Laserfiche WebLink
Car sharing <br />Ms. Harding stated car sharing had been discussed extensively by the committee, noting car sharing <br />companies were just getting started in Eugene. The committee thought it was a good idea to support the <br />concept but there were questions about whether it should be addressed in the code at this time. It did not <br />support incorporating language into the code at this time. <br />In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Ms. Harding said currently each off-site lease for parking <br />spaces was evaluated individually based on current parking standards and enforcement was complaint <br />based. <br />Mr. Hledik suggested the issue be addressed in an adjustment process as long as there was adequate <br />language in the code to address the issue if car sharing proved to be unprofitable and disappeared. <br />Mr. Lawless concurred there needed to be strong language to address decommissioning parking units if <br />the car sharing was not successful and went away. <br />Ms. Beierle asserted the bedroom count was a disincentive for honesty. The commission should create an <br />alternative solution as an incentive to deal with the bedrooms. Creative ways to address parking should <br />be considered, by providing more options rather than limiting those options. <br />Responding to Mr. Carroll, Ms. Harding said the only community that had been identified as having a <br />code reduction for car sharing was in Vancouver, British Columbia. The program did not have Oregon <br />land use laws, and could grant a lot of latitude in the program enforcement. <br />Mr. Duncan agreed the City should start moving towards the idea as long as there was a mechanism <br />address parking spaces if the program was not successful. <br />Mr. Carroll did not think the Planning Commission had sufficient information to make a recommendation <br />to the City Council at this time. <br />Mr. Hledik was reluctant to push for an adjustment review since there were city wide implications on any <br />proposal the City may adopt. He suggested it should be part of a broader work plan rather than part of the <br />ICS parking proposals. <br />Mr. Duncan thought the financial mechanics were in place around the UO due to the high number of <br />residential units in the area. <br />Mr. Carroll was concerned it had been a vague idea all along and there did not appear to be much impetus <br />to make it more than that. If an environment was not created to test the project, there would be no <br />opportunity to look at the financial mechanisms. He asked that staff make a presentation to the City <br />Council, if it provided only a baby step to study the potential. <br />Mr. Lawless said adjustment review provided a mechanism to address the issue, but it was also an <br />expensive method to do so. He asked why the commission was not willing to take the leap and offer <br />something that provided a reasonable holding place in this evolution of the code to address changing use <br />patterns, parking demand and alternative modes. <br />Mr. Hledik said in order for him to support Mr. Lawless’ suggestion, a proposal would need to be as <br />locked in as the current leasing program that encumbered development. <br />DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 26, 2009 Page 8 <br /> <br />