Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman said that while she did not disagree with the text of the resolution, she did not want <br />to limit the options available to the design team. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr did not think the text of the resolution was overly confining. He thought it important to <br />protect the businesses that existed on the streets where the BRT routes would be located, and <br />logical to keep the text. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly supported the amendment because of the predisposition for the use of the median as <br />reflected in the prior motion, just defeated. He thought that striking the sentence would make no <br />difference to the pilot corridor. He had confidence in LTD's ability to work with the businesses <br />along the corridor to minimize the system impact. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson expressed concern that the council was trying to address a potential problem in <br />one location that would have unintended consequences in another location. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner supported the amendment. He did not think inclusion of the sentence was significant. <br />However, he thought it an overstatement to suggest that the median was better for BRT routes <br />because commercial developments were along the side of the street. Often BRT would be a <br />benefit to the commercial development in question. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey asked if LTD had concerns about the amendment. Ms. Hocken said, with Mr. <br />Hamm's caveat about the Environmental Assessment, she did not think so. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she was trying to avoid being specific about the design criteria in the findings. <br />She thought the sentence limited the design in that there may be situations where the interest of a <br />business must be balanced with the success of the BRT system, and she thought ultimately BRT <br />should prevail because the businesses would benefit from their location along the BRT route. <br />Often businesses were reluctant to be along such routes until they discovered its values. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor did not think removal of the sentence was significant, given that it was contained in a <br />finding and not in a condition. <br /> <br />Mr. Yeiter thought the sentence could be removed without a substantive change to the project. <br />He added that many of the findings were included to address the issues raised by the Planning <br />Commission, which wanted to offer a justification for the current project design. <br /> The amendment to the motion passed, 5:3; Mr. PapS, Mr. Farr, and Ms. <br /> Nathanson voting no. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion by revising <br /> Section 1, Paragraph 3 in Resolution 4670 as follows: "Significant adverse <br /> changes, as determined by the Eugene members on the Eugene/LTD BRT <br /> Policy Committee, will require review by the Eugene Planning Commission <br /> and approval by the Eugene City Council." <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman explained that she thought if a significant adverse change was made to the existing <br />plan, there should be a way for the council to "weigh in." <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner thought the motion made sense. He asked who was on the Eugene/LTD BRT Policy <br />Committee. Mr. Yeiter clarified that the LTD management and City Manager established the <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />