Laserfiche WebLink
committee, which included City Engineer Les Lyle, the City's Planning and Development <br />Department Director, Mr. Hamm, and Mark Pangborn of LTD Planning staff. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly sought LTD's comments about the amendment. Ms. Hocken said her concern was <br />about how cumbersome the process could be. She was concerned about delays that might result <br />from the City Council's full schedule. She suggested that if the Planning Commission had <br />concerns, they could be conveyed to the council. Mr. Kelly said he could accept that approach. <br />He suggested that LTD might want to work on alternative text for the IGA. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked if BRT represented a land use or transportation decision. Mr. Yeiter said it was <br />neither. No land use permits were needed. He said that staff was attempting, through the <br />resolution and IGA, to craft procedures that emulated a land use agreement. He anticipated <br />another IGA would be needed when the system was fully designed and the operational <br />characteristics of the system would be more fully spelled out at that time. <br /> <br />Mr. Hamm said that the staff policy committee was proposed to address the concerns raised by <br />the council and to ensure a continuing dialogue between the two agencies and clear direction to <br />the policy team when needed. He said that, in terms of partnership, many items in the resolution <br />discussed control by the City of Eugene, and to say Eugene would determine what was <br />considered adverse was to not recognize that partnership. He was concerned about delays in the <br />process created by the amendment. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson was concerned about the use of the term "significant adverse changes," saying <br />that what was adverse to one person might not be adverse to another. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly accepted a friendly amendment from Ms. Nathanson to strike the word <br />"adverse." <br /> <br />Responding to Mr. Hamm's concerns, Ms. Nathanson said it appeared that the motion merely <br />stated the Eugene representatives on the committee would not be empowered to act on behalf of <br />the City to approve something that was a significant change. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr opposed the motion. He thought that the council tried to take on too much. It continually <br />tried to micromanage processes, and made things more cumbersome than they needed to be. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 agreed the amendment made the process more cumbersome. Responding to a <br />question from Mr. Papa, City Attorney Glenn Klein said the text in the resolution regarding <br />approval by the City Council was not needed; the Planning Commission, if it believed there was <br />an issue of significance, could at any time seek direction from the City Council on any issue <br />related to BRT. He said that it was a question of whether the council wanted everything <br />significant to come to it, or to leave it to the Planning Commission's direction as to whether it <br />needed council input. Mr. Pap8 said that the council should leave the issue of whether to seek <br />council input to the discretion of the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said she supported the amendment. She thought it was needed because the system <br />was not fully designed. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey noted his opposition to the amendment, saying nothing "would get by" community <br />activists. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />