Item 2A-Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman thought evidence that the code was obstructing development to be anecdotal. She conjectured that the average citizen's point of view was that there was constant development and a lot of it. She asserted that the City of Eugene had one of the lowest turnaround times for permits and joked that a person could get a permit here faster than she could get an appointment with her doctor. She felt the motion as staff wrote it did not direct staff to return to the council, but rather directed staff to proceed. She opined this was a job for an independent auditor. She commented that there was much anecdotal evidence and perceptions and she alleged that no one had actually looked at the code in an unbiased way to determine how best to promote economic development that had been identified as desirable in this community. She agreed it was necessary to provide predictability to the developers and said residents of the community also needed to have predictability. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Coyle to clarify whether the $100,000 budget allocation was to be split between code changes and site-specific nodal development. He opined that the "alternative path" planning would increase efficiency in the permitting process by more than 20 percent. Mayor Torrey asked councilors to comment on the third revised staff motion, which would direct the City Manager to proceed with a service level adjustment to fund a business facilitator position in FY06. Ms. Bettman remarked that it was a budget issue. She questioned how the money, within the context of the broad range of options, would be best spent on this. She agreed there were some advantages, should the position be an ombudsman who would also be a facilitator for neighborhoods and residents and would represent them as aggressively as they do a developer. She felt the proposed position to be that of an advocate for the developers. Mr. Coyle disagreed with that statement. He underscored that the staff's role was to resolve the issues between neighborhoods and development. He stated that PDD did not only work for developers and the equality of treatment it provided to all parties was embedded in its charge. Ms. Solomon conveyed her support of the proposals presented by the committee. She strongly believed the committee was very diverse and representative of our community. She pointed out that the recom- mendations had been reached in a consensus manner. She said she was willing to move forward with the recommendations and give them a try. Mr. Kelly supported the idea of having the facilitator serve neighborhood groups. He cited the East Campus Development Plan as a work of both citizens and development toward a common good. Mr. Pap6 expressed his support. He hoped that the facilitator would not substitute for the core issues the City needed to address in the permitting process. Ms. Nathanson supported the recommendation. Ms. Taylor said she currently did not support the recommendation, but she wanted to think about it more. She thought an advocate was needed to protect individuals as well as neighborhood organizations. Mr. Poling voiced his support for the recommendation. He surmised from Mr. Coyle's words that the facilitator would help an applicant through all aspects of the process including working through any issues that could arise from neighborhood concerns. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 7 Work Session