Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 05/13/09 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon May 13, 2009 12:00 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, George Poling, Betty Taylor, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz. Ms. Piercy called the work session meeting of the Eugene City Council to order at 12:00 p.m. A. WORK SESSION – West Eugene EmX Extension Update LTD Board President Mike Eyster presented an update on LTD’s West Eugene EmX Extension Project and noted that LTD’s primary objective for the briefing before the Eugene City Council was to learn how they might want to process decisions regarding any locally preferred alternative (LPA). Mr. Eyster proceeded to demonstrate LTD’s 61- mile bus rapid transit (BRT) system and related infrastructure that had been incorporated as part of the TransPlan approved in 2001 Mr. Schwetz commented that the approval of the TransPlan in 2001 had been the impetus for the eventual implementation of BRT systems by LTD. Mr. Eyster demonstrated figures that reflected the number of community residents who used LTD transit services and noted as proof of the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the LTD systems that the number of LTD service hours had decreased while the number of overall boardings across the LTD system had increased dramatically. Mr. Eyster noted that an increase in LTD ridership around 2006 was attributable to the implementation of the student group pass program. He noted that the student group pass program had been very successful in reducing the number of vehicles on the road while at the same time introducing students to the benefits of public transportation. Mr. Schwetz noted that student group pass users accounted for approximately 7,000 out of the 44,000 LTD boardings per day. He further noted that the increase in the number of boardings across LTD reflected the success of LTD’s efforts to expand the traditional role of public transportation systems to include “choice riders” in addition to riders that were historically considered to be “transit dependent. Mr. Schwetz, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that recent economic conditions and fluctuations in fuel prices had contributed significantly to recent rises in LTD ridership but were not completely responsible for them. Mr. Eyster presented figures regarding the average weekday boardings for LTD’s EmX service which demonstrated the effectiveness of the system. Mr. Eyster further noted that, taken in comparison to the boarding statistics for LTD Route No. 11, the ridership figures for EmX had already surpassed the 20- year projections for the service. Mr. Eyster and Mr. Schwetz briefly discussed the main characteristics of BRT systems and described how those MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 13, 2009 Page 1 Work Session characteristics had been incorporated or would be incorporated into EmX services. Mr. Schwetz directed the council members to their copies of an LTD brochure which was designed to demonstrate the efficiency and effectiveness of BRT systems. Mr. Eyster commented that BRT systems such as the EmX often facilitated the implementation of full scale light rail transit since BRT systems used similar infrastructure elements. Mr. Eyster briefly discussed EmX Contributions to Addressing Key Community Issues as listed in his presentation materials for the benefit of the council members. Additionally, Mr. Schwetz reported on recent studies that showed significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and other climate change related impacts were present in public transit systems where there were typically more than 7 to 10 bus passengers per hour. He reported that EmX boardings averaged approximately 115 riders per hour. Mr. Schwetz presented information regarding the LTD Alternatives Analysis and Drafting of Environmental Impact Study (EIS) as it pertained to the extension of EmX service in the West Eugene area. He noted that a number of public outreach efforts would be conducted with regard to the analysis and the EIS in order to keep community members fully informed on all aspects of the West Eugene EmX Extension project. Mr. Schwetz noted that LTD’s draft EIS was expected to be completed and released in January of 2010 to be followed by a 60-day public comment period Mr. Schwetz noted that, with respect to the LPA, LTD was requesting that the council provide direction to them regarding what information might be necessary in order to reach a consensus as well as direction regarding the types of processes the council might want to use as it reached a decision on the LPA. He further commented that a joint preferred alternative committee comprised of representatives of the Eugene City Council, the LTD Board of Directors, and the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) might be used to determine a course of action regarding the LPA. Mr. Schwetz, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that the MPC would have input regarding the LPA since the West Eugene EmX Extension project was federally funded. Mr. Eyster concluded his presentation and noted that although the extension of LTD’s EmX service had at times been controversial, the public need for the system was very high and that the service had indeed had many positive broad effects upon the community. Mr. Piercy noted that she had recently visited the new Springfield EmX station and looked forward to the benefits that the extension of the EmX service would provide. She appreciated the clarity and specificity of the LTD presentation and recognized that successful implementation of the extension project would require concerted effort from the City of Eugene and its partner agencies such as Lane County, the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) and the City of Springfield. Mr. Taylor hoped that LTD’s public transit extension efforts would include services for people living in the more remote, outlying areas of Eugene and Lane County and not just services for the denser, more centrally located areas. Mr. Eyster, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that while he did not have exact population figures for the City of Eugene from any periods where the City used streetcar systems it was generally accepted that such systems had proven to be financially unsustainable. Ms. Taylor suggested that the council members use one of their future work session meetings to take a group tour led MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 13, 2009 Page 2 Work Session by LTD representatives of the various locations described by Mr. Eyster in his presentation. Ms. Taylor hoped that LTD would provide extensive public input opportunities with regard to any expansions of its services. Mr. Schwetz assured Ms. Taylor that LTD conducted a wide variety of extensive public outreach efforts in order to involve the public on all LTD projects. Mr. Zelenka was concerned about how LTD might address any right-of-way issues associated with future expansions of the EmX system and hoped that such issues would be adequately addressed in the future. Mr. Schwetz, responding to a comment from Mr. Zelenka, noted that the impressive ridership figures associated with the EmX service were attributable to both the efficiencies of the EmX system as well as the fact that LTD staff might have actually underestimated the 20-year projections for EmX ridership. Mr. Schwetz, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that LTD’s plans to begin collecting fares for EmX services beginning in the fall of 2009 would allow LTD to more easily implement fare collection procedures in all subsequent expansions of the EmX system. Mr. Schwetz, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that the Springfield and Coburg representatives on the MPC were entitled to vote on the Springfield expansions of the EmX service as they had done because it was a transportation project. Mr. Zelenka felt that it would be very important to involve members of the public with regard to any efforts to expand the EmX service, particularly with regard to those persons Mr. Schwetz had described as “transit dependent.” Mr. Clark agreed with Ms. Taylor that it would be very important for LTD to provide a wide variety of public outreach efforts. Mr. Clark noted that various long-term right-of-way acquisition issues would need to be addressed in any future plans to expand the EmX and other related LTD services. He noted that he still had a number of concerns regarding the capital investment planning that would be required to address right of way acquisition issues when there remained a number of other operational and financial security issues that needed to be addressed by the City. Mr. Brown asked that the LTD representatives provide information to the council regarding no-build alternatives and also asked if LTD had conducted any surveys of LTD riders with regard to EmX expansions. Mr. Schwetz replied that such surveys had been conducted and that he would be happy to send Mr. Brown and the other council members a copy of the survey results. Mr. Eyster, responding to a question from Mr. Brown regarding the spacing of stops along the EmX lines, noted that while the stops were indeed further apart, a number of neighborhood circulator bus routes had been established in order to make it easier for riders to travel to and from those EmX stations as well as other main transit lines in the area. Mr. Pryor reminded those present that much of the funding for EmX expansions and other related BRT services came from federal sources. Mr. Pryor felt that it would be very important to balance the needs of the various types of public transportation users in the area. Mr. Poling commented that he continued to serve as a member of the Coburg Road stakeholder group which advised on various BRT and EmX related issues as well as a related BRT/EmX steering committee. He felt that the use of MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 13, 2009 Page 3 Work Session stakeholder groups and steering committees had been very effective in positively affecting the development of BRT transit systems in the area and hoped that such efforts might continue in the future. Ms. Ortiz noted she had attended some of LTD’s public outreach sessions and felt that LTD had been very effective at communicating with not only members of the public but also local businesses. She recognized that LTD and the EmX service represented an important regional asset to the community and advocated for further City participation in the discussions regarding expansion of the service. Ms. Ortiz suggested that LTD start investigating other corridors in Eugene where EmX services or other BRT systems might be beneficial. She further suggested that LTD’s student bus pass services might be expanded to include residents in the West Eugene area and other outlying neighborhoods of the City. Mr. Brown, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, clarified his earlier statements regarding no-build alternatives to mean that such alternatives would not involve any dedicated transportation lines or elimination of parking areas. Mr. Eyster and Mr. Schwetz, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that various EmX neighborhood build-out issues had been addressed over the course of the Gateway EmX extension project. They noted that further plans for neighborhood expansions of LTD services were still to be determined. LTD General Manager Mark Pangborn, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, described the various federal and state funding mechanisms used to provide for EmX extension efforts and other BRT-related projects. Mr. Schwetz, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, briefly discussed various connectivity elements of the EmX expansion and alignment options along West 11th Avenue. Mr. Poling suggested that the council’s discussion of the Local Economic Development Plan as listed on the agenda be postponed to a later meeting to allow for further council discussion regarding the EmX extension project. Mr. Schwetz, responding to a question from Mr. Poling, noted that LTD’s plans for its “Bus Plus” corridor systems had been put on hold due to various operational and financial issues. Ms. Piercy looked forward to further updates from the LTD board regarding the EmX extensions and to their continued participation in future stakeholder meetings. B. WORK SESSION – Local Economic Development Plan – Part Two Ms. Piercy noted that the previously scheduled council work session discussion would be postponed to provide time for a discussion of HB 2001 C. WORK SESSION – Proposed Amendments – HB 2001 Intergovernmental Relations Manager Brenda Wilson directed the council members to their copies of the proposed amendments to HB 2001 as well as a draft letter from the City of Springfield to the Oregon State Legislature regarding the proposed amendments to the bill that had been introduced by the group known as 1000 Friends of Oregon. Ms. Wilson noted that the Springfield City Council was requesting the City of Eugene to sign it as well and support their opposition to the amendments. Ms. Wilson noted that the amendment proposed by 1000 Friends of Oregon would require the three largest Metropolitan Policy Organizations (MPOs) in Oregon (Portland Metro, Eugene-Springfield, and Salem-Keizer) to MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 13, 2009 Page 4 Work Session factor greenhouse gas emissions in their transportation and land use plans as part of a pilot study. Ms. Wilson noted that the City of Springfield had several serious reservations regarding the amendments which were expected to move into the bill very soon. Ms. Wilson noted that several Eugene City staff members had reviewed the amendments and offered written responses. Ms. Wilson, responding to a comment from Ms. Piercy, stated she had recently spoken with the chair of the state House Transportation Committee who had indicated to her that the amendments in some form were expected to be adopted into HB 2001. Mr. Clark asked if there had been any discussion about possibly allowing the Eugene-Springfield MPO to drop out of the pilot study specified in the 1000 Friends of Oregon amendment. Ms. Wilson noted that the Salem-Keizer MPO shared concerns similar to those of Eugene and Springfield and was also investigating whether or not those concerns would require them to oppose HB 2001 as a whole. Ms. Wilson stated that staff would need direction from the council regarding the manner in which they would proceed regarding the amendment itself as well as whether or not the City of Eugene would co-sign Springfield’s letter regarding the amendment. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Piercy, reported she had spoken with John Chandler of the Homebuilders Association who informed her that while they supported the amendments they also shared some of the concerns brought forth by the City of Springfield. Ms. Wilson, responding to a request for further information from Mr. Zelenka, provided a brief overview of the reservations that had been raised by the City of Springfield regarding the proposed amendments to HB 2001. She noted that while Springfield generally agreed with the policy intent of the amendment, they worried that it might represent an unfunded mandate and would circumvent the City’s authority. She further noted that other concerns regarding the amendments, as well as several proposed alternatives, had been detailed in Springfield’s draft letter to the state legislature. Mr. Zelenka maintained that the amendment represented an important and badly needed strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, but agreed that there were several funding and planning issues that might need to be addressed in ways similar to what Springfield had suggested. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Mr. Clark, commented that the amendment to HB 2001 could divert state operational funds to fund the pilot program. Mr. Clark recognized the goals of the 1000 Friends of Oregon’s amendment but noted that he could not currently endorse the amendment to HB 2001 as written. He further noted he had not yet had a chance to review the draft letter from Springfield. Mr. Poling noted that he would not support the proposed amendments to HB 2001 and noted he would be willing to make a motion in support of the Springfield letter. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, stated that local gas taxes would not be affected by the proposed amendment. Ms. Ortiz was concerned about funding issues related to the amendment and noted that while she agreed with the MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 13, 2009 Page 5 Work Session goals of the amendment she could not currently support it. Ms. Piercy understood that the over-arching purpose of the 1000 Friends of Oregon amendment was to address greenhouse gas and carbon emissions and agreed that it was a viable strategy that should be supported. She believed that while the funding issues in the amendment would need to be addressed, opposing the amendment indicated a lack of commitment to the environmental concerns of the community. Mr. Pryor noted that the amendments to the bill might not be the best course of action for the City of Eugene and stated he would need more time to review the matter. He noted he would not currently support the proposed amendments. Ms. Solomon agreed with Mr. Pryor’s comments and indicated she was concerned with the speed with which the amendments were moving forward as well as the funding issues that had been raised. She also noted that the amendments might ultimately circumvent local authority regarding climate control initiatives and noted she would not currently support the proposed amendments. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to extend the work session meeting by ten minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Zelenka agreed with Ms. Piercy’s comments in support of the proposed amendments and noted that the MPC had recently voted unanimously to approve environmental provisions similar to the proposed amendments to HB 2001 in their draft Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) document. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that the council could choose either a “support if amended” or “oppose unless amended” position regarding the proposed amendments. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt a support position regarding the proposed amendments to HB 2001 if amended to include full funding and a voice in the modeling and setting of local standards regarding the same. Ms. Wilson commented that 1000 Friends of Oregon had considered the local match provisions of the proposed amendments to provide full funding for the pilot study described therein. Mr. Zelenka responded that the full funding he referred to in his motion called for full and complete funding beyond the local match provisions. Ms. Taylor reiterated her support of the proposed amendments. Mr. Clark indicated concern that the votes cast by Ms. Piercy and Mr. Zelenka as members of the MPC were supposed to be by agreement and representative of the general will of the Eugene City Council and further noted that their recent votes regarding the UPWP might have been cast without proper consideration of the will of the council. Mr. Clark stated he was unable to support the motion and felt there were several questions regarding the proposed amendments and the funding mechanisms involved that he needed answered. He advocated for further discussion regarding the matter. Mr. Zelenka, responding to a point of order from Mr. Pryor, noted that his motion referred only to a support position on the proposed amendments to HB 2001 and not to any provisions of the bill itself. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, noted that it was likely that the proposed amendments would be moved into HB 2001 in the near future and would apply to at least one of the three main MPOs. She believed HB 2001 would eventually be referred to the voters. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 13, 2009 Page 6 Work Session City Attorney Glen Klein noted that the language of the proposed amendment was unclear about how the local jurisdictions of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County would need to work together with regard to the pilot study described therein. He suggested that the council motion might need to be revised in order to provide more time to investigate the provisions of the proposed amendments more thoroughly. Mr. Zelenka pointed out that revisions had been made by 1000 Friends of Oregon to the proposed amendments that would provide for mediation of any administrative or operational disputes between local agencies affected by the provisions of HB 2001. Mr. Klein responded he was concerned that the mediation language of the proposed amendments was not specific enough and might allow the state government to impose an authority over local agencies. Ms. Ortiz asked for clarification regarding the staff responses that had been drafted regarding the proposed amendments. Ms. Wilson briefly summarized the written responses of Sustainability Manager Felicity Fahy and Transportation Planning Manager Rob Inerfeld. Mr. Inerfeld noted that his suggestions of ways the bill might be amended, as described in his written response, had been made to correspond with the position of the Springfield City Council regarding the proposed amendments. Ms. Wilson briefly summarized the written comments of Principal Planner Steve Nystrom and indicated that staff was recommending a “support if amended” position regarding the proposed amendments. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Mr. Poling, noted that while there were still a number of blank items involved in HB 2001, City staff currently recommended a support position on the bill. Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to substitute Mr. Zelenka’s previously stated motion and adopt an opposition position regarding the proposed amendments to HB 2001 as presented. The motion failed, 4:5 (Ms. Piercy, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Brown, Mr. Zelenka and Ms. Ortiz voting in opposition) Ms. Piercy called for a vote on Mr. Zelenka’s previously stated motion. The motion passed, 5:4 (Mr. Clark, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition). Ms. Piercy adjourned the meeting at 1:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 13, 2009 Page 7 Work Session