Item 2A: Approval of Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

He stressed that it would take additional resources to pursue any of the recommendations at that point. Mr. Pap~ remarked that information was wonderful and information the community could get on how to move forward some of its ideals would be a boon and should not be overlooked. Mr. Pryor recalled that when the City was working on TransPlan, a definition of nodal development had been built up around it. He thought the degree to which it varied from mixed-use development would be worthy of a great discussion and it would benefit the council to discuss the similarities and differences between the two. He said it did not, however, make his "antennae quiver" over this particular grant application. He averred that money spent to get more information and study the issue would not tie anyone's hands regarding a potential sound discussion of the issue. Mayor Piercy observed that staff seemed to say that nodal development and mixed-use were the same thing while the councilors seemed not to know what mixed-use development was. She urged staff to schedule a work session on it so that the council could gain clarity on the issue. Mr. Yeiter responded that while the item had not been scheduled, a work session was planned. Mayor Piercy stated that the EPA grant was very much in line with the City of Eugene's Growth Management Policies. She said she had read in the document a desire to lead into more locally sensitive planning. She was inclined to believe the item should be moved forward. Mr. Kelly wanted to see a dramatic increase in infill and development and significant changes in density and he believed the City needed those changes. He disagreed with the proponents of the grant, because of the way that it was phrased, because he thought it could put the City in a "rather narrow hallway." He felt things developed a momentum. He said just as the council gave lip service to its policies and the public process that generated them and gave credibility to the TransPlan, credibility would also be given to recommendations that came from this process because of the "national experts and local team" that put them together. He averred it would make the recommendations more difficult to critique and work through. He opined that the staff in the Planning and Development Department, the council, and the community collectively "had the smarts" to do this. He suggested that more funding was needed for "planning folks" and more political will was needed around the council table to move things forward. Ms. Bettman reiterated that this was not a grant, "experts" would be sent, and the City would have to match this with local resources to do the work. She felt the investment of resources in this work would force the results on City policy. She asked Mr. Pap6 if he would be willing to take a friendly amendment to remove language she felt questioned the validity of the City's growth management policies. Mr. Yeiter was uncertain whether any changes could be made given the tight time frame. Ms. Bettman repeated that the document questioned the validity of the City's Growth Management Policies and did not reinforce them. She asserted that the grant would commit the City to follow up the results with action. Regarding the local team, Ms. Bettman thought the recommendation in the application was unbalanced because it included the Lane Transit District (LTD), the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG), 1000 Friends of Oregon, the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, and the Lane County Home Builders Association. She opined that 1000 Friends of Oregon really amounted to one person who had a minimal MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 2005 Page 7 Work Session