Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Mayor Miller thanked Mr. MacDonald for reconsidering the final decision. He <br />noted that while Councilor Ehrman is not present at this meeting, she has <br />encouraged the council to consider the issue in her absence. <br /> <br />Roll call vote; the motion carried, 5:2; with councilors <br />Rutan, MacDonald, Bascom, Green, and Robinette voting in <br />favor, and councilors Boles and Nicholson voting opposed. <br /> <br />Mr. MacDonald said that while he moved to reconsider, he still believes that <br />the council should not approve the request and would vote against the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Green stated that council approval of the request would be consistent <br />with the Springfield City Council's action; the property in question lies <br />within Springfield's city limits. He said that he shares concerns with the <br />recent increase in the number of people who are purchasing property with the <br />intent of requesting an urban growth boundary amendment and said that the <br />council should take a hard look at this issue if it occurs within Eugene's <br />city limits. <br /> <br />Ms. Bascom said that her vote in favor of Blue Water Boats proposal supports <br />the unanimous decision of the three Planning Commissions and said that it is <br />arrogant for the council to suggest that the commissions do not respect the <br />concept of compact urban growth. <br /> <br />Mr. Boles emphasized that the boundary in question is set cooperatively by <br />the three jurisdictions and does not belong to Springfield. He also pointed <br />out that the planning commissions' decisions were not based on the same tes- <br />timony that had been presented to the council, particularly with respect to <br />the length of time that the water was needed for boat testing. He also <br />pointed out that the City of Springfield was a co-applicant to the request, <br />which might have affected the jurisdiction's partiality. <br /> <br />Roll call vote; the motion carried, 4:3; with councilors <br />Rutan, Bascom, Robinette, and Green voting in favor, and coun- <br />cilors MacDonald, Nicholson, and Boles voting opposed. <br /> <br />IV. RECONSIDERATION: GOOD NEIGHBOR CARE CENTERS <br /> <br />Mr. Boles pointed out that the proposal for housing involves apprOXimately <br />$16 million in economic development activities for the City of Springfield <br />and asked whether councilors on the prevailing side of the issue wished to <br />reconsider the council's request denial. <br /> <br />Ms. Bascom indicated her willingness to reconsider the issue, noting that <br />there may be some room for negotiation among the bodies on the Metropolitan <br />Policy Commission (MPC). <br /> <br />Mr. Green said that his primary concern with respect to this issue was the <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br /> <br />May 28, 1991 <br /> <br />Page 4 <br />