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