CC MInutes - 05/14/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor asked how trees would be affected by future phases. Mr. Synder said the design did not include plans to remove future trees. He would work with LTD to ensure that construction techniques would be used that would minimize effects to the trees. Ms. Bettman believed if the project was not done well it would threaten transit funding in the future. She said the amendments she would propose would give the City authority to influence the elements of the project about which the community had expressed the most concern. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion by deleting Finding F(3), 'q-he placement of BRT guideways in the median portion of street rights-of-way which have existing commercial development along the perimeter,' and renumbering the remaining findings. Mr. Rayor arrived at the meeting. Mr. Meisner asked the intent of the amendment. Ms. Bettman thought limiting the guideways to the median was very restrictive and would eliminate discretion in implementation of the project. Mr. Meisner asked if the amendment would bar development in the Franklin Boulevard corridor in the median. Ms. Bettman said no. She pointed out that some of the text in the resolution was specific to the pilot but the rest applied to the entire project. Mr. Meisner expressed concern that deleting the finding would mean the only way that guideways could be installed was to widen the street, as expressed in Finding F(4). Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Ms. Hocken indicated LTD staff had reviewed the amendments to be proposed at the meeting and had some concerns about some of them. Mr. Meisner said he would oppose the motion because of the retention of F(4); the amendment would have the effect of making street widening a "mandatory choice." Mr. Kelly thought Mr. Meisner's point was well-taken. He agreed that the design choices should not be overly constrained. He suggested Ms. Bettman withdraw the motion or allow it to be defeated so that staff could develop a motion reflecting her actual intent. Ms. Hocken said that as long as LTD was not prohibited from placing guideways in the median, she did not think it was a problem. Mr. Hamm cautioned the council against making a change to the project description as it had been presented to in the Environmental Assessment, because that would send LTD "back to the drawing board." The amendment to the motion failed, 7:1, Ms. Bettman voting yes. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion by revising Finding H in Resolution 4670 as follows: "Guideways are one of the defining features of BRT because they protect transit from traffic congestion. Where bso~,JS8 it h~s !ess ~dverse impact to those b,JSi~sssss. Where feasible, guideways should be utilized in all BRT installations." MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 4 Work Session