Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/02/98 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall February 2, 1998 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Pat Fart, Nancy Nathanson, Tim Laue, Scott Meisner, Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Laurie Swanson Gribskov, Ken Tollenaar. The February 2, 1998, work session of the Eugene City Council was called to order at 5:30 p.m.; Mayor Jim Torrey presiding. I. WORK SESSION/ACTION: RESOLUTION CONCERNING GROWTH MANAGEMENT STUDY POLICIES Jim Croteau, Planning and Development Department, said that the council heard testimony on the revised Growth Management Study policies on January 26, 1998. He reviewed the contents of the meeting agenda packet and called the council's attention to Attachment A, an itemized listing of proposed changes to the policies based on the public testimony received. Mr. Croteau said that Gregory McLaughlan and Jan Spencer had proposed that the council return to the Planning Commission's recommended language for Policy 1 (struck text proposed for deletion; italicized text proposed for addition): "~,~,v."+, Maintain the existing Eugene urban growth boundary by taking actions to increase density and use existing vacant land and underused land within the boundary more efficiently." Mr. Meisner asked if the City could legally maintain the urban growth boundary as an individual jurisdiction as the revised text suggested. City Attorney Glenn Klein responded that the Board of County Commissioners had reservations about the policy as it was concerned it would preclude the board from exercising its authority to initiate an urban growth boundary amendment. The board had been comfortable with the policy when it learned of the council's change. Mr. Meisner reminded those who criticized thecouncil in testimony for removing clarity from the policies recommended by the Planning Commission that the council had eliminated the nebulous phrase "for the foreseeable future" from Policy 1, which would have provided those wishing to expand the boundary with the argument that the need for expansion was unforeseen. Mr. Meisner preferred to retain the council's revision with the understanding it was the council's intention was to maintain the boundary with the knowledge it could not do so alone. Mr. Tollenaar said that comments similar to those voiced by the Board of County Commissioners were expressed by members of the Springfield City Council, who were reassured when they heard the council's reasoning for the change. He did not intend to support the proposed change, but pointed out that it was not possible to maintain a completely rigid urban growth boundary. Its MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 2, 1998 Page 1 5:30 p.m. location depended on the existence of adequate land supplies. Mr. Tollenaar said that supplies were adequate for the time being, but that would not be the case at some time in the future. He believed that the word "maintain" would create a false impression. Ms. Taylor said that all the policies were aspirational in nature. She thought "maintain" was a stronger word and the word she preferred. Regarding the adequacy of the land supply, Ms. Taylor believed that the State could change that requirement at any time, and she did not think that the council should be precluded from acting as it preferred. Mr. Torrey did not favor a change from the current recommendation. He reminded the council that he had previously indicated there were instances where the council must be responsible enough to consider needed adjustments in the urban growth boundary. Mr. Torrey reminded the council of the prison siting situation, and said that if the State constructed the prison in Junction City, the council would have circumvented the intent of the boundary through its inability to discuss a boundary adjustment. Ms. Taylor moved to return to the text for Policy 1 recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Croteau said that Ms. Nathanson had proposed the following change to Policy 5 (struck text proposed for deletion; italicized text proposed for addition): "Work cooperatively with Metro area partners (Springfield and Lane County) and other nearby cities to control avoid urban sprawl and preserve the rural character in areas outside the urban growth boundaries." Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to replace the word "control" in Policy 5 with the word "avoid." Mr. Meisner said that "control" was a relatively neutral term; and "avoid" more indicative of the council's intent. Roll call vote: the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Croteau said that Donald Upson proposed in testimony to eliminate redundancy between Policy 1 and Policy 6 by replacing Policy 6 with the following text (struck text proposed for deletion; italicized text proposed for addition): "!,-,cr~so do,qsit¥ of ,qow housi,q,.3 dovo!opmo,-,t while mMaintaini,q,.3 the character and livability of individual neighborhoods." Alternatively, he proposed eliminating Policy 6 and adding the phrase "in order to maintain the character and livability of individual neighborhoods" to Policy 9. Mr. Meisner preferred to retain the two separate policies because Policy 9 was specific to mitigating the impacts of density and infill and contained no broad statement regarding maintaining character and livability. Mr. Tollenaar moved, seconded by Mr. Fart, to accept the revision to Policy 6 proposed by Mr. Upson. Mr. Tollenaar said that the revision would eliminate redundancy with Policy 1 and emphasize the remaining statement. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 2, 1998 Page 2 5:30 p.m. Ms. Nathanson was concerned that separating the focus from character and livability to the concept of increased density was to strictly state character would be maintained. While it was the council's intent that neighborhood individuality be retained, the revision suggested that neighborhoods would remain the same. Ms. Nathanson believed that many neighborhoods wanted no change while others hoped for change and improvement. Mr. Meisner said that were the council to strike the first clause in Policy 6, the policy could be used to argue against any change in a neighborhood, and that was not the intention of the council. Mr. Fart said he supported the motion. He said that the concepts of infill redevelopment and higher density development were addressed in Policy 2, and he thought it unnecessary to include the concept in Policy 6. Mr. Laue said that the policies were clear about the goals the council was attempting to reach. He did not think that anyone would be able to successfully argue that the revised policy had more weight than policies related to density and infill. Mr. Laue supported the motion. Mr. Croteau said that it was the staff position that the aspect of density included in the policy should remain for the reasons cited by Ms. Nathanson. He said that the policy addressed and balanced two different concepts that should be discussed together. Mr. Lee supported the original policy. Ms. Swanson Gribskov felt the original policy was preferable to the proposed policy. Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Croteau said that deleting the reference to density would allow neighborhood residents to argue that adopted policy did not support a density increase in their neighborhood as it was focused on maintenance of neighborhood character. Mr. Fart asked if Growth Management Study policies superseded Metropolitan Area General Plan policies. Mr. Croteau said that none of the policies contradict the Metro Plan, but put more of a local focus on current policies. Mr. Fart asked why the council needed to be specific about increased density in Policy 6 if it was already called out in Policy 2. Mr. Croteau acknowledged that there was redundancy in the policies. Ms. Nathanson attributed the redundancy in the policies to the fact that Policy 2 regarded available mechanisms or techniques that could help achieve density, and Policy 6 was focused on the need to be sensitive to neighborhood needs for character and livability while seeking additional density. Mr. Tollenaar indicated that the discussion had changed his mind. Ms. Taylor asked why he changed his mind. Mr. Tollenaar said that the revision would send mixed signals and could be used as a basis for objecting to almost any change proposed in a neighborhood. Ms. Taylor suggested that perhaps people should not have to make changes in existing neighborhoods. Mr. Tollenaar said that could be true, but he anticipated occasions where change would be to the benefit of the general public. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 2, 1998 Page 3 5:30 p.m. The motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Laue, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Fart voting yes. Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Mr. Laue, to delete the word "new" from Policy 8. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Croteau reviewed Don Upson's suggested changes to Policy 9 (italicized text proposed for addition): "Mitigate the impacts of new and/or higher density housing, infill, and redevelopment on neighborhoods through design standards, open space, and housing maintenance programs, and continuing historic preservation and neighborhood planning programs in order to maintain the character and fivability of individual neighborhoods," Mr. Fart suggested that the proposed addition was redundant with Policy 6. Mr. Croteau concurred. Mr. Fart said that it was very expensive to build a house in Eugene, and those high costs increased the cost of existing housing stock and drove up rental prices. He said that the design standards proposed in the policy, as well the other programs called for, would further add to the cost of a new house. Mr. Fart said that he would prefer to delete the policy altogether. Mr. Laue said that housing prices in Eugene would fall if the vacancy rate rose to five percent. He said that housing prices were largely market-driven, not cost-driven. Mr. Meisner concurred with Mr. Laue. He pointed out that the programs cited in the policy represented existing efforts and current council priorities. Only design standards were not in place, and Mr. Meisner said that design standards do not apply to single-family housing, so it could not be argued that they would add to the cost of a new home. He further pointed out that design standards were intended to replace site review, which is a costly process in terms of time and money. Mr. Farr said that people could use the policy to justify design standards for higher density housing. He concurred with Mr. Laue that market demand increased the cost of a product but manufacturing costs will always increase the product cost if they rise. Mr. Tollenaar asked about the practical effect of replacing the word "housing" with the word "development." Mr. Croteau suggested that the council retain the word "housing" because development would expand the scope of the policy while not alleviating Mr. Farr's concerns. Responding to a request for clarification from Mr. Farr, Ms. Childs said that design standards were the only elements in the policy that did not apply to single-family housing. Mr. Croteau suggested that the council consider replacing "housing" with "multi-unit design standards." Mr. Farr moved to amend the policy by inserting the phrase "multi-unit" prior to the phrase "design standards." There was no second to the motion. The council made no changes to Policy 9. MINUTES-Eugene City Council February 2, 1998 Page 4 5:30 p.m. Mr. Croteau reviewed a change proposed to Policy 11 by Gregory McLaughlan (struck text proposed for deletion; italicized text proposed for addition): Maximize h~ease the use of alternative modes of transportation by improving the capacity, design, safety, and convenience of the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation systems." He reminded the council of its previous discussion and the concern voiced by councilors that the use of "maximize" would mean people could argue that the City was not doing enough. Responding to a request for clarification from Mr. Laue, Mr. Klein said that the word "maximize" was problematic as it suggested that the City would do all it could to achieve the desired outcome no matter the cost. It could be argued that to reach its alternative mode goals the City should buy a bus pass for all residents, for example. Mr. Klein said that he was not really sure what the word meant. Ms. Nathanson likened the discussion to the council's discussion of the term "support" versus "maintain." She pointed out that, even if the City bought all residents bus passes, it could not force people to use one mode over the other so it could not really maximize alternative modes use, and can only hope to encourage increased use. Mr. Meisner agreed with Ms. Nathanson. He said that the intent of the policy was to increase alternative modes use to the highest degree possible, but he did not want to face a situation where the City was sued because it did not do enough to satisfy the advocates of alternative modes. The council made no changes to Policy 11. Mr. Croteau noted a change to Policy 13 proposed by Jon Belcher (italicized text proposed for addition): "Focus future street improvements on relieving pressure on the City's most congested roadways and intersections to maintain an acceptable level of mobility for all modes of transportation while preserving the viability of residences and businesses." Mr. Meisner said that while he understood Mr. Belcher's intent, he did not think the revised language addressed what he wanted in terms of avoiding overpaving and overwidening streets. He said that it could actually require added street capacity to do what the proposed revision suggested. He said that revision could be the basis for a business owner to argue that a turn lane or more street capacity was necessary to maintain business viability. Mr. Torrey asked if the policy could be rewritten to limit the issue of "viability" to viability of residences. He noted his concern about residents who live on minor arterials like Washington and Jefferson streets. Ms. Childs reminded the council that the Planning Commission was considering collector and arterial streets through what was being termed the "nonlocal street plan." She said that staff had done considerable work on the draft plan in response to testimony regarding collectors and arterials received at a public hearing. Mr. Belcher raised the same issues through that process. Ms. Childs anticipated that the issue raised by Mr. Belcher would be addressed by the nonlocal street plan even if the council amended the policy in question. Mr. Tollenaar said he was sympathetic to the intent of the revision but unable to support it. He said that the policy focused on those projects that would be required to relieve pressure on the MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 2, 1998 Page 5 5:30 p.m. City's most congested roadways and intersections, and could impair the City's ability to acquire property through eminent domain by giving citizens a basis for objection. He did not think that the improvements being constructed in the Ferry Street corridor on the north side of the river could have occurred if the proposed language had been in place when the project was proposed. Mr. Farr moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to modify Policy 13 as proposed by Mr. Belcher. Mr. Laue said that he was unable to determine what the word "viability" meant in this case. He reminded the council of the proposal to locate bicycle paths on 13th Avenue, 11th Avenue, and Washington Street and suggested that the policy would have enabled the residents objecting to the loss of on-street parking required by installation of the lanes to have argued the lanes threatened their homes' viability. Mr. Lee said that the revision was consistent with the idea of liveable neighborhoods, and he would support the motion. Responding to a question from Mr. Torrey, Mr. Klein said that if the policies were binding, he would be concerned about the term "viability," which implied the ability to maintain one's existence at one's current location. He reminded the council of the business relocation necessitated by the Ferry Street corridor improvements project, which would not have occurred if the policy had force of law. He said that the issue of eminent domain was a factor in his opposition. Mr. Klein was concerned that although the council resolution related to the policies indicated they would guide staff decision and not apply to land use actions, someone would raise the policy in court. Ms. Taylor thought the added language would give residents an argument to preserve the trees in their front yards when road improvements occurred. Ms. Nathanson said that there were improvements that could be made that did not significantly contribute to the amount of paving or to road width. She said that the word "focus" was critical because it did not preclude other types of projects. Mr. Fart said that he favored an approach that was not overly rigid, and provided residents with some flexibility to allow them an avenue of argument. He thought Ms. Taylor's point about residents wishing to preserve the trees in their front yard a good example. He said he did not mind giving people a "last straw" to grasp onto, particularly when their homes were involved. Roll call vote: the motion failed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Fart, and Mr. Lee voting yes. Ms. Nathanson said she hoped implementation measures would take into account the council's discussion, as many important points had been made by individual councilors. Mr. Croteau reviewed a suggested change to Policy 14 proposed by Don Upson (struck text proposed for deletion; italicized text proposed for addition): "Development shall be required to pay the full cost of extending infrastructure and services ~×c~pt ,~.,,,,,~, ,~,,,,~ r,~,v,,~, ..... vv,,,a~ ~^~,,,,, ,~ ......... _~,~ *'",v MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 2, 1998 Page 6 5:30 p.m. that do not support higher-density, infi//, mixed-use, and redevelopment." Mr. Croteau reviewed a suggested change to Policy 14 proposed by Jan Spencer (struck text proposed for deletion): "Development shall be required to pay the full cost of extending infrastructure and.,,., v,,,,..,~,,,,i,'~,~, ~, .... ~ ~-'-~ ~-~' City ,,,n, .... ~'-~' ways ~ .... ~,o~,4~-,~, ~, .... ~o ~,~ Mr. Tollenaar said that the revision proposed by Mr. Upson could be interpreted as limiting infrastructure and services to those areas with higher density, infill development, etc. Mr. Meisner said that Mr. Upson's suggested revision could be interpreted as calling for subsidies if the developer supported the items in the list. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Mr. Laue, to accept the text proposed by Mr. Spencer. Mr. Laue said that the policy as written appeared to have an emphasis on subsidy of infrastructure and services in concert with infill and redevelopment, and did not think that the City constructed many major infrastructure improvements in association with infill and redevelopment. He said that the point behind the policy was actually the need for the City to recover the full cost of development as it occurred. Ms. Nathanson said that some areas of the community may require a government subsidy to ensure that infill and redevelopment of large commercial and industrial areas could occur. Such subsidies might be needed to support the removal of hazardous materials, for example. Ms. Childs concurred. She pointed out that the text did not commit the council to a subsidy but allowed staff the latitude to examine the possibility. Ms. Swanson Gribskov agreed with Ms. Childs. She said that the proposed amendment suggested that there would never be a time when the City will provide a subsidy. She felt that the council might want to reinforce some of its public policies with such subsidies. Mr. Farr said that the council needed to ensure that the residents being assessed development fees were assessed such fees in a transparent and equitable manner. He did not support the motion as he did not think it was equitable that the exceptions included in the policy were the only exceptions for subsidies. He said that he would like to add other exceptions that could be subsidized because of their importance and benefit to the entire community. Mr. Croteau suggested affordable housing was of benefit to the community. Ms. Taylor said that the original policy provided loopholes for developers to avoid costs. Mr. Tollenaar said that realistically, redevelopment may have to be subsidized. He was convinced that Eugene would already have high levels of redevelopment were it not for the extraordinary costs involved. He stressed the policy's focus on the word "examine." Mr. Laue said that redevelopment was already occurring in Eugene without subsidy. He said that the policy in question was the only one the council had that addressed one of the most important MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 2, 1998 Page 7 5:30 p.m. issues raised throughout the Growth Management Study discussion. He believed that the original policy watered down the concept that development would pay its own way. Roll call vote: the motion tied on a 4:4 vote; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Laue, Mr. Meisner, and Mr. Lee voting yes; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Tollenaar, Ms. Swanson Gribskov, Mr. Farr voting no; Mr. Torrey voting no to break the tie, 5:4. Mr. Croteau reviewed a proposed change to Policy 16 suggested by Don Upson (struck text proposed for deletion; italicized text proposed for addition): "Focus efforts to diversity the local economy and provide family-wage jobs principally by supporting~,,,~,,,o~"-" ,vw,,~'-"'-~ clean, responsibly managed, and environmentally sensitive businesses. Direct available financial and regulatory incentives in the future to support these efforts." Mr. Tollenaar said he found the word "clean" unclear, and he believed that "responsibly managed" would have to be defined. Mr. Torrey asked why the council should retain the word "small" in the policy. He asked why a company's size mattered if they met the remainder of the criteria in the policy. Mr. Meisner said that the current policy did not preclude support for larger businesses. He supported the current policy language. Mr. Tollenaar moved, seconded by Mr. Farr, to delete the word "small" from Policy 16. Mr. Tollenaar said that the council had the discussion about small businesses before. He said that the policy was inconsistent with the council's effort to encourage family wage jobs in the community. He did not associate high-paying jobs with small business. Mr. Farr asked where the council drew the line between small and large businesses. He had no objection to large, environmentally sensitive businesses, such as Burley Industries. Mr. Farr asked if Burley Industries was considered a small businesses. He agreed with Mr. Tollenaar that larger companies tended to have more ability to pay family wage jobs. Ms. Swanson Gribskov supported the motion. She said that the focus should be on environmentally sensitive businesses, not small businesses. She said that the council could have an endless argument about what could be defined as "small." Mr. Lee supported the revision. He did not want to accommodate large business at the expense of small business, and wanted to encourage more environmentally sensitive businesses to locate in Eugene. Ms. Nathanson said that the argument for focusing on small businesses rather than large was because of relatively higher negative impact on the community from the closure or relocation of large business, or a nationwide downturn in an industry. She said that while small companies supposedly create the most jobs, she believed that better benefits, higher wages for employees, a greater level of social and community contributions tended to come from large companies. Ms. Nathanson was unsure how to define "large." MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 2, 1998 Page 8 5:30 p.m. Mr. Meisner said that the policy focused on economic diversification and job creation, which he thought was more easily realized by having a variety of small firms in the community. He challenged the assumption that large companies paid family wages. Mr. Laue also questioned the assumption large companies were able to pay the employees better wages. He believed that small professional services firms paid well. He said that he supported the retention of the word "small" because of the policy's emphasis on job creation and diversification. Mr. Lee observed that "small" could be interpreted differently by different people. He suggested that the change gave the City more flexibility in implementing the policy. Roll call vote: the motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Lee, Mr. Tollenaar, Mr. Fart, Ms. Swanson Gribskov, and Ms. Nathanson voting yes; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Meisner and Mr. Laue voting no. Mr. Fart thanked Mr. Croteau for his outstanding staff work. Mr. Lee also thanked staff. He pointed out the council cooperation it required to reach consensus. Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner to delete "in the future" from Policy 16. Roll call vote: the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Res. No. 4554--A resolution adopting growth management policies; and repealing Resolution No. 3867. Mr. Fart moved, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote: the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. II. WORK SESSION: WEST EUGENE WETLANDS PLAN AMENDMENTS-- PREPARATION FOR JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Jan Childs, Planning and Development Department, provided the council with background on the update process. She reviewed the actions taken by the Eugene and Lane County planning commissions on the amendments package. Ms. Childs discussed a meeting City staff held with representatives from Lane County and Hyundai regarding Hyundai funding for an independent review of any new testimony related to the site by the Lane Council of Governments. An agreement was reached regarding the review and its funding, although nothing was signed at this time. She anticipated the agreement would be finalized within the coming week. Ms. Childs reminded the council that a hearing was scheduled with the Lane Board of County Commissioners on February 18, 1998. Notice had gone out 30 days in advance. Ms. Childs said that staff expected new testimony to be submitted regarding the Hyundai site but nothing had been received to date. Ms. Childs noted that the plan amendments were packaged into four individual ordinances. She briefly described the contents of the four ordinances. Ms. Childs said that legal counsel MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 2, 1998 Page 9 5:30 p.m. recommended that the council holding a hearing on each ordinance in order. She said that citizens would be allowed to testify on as many of the ordinances they preferred. Ms. Childs said that she would conduct a work session on the policy ordinance with the Board of County Commissioners on February 3. Mr. Bj0rklund provided a brief chronology of the amendments package, reporting that the State and Federal regulatory agencies approval of the City's West Eugene Wetlands Plan in 1992 was conditioned upon the City's mapping all wetlands sites not included in the original plan. Mr. Bj0rklund said that in addition, the plan was amended to reflect new on-site delineations on sites previously delineated off-site. He noted that the Hyundai site had been added to the plan, and the Eugene speedway site had been previously mapped off-site. Mr. Bj0rklund said that staff also examined policies in the plan and conflicts between policies and new information, conflict between plan policies and State and Federal laws, and conflicts between plan policies and current best practices. That examination resulted in text changes in the plan. Mr. Bj0rklund reminded the council that the criteria that guided site designations had been not previously been adopted as policy and in some cases were vague or overly broad. He said that staff had revised the criteria and recommended that they be upgraded to policy status. The first ordinance included that change. Mr. Bj0rklund reviewed elements of the policy ordinance and highlighted the proposed criteria and policy changes. Responding to a question from Ms. Swanson Gribskov regarding the process to be followed after the joint public hearing, Mr. Bj~rklund said that he was unsure of the precise timing, but probable steps included the possibility of a joint work session with the Board of County Commissioners to discuss the issues that came up in testimony, followed by separate sessions to deliberate and take action. He said that when the two bodies adopt identical changes to the plan, the local planning process was done and the amended plan submitted to the Oregon Division of State Lands. Ms. Childs suggested that the elected officials reach closure on those elements of the package about which there was agreement. She hoped that could occur in March or April. She anticipated that there might be other elements that take longer to process because of the submittal of new information. Ms. Childs hoped to have closure on all the elements of the amendments package by summer 1998. Mr. Torrey asked if the two elected bodies must agreed on the policy ordinance before acting on the other ordinances. Ms. Childs said yes. Mr. Torrey asked if disagreement on the policy ordinance would threaten successful passage of the remaining three ordinances. Mr. Bj0rklund responded that the criteria were only part of the policy ordinance, but crucial because they underlie all the site designations. Mr. Torrey asked if it would make more sense for the council to focus the first public hearing on the criteria and attempt to come to agreement with the Board of County Commissioners before moving onto the other three ordinances. In response, Mr. Klein said that the Eugene and Lane County planning commissions had not heard much testimony about the criteria. He said that most testimony submitted regarded the Hyundai site. He concurred that the two elected bodies must come to concurrence regarding the policy ordinance. Mr. Klein said that until the two elected bodies adopted identical changes, the ordinance could not take affect. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 2, 1998 Page 10 5:30 p.m. Mr. Torrey questioned why the elected bodies should schedule four hearings if the major issue to be resolved was the criteria. Mr. Klein said that the council could choose to hold a hearing on the first ordinance alone and take the balance of the meeting time on February 18 to have an initial discussion with the board about the criteria. He pointed out, however, that notice of the hearing had been given and it might be difficult to get the word out in the community about the change in process. Ms. Bj~rklund said that the scheduled hearing order was based on the expectation the majority of those in attendance would be speaking to the Hyundai site designation. The scheduled order gave others a chance to speak to the less controversial issues and go home. Ms. Childs said that the planned transportation corridor designation would be applied to areas in west Eugene other than the proposed West Eugene Parkway. She said that a project on West 18th Avenue is on hold pending adoption of the planned transportation corridor designation. Ms. Childs said that adoption and application of this designation could be done independent of the criteria. She suggested that the council might wish to discuss with the board whether separate hearings on the contested sites were desirable. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Bj~rklund confirmed that mitigation of wetlands loss would occur when the road projects were constructed. He said that the planned transportation corridor designation would not exempt road projects from wetland impact mitigation. Mr. Torrey said that he was prepared to go forward as planned. Ms. Nathanson asked if staff would characterize the proposed text changes as housekeeping or substantive changes. Mr. Bj~rklund responded that the changes were intended to clarify the intent of the original plan. He said that nothing proposed changed the plan direction or its goals. Mr. Bj~rklund explained that the revisions to the criteria were drafted with the intent to clarify the originally broadly drawn criteria. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Vicki Elmer City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 2, 1998 Page 11 5:30 p.m.