CC Minutes - 04/10/00 Work Session

Home Browse Search

a TDM effect in lower density development unless the tax was very high, and it would be difficult to "level the playing field," which was a stated desired outcome of such a tax. Mr. Meisner was unsure he would change the text of the policy, but he was interested in what Eugene could do locally in this area. He wanted to "level the playing field" and find a way to affect both downtown development and the way development occurred by changing the way it approached development in the periphery by increasing transportation requirements. Mr. Meisner also expressed interest in the efficient use of commercially and industrially zoned lands in terms of parking. He cited campus industrial sites with big parking lots and large lawns as examples of inefficient use of land. Ms. Nathanson had no change to suggest to the policy. She noted the City's preferential parking treatment of car pool users and questioned the effectiveness of that approach in encouraging car pooling. Ms. Childs indicated staff would provide information on current programs when the council discussed Eugene's implementation of TDM. Ms. Taylor requested information about the use of the phrase "level playing field." Mr. Schwetz responded that the term came up in the course of developing the plan. Staff was looking at a broad TDM strategy that increased the cost of parking as a way of discouraging automobile use. The phrase was used by people who wanted to maintain the viability of downtown, which was the only location in the metropolitan area with paid parking. Ms. Taylor favored taxing surface lots or charging for parking only in the outlying areas of the community because that was where it cost the most to drive, and such an approach more fairly competed with downtown. She called for restrictions on the size of surface parking lots. Mr. Kelly observed that from the standpoint of new commercial ventures, it was better from an equity standpoint to implement communitywide TDM. He said that TDM Policy 2 was very vague, and without program actions underlying it had no stand alone value. He wanted strengthened program actions added, and suggested one appropriate action might be the taxing of surface parking lots. Mr. Kelly said that such a tax was not designed to produce revenues, but rather to motivate changes in land use. He said he was not committed to one single method, but believed a metropolitan approach to the issue was most equitable. Responding to a request for clarification from Mr. Kelly regarding the staff response about taxing surface lots in lower density areas, Mr. Schwetz said that the general staff analysis had focused on a parking tax with a direct effect on demand as a TDM measure, rather than the longer term effect on land uses suggested by Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Schwetz to comment on his remarks regarding equity, and why it was that a strategy like a tax or differential for structured parking would not act to balance the inequity between structured parking downtown and surface lots on the periphery. Mr. Schwetz responded that staff was suggesting it was uncertain that a property owner in an outlying area faced with a tax on a surface parking lot spaces would necessarily pass that cost on to the users of the lot, but rather to people paying rent in the building being served by the lot. Mr. Kelly said he would like to see development of a strategy that could cause a business owner with acres of surface parking lot to realize that more could be realized from there land if the parking was structured. Mr. Pap8 said that it was necessary to take a metropolitan approach. He called for market-based incentives. Regarding structured parking in the periphery, Mr. Pap8 asked if there was a role for government in assisting a landowner to build a parking structure. He was concerned that the appropriate amount was being charged for parking downtown. Mr. Schwetz responded that staff MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 10, 2000 Page 2 Work Session