Item 2C: IGR Committee Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

would be the deletion of regulations that protected neighborhoods against incompatible development. She said the audit "deregulates land use and zoning in neighborhoods." Mr. Pap6 pointed out the council was the only body that could repeal regulations. Ms. Bettman agreed, but said the consultant would spend a great deal of time and money reviewing the code and staff would return to the council with 50 recommendations the council would have only five minutes to discuss. She reiterated the audit was premature, and until the council had discussed the differences between the mixed-use and nodal concepts, she was unwilling to proceed. She saw the audit as a "huge" threat to neighborhoods. Ms. Taylor seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Yeiter noted that the grant applications must be submitted to the State by May 23, 2005. Ms. Bettman quoted from the packet the council received for its joint tour with the Planning Commission of the existing nodes, which referred to the staff intent to seek the grant as a means to eliminate inadvertent regulatory obstacles to infill, redevelopment, and mixed-use development in general. She reminded Ms. Taylor of her concern that her neighborhood could experience more unregulated infill development. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Yeiter did not anticipate a carte blanche removal of all regulations. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to defer consideration of the third grant applica- tion until the next meeting. The motion passed, 2:1; Ms. Bettman voting no. 5. Review Pending Legislation Priority 1 Bills SB 0996A Mr. Pap6 indicated support for Senate Bill (SB) 0996A, which would increase the cap on the low-income housing tax credit, and asked about the amount involved. Ms. Klemp said the bill included an $11 million yearly cap. She noted that Richie Weinman of the Planning and Development Department had indicated if the bill was not approved, the program would not be available unless the cap was raised. The bill had popular support in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Mr. Pap6 had no objection to the staff recommendation. Priority 2 Bills Mr. Pap6 asked the status of Ballot Measure 37-related measures. Mr. Heuser said there had been little change. The House Land Use Committee continued to work on the issue; the chair had indicated the previous day that if a bill had not had a public hearing by May 6, it would be dropped. Mr. Klein anticipated a comprehensive draft would come out of a Senate committee the next day and a hearing would be held in the Senate on May 10. He anticipated the bill would move forward out of committee and eventually reach the Senate floor. MINUTES--Council Committee on INtergovernmental Relations May 5, 2005 Page 3