Item 5 - PH on Laurel Hill Plan - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

D AFT Mr. Belcher stated that the like the format of the joint meeting and agreed with Ms. Levis that there was disparity in the level of feedback from councilors. He concurred with the need to confirm the council's interest in alternate paths and noted frustration at the inability to bring people together to discUSs and resolve problems. He said an alternate path was a solution to that frustration. Ms. McMillan also agreed with Ms. Levis comments regarding feedback from councilors. She felt that those councilors who had participated in the land use code update (LUCU) process were better able to understand the issue of alternate paths. She suggested that it might be helpful if councilors could review written testimony submitted during LUCU On alternate paths, particularly for development proposals. Mr. Rusch also felt the joint meeting was successful. He cautioned that while the intent of an alternate path was commendable, sometimes it resulted in an outcome that was not accepted by all stakeholders as in the case of the process Lane Transit District used for the Coburg Road bus rapid transit (BRT) corridor. Mr. Lawless remarked that he had participated in the Coburg Road BRT corridor process and said it was critical that an alternate path process document and carry forward the nuances of discussion, complexity of issues, and force of opinion expressed by stakeholders. He urged the commission to consider the real intent of an alternate path and review the issues raised during LUCU testimony and discussions. He agreed with the concept of a broad spectrum of stakeholders. Referring to the first question in Ms. Muir's memorandum of October 25, 2004, Ms. Colbath said the purpose of an alternate path was to arrive at the same intent as the prescribed code allowed, using a process that was flexible, reasonable, and affordable. Mr. Lawless said that a checklist approach would not work with an alternate path; the key was interpreta- tion. Planning and Development Executive Director Tom Coyle commented that the subject of an alternate path had been discussed for the past 20 years as an alternative way to achieve the intent of code with a process that allowed more discretion. He said that staff could research what other communities were doing, but cautioned that Oregon had specific land use issues that would prohibit the use of other states' processes. Ms. Levis added that the question of alternate paths presented an opportunity to build the commission's level of communication with the council, educate the council about alternate path issues, obtain feedback, and develop an MOU to establish a platform of trust and understanding from which to proceed. Mr. Belcher agreed with the need for better communication with the council. He said that developing an alternate path would be a significant challenge and it was essential to more fully communicate the commission's deliberations to the council. Ms. Levis expressed concern that an alternate path could become a behemoth and cautioned against "over engineering" or "over-thinking" the problem when perhaps a small solution would work. Ms. McMillan remarked that it was helpful to the commission for staff to keep budgetary issues in focus during discussions of new projects; adding projects meant more costs. Ms. Muir suggested that recommendations could be forwarded to the council along with cost estimates. MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 3