Laserfiche WebLink
Zachary Vishanoff <br />, Patterson Street, felt there had been a lack of public involvement because the public <br />did not understand the topic. He thought there should be “some kind of advance understanding.” He <br />likened the hearing to an opportunity for him to testify on a “phantom issue.” He did not want fancy <br />developments to be subsidized by other people. He thought the modifications would “streamline” the <br />government process and he opposed this. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly asked if the goal of the credits was to encourage a reduction of impact to the storm water <br />system and, if so, how would an improvement to water quality give rise to a reduced impact on the system. <br />Mr. McVey said there was a general nexus to reduced impact associated with construction of private water <br />quality facilities as it generally reduced the demand for public water quality facilities. He stated that there <br />were public water quality facilities in the CIP and in the basin plans that were part of the SDC methodol- <br />ogy. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly asked if any of the three cases that were eligible for the ten percent reduction were already <br />receiving an SDC credit for what the developer was required to do under the stormwater standards. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman asked how the reduction in impact was calculated. <br /> <br />Mr. McVey stated, in response to Councilor Kelly, that the credit was both a general recognition of reduced <br />impact and a modest incentive to encourage people to go beyond the minimum requirement. He said there <br />was no numerical calculation of reduced impact related to the water quality credit. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman commented that she was for providing an incentive to do so but she worried that the <br />SDCs would not be enough to build out the needed capacity that came with development. She believed it <br />would create a deficit in the resources available to address the capacity needs. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman asked that staff respond to the following questions in a memorandum: <br />? <br /> How would the credits be monitored and enforced? How many full time equivalent (FTE) would it <br />take? Would it be complaint-driven? <br />? <br /> What is the existing SDC administrative component and would it need to be increased? <br />She requested language that explained the purpose for the credits in the resolution adopting the SDC <br />methodology document. <br /> <br /> <br />6. ACTION: <br /> <br />An Ordinance Establishing Local Criteria in the West Eugene Enterprise Zone and Adopting a <br />Public Benefit Scoring System; Repealing Resolution 4851; and Providing an Effective Date <br /> <br />Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved that the City Council adopt <br />Council Bill 4923, an ordinance establishing local criteria in the West Eugene Enterprise <br />Zone. <br /> <br />Councilor Ortiz stated that the subject had been before the council several times. She asked staff if the <br />Lane Board of County Commissioners adopted the local criteria and public benefit scoring system. City <br />Manager Taylor replied that the commissioners had done so. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 22, 2006 Page 11 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br />