Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 04/10/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall April 10, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Gary Rayor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Pat Fart. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. 1 .TransPlan Planning Director Jan Childs and Transportation Planner Tom Schwetz of Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) joined the council for the continuing discussion of issues related to the TransPlan update. Ms. Childs reminded the council that at its last meeting about the topic, it began a discussion of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) policies. The work session was a continuation of that discussion, and would include consideration of transit-related policies as well. Ms. Childs reported that the Springfield City Council declined to extend the record as requested by the Friends of Eugene organization, so the record closed on March 31, 2000, and LCOG staff was in the process of collating the testimony. The Springfield council indicated willingness to reopen the record at a later date if new issues emerged prior to the joint elected officials meeting. Ms. Childs further noted that the other adopting bodies had accepted TDM Policy 1 as recommended by staff. Because the Eugene council had directed staff to examine the establishment of TDM benchmarks and to work with the school districts on a TDM program, she anticipated the policy would be a subject of discussion at the joint elected officials' work session. Referring to TDM Policy 2, /ncrease the use of motor vehic/e parking management strategies in se/ected areas throughout the Eugene-Springfie/d metropo/itan area, Mr. Schwetz said that staff recommended no change to the policy. He noted interest expressed in public testimony in a regional tax on surface parking lots and the requirements to encourage structured parking lots. He referred the council to the staff responses on to page 11 of the council meeting packet. Mr. Schwetz said staff believed the parking management strategies implementing the policy addressed both supply and demand for parking. Regarding a tax on surface parking lots, Mr. Schwetz noted the more extensive staff response to the issue in the financial issue area (response 8.2) and summarized the response as doubt that such as strategy would have much of MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 10, 2000 Page 1 Work Session 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 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 firm's review indicated that at this point there were not a sufficient number of sufficiently congested corridors in the community to warrant the implementation of congestion pricing. Mr. Lee wondered at what point the community "drew the line," and implemented congestion pricing to prevent congestion. Mr. Schwetz said that the consultant or staff were not suggesting that the City should wait until congestion was bad to implement congestion pricing, but that congestion was an indicator of demand. The community could begin looking at the strategy in its planning cycles and determine where congestion pricing might have an effect in the future. The council moved on to discussion of TDM Policy 3, Implement TDM strategies to manage demand at congested locations. Mr. Schwetz noted the receipt of comments calling for the promotion of alternative modes to reduce demand on the system and reduced use of the automobile. Staff had analyzed the suitability of TDM strategies in selected congested areas, and determined that the more mandatory a strategy, the more effective. Voluntary TDM can also have an effect on congestion, with the benefit of postponing the need for expensive capital projects, and creating situations where other TDM strategies can be more effective. Mr. Kelly said that the policy was not objectionable but it had no teeth. He suggested that it could be given teeth by benchmarks that might trigger the implementation of mandatory TDM and by funding. He had been surprised by the number of programs already operated by Lane Transit District (LTD) of which he and most residents were unaware. Mr. Kelly said those programs should be marketed to employers and to residents. Noting that most TDM efforts were financed through the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) process, Mr. Kelly called for a policy that stated the adopting jurisdictions would work through the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) to increase TDM funding at the State level. He acknowledged that the MPC would be required to move TDM ahead of some of the traditional road construction projects now included in the STIP. Ms. Nathanson noted that the list of congested areas studied by staff in connection with the application of TDM strategies were specific locations, with the exception of West 18th Avenue. She questioned whether a specific segment of the road was studied. Ms. Nathanson said that the area was less served by public transit than other areas, and next year the situation would worsen because routes were being deleted. It was difficult for those who live in the hills south of 18th Avenue to commute using alternate modes. She was unsure what TDM could do to address the fact that in some places, people had fewer choices than in other areas. Ms. Childs responded that the problems residents faced in terms of mode choice were not necessarily the same communitywide, and the solutions to address them were not the same. She noted that LTD planned to institute shuttle service into the neighborhoods in conjunction with Bus Rapid Transit, which she termed a different kind of service. While service along West 18th Avenue itself may not improve, service through the neighborhoods getting residents to the locations where transit was provided may improve. Mr. Schwetz added that analysis of West 18th Avenue involved the segment between Pearl and Polk streets, and the analysis indicated that much of the rider ship demand was created by residents coming from the hills south of the road. Mr. Meisner concurred with Mr. Kelly's remarks regarding the prioritization of TDM through the STIP. He said the staff response to testimony regarding Policy 3 needed to be read in the context of the related responses to Policy 1. He emphasized that the council did not elect to preclude mandatory TDM, and he read Policy 3 in the context of that decision. Mr. Meisner hoped staff would provide progress reports on how the other adopting jurisdictions were treating the issue. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 10, 2000 Page 4 Work Session Regarding the five study areas, Mr. Meisner said they were identified as corridors but he was not sure that was accurate in all cases; for example, he said, Gateway was a problem because it was approached by corridors in every direction that had created traffic chaos. He emphasized the need to do something to address the problems at Gateway, adding that an expensive capital project was not the solution he had in mind. Mr. Meisner liked the Oregon Department of Transportation's programming for TDM and said that they were great ideas but just a beginning. He said that educational efforts should include educating the public about the costs of private driving. He also wanted to do more to provide information about alternative nodes to users of the Amtrak station, and advocated for broadening that effort to the airport. Mr. Rayor suggested that capacity-enhancing projects could be supplanted if sufficient infrastructure, such as in the form of park and rides lots, was created. He suggested one could be located at the end of West 18th Avenue. He asked if any of the LTD park and ride projects were in the STIP. Mr. Schwetz said yes. All the projects programmed locally became part of that document. Regarding the possibility of another park and ride location along West 18th Avenue, Mr. Schwetz said a park and ride system was part of the planned improvements. Mr. Rayor asked if the community could put a higher priority on such projects and displace a capacity enhancing project. Mr. Schwetz said that theoretically, some of the funding for capacity could be diverted to park and rides, but in many cases State funding was tied to the road right-of-way. Mr. Pap~ expressed surprise that LTD had not taken more of a lead in TDM as part of TransPlan. He suggested that better and more convenient service was key to getting people out of their automobiles. Ms. Childs said that LTD staff would be present during the upcoming discussion of transit to discuss LTD's TDM efforts. She said that there was considerable overlap between TDM and transit, and those transit-specific TDM approaches were focused in the transit issue area. Mr. Schwetz said that it was because LTD took the initiative it did that the community had the program and funding resources it had. Funding had doubled for TDM because of LTD's efforts. He concurred with Mr. Kelly that the community needed to do a better job in advertising the TDM programs that existed now. Mr. Pap~ asked which of the five study corridors were the most problematic in terms of future congestion. Mr. Schwetz explained staff used "corridor" to refer to a congested link in the system; hence, the examination of Beltline Bridge extended back to the intersection of Beltline and River Road. He added that both the River Road and Gateway areas seemed to be the links that would benefit most from TDM, and LTD was pursuing a TDM project in the Gateway area. Ms. Taylor said that people should be made aware they can take the bus to the train station and avoid long-term parking charges. Ms. Taylor suggested that additional park and ride facilities would be more valuable in small outlying communities than in Eugene. Ms. Taylor favored incentives over mandates. She said that if the community had safe bicycle parking and safe bicycle lanes, it would be an incentive for people to use their bicycles. Mayor Torrey said that Eugene did not have a rush hour, but rather a "congestion moment." In terms of education, he pointed out that the emphasis on recycling had happened from the grade school up, and proposed that the council should send a letter to all the people who scheduled MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 10, 2000 Page 5 Work Session little children in activities and encourage them to find ways to keep their children "in place" when possible to avoid use of the road system. Mayor Torrey said that in many cases children were required to travel long distances for their games and their families went along in single-passenger cars during the hours of greatest congestion. Ms. Nathanson agreed with Mayor Torrey about the need to educate those who scheduled youth activities, saying those efforts should be broadened beyond sports activities. Ms. Childs reported that because the other adopting bodies had completed their review of the TDM policies and made no changes, the City's mandatory option for TDM could go forward. Discussion of transit-related policies was deferred to a future work session. 2. Work Session and Action: A Resolution Declaring Response of the City of Eugene to the Listing of the Upper Willamette Spring Chinook as Threatened Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 Public Works Department Director Christine Andersen and Planning and Development Department Director Paul Farmer were present for the item. Ms. Andersen reminded the council that it previously gave staff direction on the City's response to the draft 4(d) rules issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). She called the council's attention to a copy of the resolution prepared by staff in February (Attachment A) and a revised resolution (Attachment B) distributed to councilors prior to the meeting. Ms. Andersen clarified that now staff was seeking direction from the council on the preparation of work plans responding to the Endangered Species Act listing of the spring chinook that was reflective of the community's goals. Mr. Farmer recollected that councilors had previously asked what it would mean if the City developed a program approved by NMFS as part of its issuance of the 4(d) rules. If the program was found to give reasonable assurances species takes would not occur, those rules would then limit the application of the general take prohibition. The question discussed at the time was what that implied for approved development activities. Mr. Farmer said that the only way such a program could be approved by NMFS was if the City "raised the bar" in terms of its expectations of itself and others; then, activities and regulations carried out under those raised expectations must be found to have no impact on the species. Mayor Torrey asked why the resolution before the council was necessary. Ms. Andersen reiterated that staff was seeking direction on the development of a work plan. She believed that the community's next focus would be on implementation strategies, which she termed the "meat and potatoes" of a work program. Ms. Andersen suggested that it would help the City develop more specific information about the budget implications of the program, and its impact on the community. Also in response to Mayor Torrey, Mr. Johnson suggested that at minimum, the council adopt a resolution mirroring its previous direction to staff (Option C). He believed that the council was supportive of restoring the species and habitat to the degree possible in Eugene. Mr. Kelly said that the depth provided by the resolution was a much better message to carry forward to the public than the mere adoption of Option C had been. Mr. Kelly noted that several members of the council had worked on alternative versions of the resolution (Attachment B). He reviewed the proposed changes. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 10, 2000 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Rayor said that the council had previously been moving toward adoption of the resolution and he believed its adoption had merit for the regulatory agencies as a clue to the City's plans and management policies. Mr. Lee explained to the mayor that there was no reason for the council to take action on a legal basis, but he believed the issue was complex, political, and important to the community. He thought the resolution clarified the City's intent, and that such clarity was needed. Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to adopt the Attachment B version (page 37 of the council packet) of the resolution, declaring a response of the City of Eugene to the listing of the Upper Willamette Spring Chinook salmon as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Ms. Nathanson said that the City was already being proactive regarding the listing in that the council had adopted Option C. She said that the City's lobbying package was largely focused on natural resource funding requests. She said that the staff report had been very helpful, and she found the information on City roles useful. Regarding the reference on the same page (page 34) to the council's ability to balance the individual program proposals, benefits, and alternatives against the costs of meeting the broad policy goal, she asked if costs referred to direct costs to the City organization only, or were "costs" more broadly defined. Ms. Andersen responded that, in her opinion, it was the latter, more broadly defined costs. Mr. Johnson concurred. Ms. Nathanson said that the council needed to balance a variety of issues and determine how the community could live in the land while leaving it a better place. She said that sometimes choices were not clear because an action one took in one area could have a consequence on another area, and the tradeoffs can be disturbing. However, many of the programs listed under Option C were already underway and had already been identified as worthwhile by the council. She supported the resolution. Mr. Meisner did not think it was possible for the City to do anything but adopt the resolution given the community's sentiment and the law. He also thought it important that the council explicitly take action through the resolution, which was more clear to the public than previously adopted Option C. He believed that the greatest challenge to the City would be not how to address commercial and industrial activities but changing the conduct of private individuals in their homes. He expressed the wish that Section 3 of the resolution was specific to City programs and activities but it was so minor a point he was not going to move to amend the motion. Mr. Pap8 questioned what specifically the City might be doing as a result of Section 3. Mr. Farmer said that the City was aware of the invasive vegetation along the banks of the Willamette, and that might result in a proposal to remove those nonnative species and plant native species. Ms. Andersen added that there were longer term issues as well; for example, the open waterways issue was related to the topic. Mr. Pap8 asked about the impact of the listing on the stormwater program. Ms. Andersen said that because of the City's obligations under its National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, it had done much of the work needed to modify its practices. She said that the Stormwater Management Department Advisory Committee was working on the basin planning component of the stormwater program, and the council would see recommendations from that group soon. Those recommendations would include consideration of current City management practices the City may choose to adopt. Ms. Andersen MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 10, 2000 Page 7 Work Session agreed with Ms. Nathanson that the City had already begun to do many of the things that could be part of its response to the listing. Mr. Pap8 asked if the City had funds to channel to the effort represented by the resolution. Ms. Andersen said that staff would identify the resources available when it presented the department advisory committee's recommendations to the council, and also attempt to identify other costs and potential sources of funds. She said that staff would attempt to provide as many options to the council as possible, as well as the financial ramifications of those options. Ms. Taylor asked how adoption of the resolution would affect the development of the Amazon headwaters. Mr. Farmer said that the City would continue to explore acquisition of the land, the moneys available for the acquisition, and other acquisition priorities; in terms of development review, staff would examine the proposal in light of the need to lessen or mitigate environmental impacts. Ms. Taylor asked if policies in keeping with the resolution would prevent approval of Phase 3 of Hyundai. Ms. Andersen said no; she did not think the resolution could be interpreted in such a way. The resulting policies developed for the resolution would not preclude a specific development, but could require the development to meet requirements for protection of environmentally sensitive areas. Mr. Johnson said that because of the resolution, the council would see policies focused on salmon recovery and restoration of habitat. If there were no salmon recovery issues related to Phase 3 of the Hyundai expansion, the resolution would have no affect on the development. Ms. Taylor was glad to see the City move in the direction of restoration rather than destruction. Mayor Torrey did not take the City's policy statements lightly. He wanted people to know that the adoption of the resolution represented the council's direction to the staff to develop a proactive work plan that would allow the community to restore the salmon in the Willamette River, and that the council would review and approve the work plan. Mr. Kelly believed it was inappropriate to consider the resolution in terms of how it would affect a particular development with action pending soon. He wanted to ensure that the City avoided doing things during the interim work plan development and implementation that made it impossible to realize the goals of the resolution. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Ms. Andersen said that where appropriate, she anticipated that storm water funding would be used to underwrite the costs of the work plan in some areas. She said that the City continued to look for outside funding sources, such as grants, where possible. Mr. Lee noted the reference to the development of a fish plan in partnership with other agencies and asked the staff to explain how that plan would be developed. Ms. Andersen said that she did not know what the next steps would be as there were so many unknowns and strategies were not in place; that was part of the work plan effort. Mr. Lee asked about the potential formation of an urban watershed. Mr. Johnson said that it was an alternative staff would consider, but pointed out Eugene was not the only jurisdiction with a say in the matter, and the urban area was already covered by watershed councils now. Mr. Lee believed that the citizens and elected officials "were feeling a little anxiety" because the resolution called for development of a fish plan without MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 10, 2000 Page 8 Work Session a vehicle to do so. He said that citizens were attempting grass roots efforts to protect the salmon but needed professional support. Mr. Johnson noted that the issue of salmon recovery was partly related to government's operations and land use planning processes. The City was much farther ahead than other jurisdictions in the valley because of its storm water planning. Mr. Meisner said that watershed councils had no regulatory authority, but represented an opportunity for stakeholders to meet, have a voice, and be educated. He believed such a mechanism was needed to educate and involve Eugene citizens. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Andersen noted the many educational programs associated with the storm water program and said that those were a good foundation for the City to build on in educating the public about the listing and ways to protect the salmon. Mr. Farmer added that Neil Bj6rklund of Planning and Development Department had developed a slide presentation that explained in-depth the listing and suggested the council might want to arrange for a viewing. Mr. Bj6rklund had taken the presentation to various community and school groups. There being no further council comments or questions, Mayor Torrey called for the vote. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Kelly referred to page 48 of the council packet, which was the fourth page of the City's letter to NMFS commenting on the proposed 4(d) rules. The letter referred to the urban density development limit on take, and stated that the limit should be broadened to be more inclusive than the urban reserves. He requested clarification. Mr. Bj~rklund responded that the point of the comment was related to the fact that the explanation for that portion of that limit was focused so much on urban reserve areas coming into the urban growth boundary, and staff wanted to encourage NMFS to clarify that the limit could apply to other situations where large areas were being developed. Staff wanted to be clear that it was not jut the urban reserves involved. Mr. Kelly said that he had wondered if it could apply to areas as small as a planned unit development. Mr. Bj~rklund did not think that it was NMFS intention to apply the limit to an area that small. Mr. Rayor indicated he had a change to make to the minutes of March 8 and provided a copy of that change to the mayor, who provided it the minutes recorder. Mr. Rayor said that when the council had its executive session, it discussed the Riverfront Research Park Urban Renewal Plan, and that was incorrect; it should be changed to Riverfront Urban Renewal Plan Area as the research park was a subset of the renewal area. Mr. Klein said that staff would need a document amending the resolution, and staff would return with that amendment when the new meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency occurred. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 10, 2000 Page 9 Work Session City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 10, 2000 Page 10 Work Session