CC Minutes - 04/10/00 Work Session

Home Browse Search

had tested various pricing schemes, and when the results were reviewed, people were concerned about the equity because the only paid parking in the community was downtown. In general, Mr. Schwetz said, if the City increased the price of parking in downtown, it would see a shift in modes, but it could also see changes in land use that it did not want to see. Mr. Rayor said that during the council's upcoming work session on parking he would like more discussion of TDM. Mr. Rayor asked if parking lots in the periphery could be required to match City standards in terms of landscaping, lighting, etc. Regarding the issue of bicycle parking, Mr. Rayor said that many businesses do not have such parking, and he wondered about code provisions to require such parking. For example, he said, bicycle parking at Autzen Stadium was "wretched." Mayor Torrey said if the City imposed strict regulations that forced development to other outlying communities, it had implications; for example, it could force development to Junction City. If the City instituted regulations for parking in the periphery, where did the next "big box" development locate? He pointed out that Eugene could not impose regulations on other communities. Ms. Childs concurred. Mayor Torrey asked the council to consider the unintended consequences of some of the points under discussion. Ms. Nathanson asked if the goal of the effecting changes in development was to effect a change in the way land was developed, thus benefitting the transportation system overall, or whether the goal was to impact the citizens' choice of transportation modes. If the City began to tax surface parking lots or changed its permitting requirements to "level the playing field," she questioned whether there would be a change in the way land was developed, or a change in the location of such activities. Ms. Nathanson said depending on what the council chose, it was just as likely the result would be a shift in location, eliminating the opportunity for Eugene to demonstrate how it could develop wisely and increasing VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) as people traveled farther to reach developments in other communities or outside the urban growth boundary. While he acknowledged Ms. Nathanson's concerns, Mr. Meisner did not want to settle for lower standards to preclude development from occurring elsewhere, saying the City would then not get the type of development it wanted anyway. He wanted a plan that achieved the council's goals and, to the extent it did not, he hoped the council was willing to do more. Mr. Meisner believed that outlying communities shared the concerns Eugene had about sprawl, although it may take time for all communities to come together to find mutual solutions. He did not want to ask for less for fear development would locate elsewhere. He said that the City's standards need to be as high as the community demanded. Mr. Lee suggested it might be appropriate for the council to have more of a "big picture" discussion about the topic, similar to the one it had with Terry Moore of EcoNorthwest about the Residential Lands Study. Ms. Childs agreed, adding that it would be important for the council to consider the tradeoffs involved as it reviewed the implementation strategies. She also noted another opportunity for a big picture discussion presented by the regional central Lane County planning effort being underwritten by grant funding by the State. Ms. Childs said that many of the big picture issues would be grappled with in that process. She did not know the timing of the work, but noted that the funding had been received. Mr. Lee asked staff to comment on the topic of congestion pricing. Mr. Schwetz said that staff asked EcoNorthwest to look at the feasibility of different congestion pricing approaches, and the MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 10, 2000 Page 3 Work Session