Laserfiche WebLink
Councilor Solomon agreed with the characterization of the grant as an opportunity. She thought the audit <br />could help the council have a focused, effective conversation about mixed-use. She underscored that the <br />City needed to be willing to change things for the better and indicated she would support applying for the <br />grant. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Yeiter explained the grant would result in $50,000 in <br />technical expertise and the City need not match resources with the State. Councilor Bettman said just <br />because the resource was available, if the City could not make good use of it, the taxpayers would still have <br />to pay for it. She commented that the council had questioned the grant at the last meeting and what troubled <br />her was that the grant seemed just as non-specific as it had at the first City Council meeting at which it had <br />been reviewed. She said all of the typical code changes for smart development were from the State code. <br />She averred it was non-specific to what the City of Eugene was pursuing. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman felt that if the council had a better idea of what the grant sought, she might be more <br />inclined to support it. She noted that the council had processed ~dozens and dozens and dozens" of <br />rollbacks to the City Code and it was %ertainly not off limits." She expressed concern that the code would <br />become obsolete if this continued. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Yeiter said the present meeting offered the <br />opportunity for the council to have input into what specifically would be looked at in the code. Councilor <br />Bettman replied that the council could not provide such input until it had its discussion on mixed-use and <br />infill. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly expressed disappointment that the application deadline was Wednesday and there was not a <br />completed letter of application in front of the council. He wished to amend Councilor Papa's motion. <br /> <br /> Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to amend the motion to state in the <br /> letter that the grant shall be for the specific purpose of studying possible alternate path <br /> mechanisms. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman indicated her support for the amendment. She understood then that auditors would come <br />and look at the growth management policies and the code and provide options for how the City could <br />implement an alternate path. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman said one issue with the alternative path, which started from the initial code update, was <br />that if a developer had a site and wanted to do something that fulfilled the growth management policies, <br />fulfilled the intent and purpose of the code language, and worked with adjacent neighbors to come up with a <br />proposal that was amenable to everyone, there should be a way to satisfy the intent without having to be <br />prescriptive in every case. She encouraged staff to look at some of that legislative intent because there had <br />been a number of discussions before it had been placed on the work plan. <br /> <br />Councilor Poling asked if the amendment would disqualify the City of Eugene from the grant. Mr. Yeiter <br />did not think so. He added that the application was left broad in order to provide latitude for the team to <br />conduct a triage of the full code and focus on where they thought the problems lay. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2005 Page 8 <br /> Regular Session <br /> <br /> <br />