Item 2C: Ratify IGR Comm.Action - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

who would assess Eugene's program in its entirety, including its policies, codes, and procedures for approving development. Ms. Bettman said the results of the award sounded a lot like the audit discussed by Mr. Yeiter the previous week. Mr. Lowe acknowledged some overlap between the award and that grant. He added that over the past two years, most of the funding for the implementation of the City's growth management policies was from grants. The award was another way to achieve the ~new tools" element of the two-year work plan, which was intended to be an audit of the City's programs to determine if they were the right fit for the City's policies. Ms. Bettman asked where the specialists would look for barriers. Mr. Lowe cited as an example the City's alley pavement standard, which was for seven inches of concrete. That standard stood in the way of the construction of accessory units or any alley-access development. Many communities adopt a different standard, and Eugene had not looked at alternatives that would lower the cost and facilitate development in alleys. Ms. Bettman said it appeared the effort would require the time of City staff. She did not support the award application as it sounded like a redo of policy direction the City was in the process of trying to re-evaluate. The process being proposed looked to her like it would be another process dominated by those who could afford to participate, such as paid representatives from the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, as opposed to ;;folks who are working for a living and trying to run a neighborhood organization." If the award was for an audit of how the code affected neighborhood livability, safety, and property values, or how the City policies contribute to sprawl as opposed to creating a ;;new urbanism" landscape, she would be supportive. However, she believed the audit accelerated a policy direction the council had not discussed and which she thought was going the wrong direction. Mr. Yeiter noted the EPA award provided the City with an opportunity to have a national team inform it about the available financial incentives for infill and redevelopment. Ms. Bettman said she was sorry the City was in a place where it could not take advantage of that opportunity. She noted that the award dictated a public process outside the council's purview. Until the council had given the Planning and Development Department some specific policy direction about the direction it wished to take with removing obstacles to infill and higher density in urban core neighborhoods, she could not support any such grant or award. Ms. Taylor agreed with Ms. Bettman. She had been alarmed by the groups that were proposed to be involved. She said the input of the Neighborhood Leaders Council did not carry the same weight as the voice of the chamber, the homebuilders association, and the Lane Council of Governments. She said the City had the ability to conduct such an audit without the award. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to reject the application. Mr. Pap6 determined from Mr. Yeiter that staff saw nothing in the application that contravened current council policy or was at odds with the City's Growth Management Study policies. Mr. Yeiter said staff believed the award would help to implement those policies. The funding would be used to carry out the two- year work program. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Lowe indicated staff would welcome the input of the council or the Planning Commission acting as the Citizen Involvement Committee in regard to the participants in the process; the listed groups were samples of representative groups. Mr. Pap6 noted his opposition to the motion as he believed the award was intended to help implement the City's Growth Management Study policies. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations May 12, 2005 Page 2