could not go into effect until six months after the council's action, precluding development of methods unique to each LID. She asked if the difficulties the council was experiencing with the apportionment methodology would be resolved and allow for easier, fairer, and more creative solutions if the underlying process was confronted. Mr. Schoening said that many municipalities used a different approach and while generally the methodology did not change from one assessment district to another, there could be an opportunity to establish a methodology unique to a project, which the Charter currently precluded. Mr. Klein added that under the charter, an ordinance establishing a procedure for assessment did not take effect for six months and the local improvement process could not commence until the six months had lapsed. He said that flexibility would need to be built in to the assessment ordinance as the charter did not state how specific the assessment ordinance had to be, it only stated the process or criteria for an assessment could not be changed; an assessment code that provided more flexibility was permissible. Mr. Pap6 asked if the code could be changed every six months. Mr. Klein said the problem was that whenever the code was changed, it did not go into effect for six months and would only apply to an LID that was created after that six-month period. He said it would be an administrative nightmare for Public Works to try to schedule projects and public outreach and inform people of what their assessment was likely to be if the code was changing every six months. Mr. Pap6 expressed concern about the issue of access and noted that while a particular property might not choose alley access, it still benefited from the alley in other ways, such as emergency vehicle access and trash collection. He suggested that some type of adjustment could be made for properties seeking access after improvements. Mayor Torrey asked if the dilemma was whether to assess property owners who did not use alley access and therefore had no benefit from the alley and if it was, was there a test of benefit, including ancillary benefit, that could be used for adjustments. Mr. Schoening replied that many properties did not have physical access and would require modifications to achieve access. He said that legally a property that abutted an alley could use the alley for access to the property. He said that if a property had legal access, even though access was not used, there was still a benefit to the property that was granted to it in perpetuity. Mr. Klein said that if a property owner could demonstrate that there was and could be no benefit to the property, then the council could and would be legally obligated to exclude that property from the local improvements as no special and peculiar benefit would apply. He said that the courts would defer to the council in making the determination of benefit. Mr. Kelly confirmed that a public hearing would be held when the specific LID was formed by resolution. He commented, with respect to access, that there was some benefit to properties from an improved alley being in place and a broader public safety benefit to the neighborhood. Ms. Bettman argued that the benefit would depend on the neighborhood and the nature of the alley and there were significant differences in how such a project would be perceived in other neighborhoods. She asked if the LID public hearing would be the opportunity for a property owner to appeal an assessment. Mr. Klein responded that there were several steps involved in creating an LID and levying the assessment and at each component of the process a property owner could request an assessment not be made. Mr. Schoening said MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 8, 2004 Page 6 Work Session that hearings would be held before the Hearings Official. Mr. Klein continued that a property owner could also appear before the council at the last step of adopting the assessment ordinance and claim no benefit and the council could make that determination. Ms. Bettman asked if the notification to property owners of the formation of an LID explicitly stated the option of claiming no benefit and if it did not, she asked that the information be included. Mr. Schoening said the letter was a form letter tailored to each project and property owners had come to past hearings and claimed no benefit. Ms. Nathanson said she was not in favor of changing the code every six months. She encouraged the property owner notification to use plain language to describe the LID and appeal process and explain the issues. Ms. Taylor asked how soon after the assessment was levied owners were required to pay. Mr. Schoening said owners had 10 to 15 days after council action to pay the assessment in full or sign up to finance it through the City. Ms. Taylor asked if the public hearings were held before the council. Mr. Schoening replied that the LID hearings were before the Hearings Official. Mr. Kelly raised a point of order and requested clarification on whether the council had the option of holding a hearing on a resolution. Mr. Klein replied that the council had the option of holding a public hearing before any action it took. Mr. Pap6 raised a point of order that the Municipal Charter required a public hearing before any ordinance was passed. Mr. Klein said he would research the matter. Mayor Torrey restated the amended motion as ~I move to direct staff to prepare an ordinance amending the Eugene Code pertaining to the procedures and assessments for public improvements to assess all costs associated with alley improvements." The motion as amended passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. D. WORK SESSION: Central Area Transportation Study (CATS) Principal Civil Engineer Chris Henry reviewed previous council action and background on CATS. He said that as a result of discussions to date, he was proposing to prepare motions for the council's consideration at such time as CATS was scheduled for action. He listed the three items that would be included in the motions: 1. #8 Parking policy on page 13 of CATS did not match wording in text later in the document; the page 13 text was correct and the housekeeping change would preserve consistency in the document. 2. #3 Policy discussion related to system development charges (SDC) - delete the geographical com- ponent discussion as it no longer applied. 3. Replace reference to the Breeze shuttle through the document with ~downtown shuttle service." MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 8, 2004 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Henry asked for feedback from the council on any other items that should be brought back in the form of motions. He noted that much of the public testimony related to the proposal to convert Willamette Street to two-way operation. He said that CATS proposed conversion from 13th Avenue to 20th Avenue and the overlay project to be completed in the summer of 2004 would only include conversion to two-way operation between 13th and 18th avenues. He said a public open house was scheduled for Thursday, April 1, 2004, between 4:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. at the Eugene Chamber of Commerce to address citizen concerns and interest about the overlay project and two-way conversion. He recommended that the 13th Avenue to 20th Avenue conversion be retained in the CATS implementation strategies, with the 18th Avenue to 20th Avenue conversion deferred to a future study that comprehensively considered north/south arterial circulation through town. He said that such a study would require additional funding. Mr. Henry said that significant testimony was also received about the 6th Avenue realignment related to the federal courthouse and assertions were made that the realignment was within the Willamette River greenway, which was not the case. He said the realignment was south of the railroad tracks and the CATS document was consistent with other policy direction received through the Courthouse District Concept Plan, the Eugene Capital Improvement Program, the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program, and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. He said that concern was also expressed about how access management might affect the character of downtown and stated that as the City went through the administrative rule process, the application of access management strategies would be different in the downtown core area than on other arterial streets. Mr. Meisner observed that the council had recently met with the Lane Transit District Board of Directors, and he was subsequently informed that the new Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) vehicles would not operate with a guideway system as had always been planned for BRT. He said this would require wider lanes for BRT and asked for a written response and analysis on what the impact of wider BRT lanes would be in CATS. Mr. Henry replied that the wider lane widths in an unguided system were within the standard lane widths the City used on its streets. Mr. Kelly said he shared Mr. Meisner's concern about wider BRT lanes and it could raise questions about the council's support for BRT. He said it did not appear that the Planning Commission's recommended changes were included in the document. Mr. Henry said that the commission's changes were provided as attachments. Mr. Kelly asked that they be incorporated in the final document for adoption. Mr. Kelly stated that the CATS document should contain an explicit statement that further study was required before two-way conversion of Willamette Street between 18th Avenue and 20th Avenue was considered. Mr. Henry said that such a statement could be included. Continuing, Mr. Kelly asked that staff propose amendment language that would acknowledge the fact that a trolley study was an important aspect of improved central transit, consistent with language in the Downtown Plan. Mr. Henry said the Planning Commission did not recommend inclusion of such language and if it was added to the document, such a study would need to be funded. Mr. Pap~ said it was his understanding that a factor in the conversion of Willamette Street to two-way operation was the new Fire Station No. 1 at 13th Avenue and Willamette Street. He asked if there were other reasons for the conversion and what would happen to Oak Street. Mr. Henry replied that Oak Street was northbound, as would be the additional capacity on Willamette Street, and staff expected that some Oak Street traffic would divert to Willamette Street. He said there was no plan to change the one-way operations MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 8, 2004 Page 8 Work Session of either Oak Street or Pearl Street. Mr. Papd commented that there should be other ways to achieve northbound access for fire vehicles and he did not see the need for the conversion to two-way of any part of Willamette Street. He suggested that alternatives to disturbing the neighborhood, such as Oak Street, should be explored. Mr. Henry said realignment between 18th Avenue and 20th Avenue could be part of a broader transportation study of north/south connectivity. He said the conversion of Willamette Street was identified in the 1993 CATS update and raised during the downtown visioning process to improve access and circulation and ease of navigation through town. Mr. Pap~ said he understood the reasons but did not agree with the concept. Ms. Bettman said the trolley study was important and one of the reasons the Planning Commission did not recommend including it in CATS was because it was presented to them with the information that the Urban Rail Feasibility Study said it was not feasible. She said the study looked at a broad northwest corridor for an urban rail BRT route or an east/west corridor and did not consider a short circulating route downtown. She supported Mr. Kelly's request that language related to the trolley study be added to the document. Ms. Bettman expressed concern with leaving in language regarding a Willamette Street conversion between 13th Avenue and 20th Avenue, even though it was the intent for the conversion to only go to 18th Avenue. She requested explicit language that would clarify that the 18th Avenue to 20th Avenue conversion was not under consideration, it would be included in a future study, and any future proposal would be the subject of a public hearing before the council or she could not support the CATS. Mr. Poling remarked that there had been strong objection during public testimony to the Willamette Street conversion between 18th Avenue and 20th Avenue and he supported requests to clarify in CATS that the conversion would not be done without further study. He thanked staff for the clarification that the street alignment in the courthouse district would not extend into the greenway. Ms. Taylor said that a highway along the river, even if it was along the railroad tracks, was still detrimental to the river and she asked that a motion be prepared to eliminate that from CATS. She agreed with requests to remove the language about the 18th Avenue to 20th Avenue conversion of Willamette Street and add language related to the trolley study. She asked if Oak Street had been considered for two-way conversion. Mr. Henry said Oak Street had been considered in the analysis but was determined to be unacceptable. Ms. Taylor asked for more information on why Oak Street was deemed unacceptable. She asked if trucks from Fire Station No. 5 would be responding to calls south of 20th Avenue, instead of trucks from Fire Station No. 1. Mr. Henry explained that fire stations provided back-up for each other and a full conversion of Willamette Street would reduce response time. Ms. Taylor said she would not support any document that had Highway 99 along the railroad tracks and would request the language be deleted. She said that some more discussion should be had on the subject of Willamette Street and Oak Street. Ms. Solomon said it was foolish to take the 18th Avenue to 20th Avenue portion of Willamette Street off the table pending a study if funding for the study was not provided. She said it was important to address the traffic problems in that area, commit the money for a study, determine how issues could be resolved, and MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 8, 2004 Page 9 Work Session complete the entire conversion at one time; to do less was not managing the City's traffic problems. Referring to what CATS said about the transit system, Ms. Nathanson said she joined other members of the council in their remarks about BRT and how it might be changing in relation to what the council originally expected to be implemented. She expressed concern about moving from a fixed route with guided paths, the need to acquire right-of-way, and potential disruption to current land uses. She said if the new direction meant that BRT was less affordable because of the need for more right-of-way and a greater loss of parking, or if it meant design changes in the width of sidewalks or street trees, she wanted more information about the impacts. Mr. Kelly stated that because of the concerns raised about BRT from council members, information should come back to the council soon on the material impact on the pilot corridor of the new direction, which could be outside the bounds of the original council resolution approving the pilot corridor. He observed that there was support for the Willamette Street conversion between 13th Avenue and 18th Avenue. He asked if Public Works intended to complete that conversion during the summer because it would be more efficient to do it in conjunction with the overlay project planned for the summer of 2004. Mr. Henry said that was the case. Ms. Bettman echoed concerns about BRT. She said she had talked to some businesses along Willamette Street and they were not opposed to the conversion between 13th Avenue and 18th Avenue, but a major concern continued to be parking. She said she supported the conversion, but a significant impact on parking would erode that support. She asked that language in CATS reflect that the 18th Avenue to 20th Avenue conversion was off the table. Ms. Bettman raised the question of the possibility of redevelopment at the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) site and how that might impact some of the projects being planned in the courthouse district since redevelopment at the EWEB site was not anticipated when the courthouse district plans were put forth. Addressing the issue of north/south traffic corridors and movement of traffic and fire trucks, she noted that Civic Stadium was owned by Eugene School District 4J and on the property disposal list. She said that could present an opportunity to the City to look at that area and create the type of north/south access that was required without a negative impact on businesses or the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Meisner joined Mr. Kelly's request to the City Manager to engage in a discussion with LTD and obtain additional information regarding the impact of the direction of BRT. He also concurred with other councilors about taking the 18th Avenue to 20th Avenue conversion of Willamette Street off the table and agreed with Ms. Solomon's comment that a study of the issue should be funded. He cited examples in other cities where shopping centers or residential areas had opposed a connection to a light rail or BRT system, but pleaded to be connected once the system was in operation. Mr. Pap~ supported Ms. Bettman's suggestion to consider the Civic Stadium site as part of a study of a north/south corridor. He said he was not certain there was strong support for the 13th Avenue to 18th Avenue conversion of Willamette Street to two-way operation. He suggested removing the 13th Avenue to 20th Avenue conversion from CATS, except for the issue of how traffic from Fire Station No. 1 would be handled. He also was in favor of exploring the possibility of redevelopment on the EWEB site within the context of the plan for the courthouse district. Mr. Henry said the EWEB site transportation issues were under discussion with the City's consultant team, but not something that should be included in CATS. He said a feasibility study of how the transportation MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 8, 2004 Page 10 Work Session system could work in that area would be done. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 8, 2004 Page 11 Work Session