Item 2A: Approval of Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

regulatory barriers to affordable housing because this was part of its mission, though the amendment, if passed, would remove this from being a stated outcome in the plan. The vote was a tie; 4:4; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Ortiz voting in fa- vor and Mr. Poling, Mr. Papd, Mr. Pryor, and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in favor of the amendment and the amendment passed. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the last Projected Outcome to de- lete reference to Eugene City Council to read, 'Bring to Springfield City Council in 2007, implement in 2008.' Ms. Bettman opined that the language on page 55 of the plan predetermined and prejudiced a land use issue outcome. She averred the amendment would not preclude the ability of the HPB to present problems that might arise in the code; it would merely bring such matters before the City Council first. Mayor Piercy asked Ms. Dawson to speak to the amendment. Ms. Dawson said the HPB would continue to discuss the issue in both cities over time. Mr. Pap6 affirmed from Ms. Dawson that the HPB had reviewed the whole document. Ms. Dawson said the issues were talked about by the HPB and were left in the plan because it was felt to be important to address such land use issues in both cities. Ms. Solomon iterated that this had been discussed at the last HPB meeting and that the whole group had agreed that the group was a consortium and that all three jurisdictions should be reviewing barriers to low- income housing development. She thought the City of Eugene should stay on board and indicated she would not support the amendment. Ms. Taylor called it a neighborhood protection matter. She averred that there should be a good reason before apartment houses and duplexes were allowed in "unsuitable places." Mr. Kelly felt the issue was one of who would lead in developing changes to the code. Mr. Pap6 reiterated that the code would not change prior to being vetted up through the normal process, which was to come through the Planning Commission and before the City Council. He wanted to hear any good ideas the HPB might have and underscored that it was still up to the council to adopt them. Ms. Bettman asserted that the language as it stood set a timeline and circumvented the council's normal procedure and would prejudice the outcome. She felt the discussion needed policy direction from the council first. She added that the language reflected work that the Planning Commission was already doing on mixed-use development. The motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting in favor. Mr. Kelly said in the context of the whole plan these issues were minor, but he was feeling that the time for the council to comment on the issue was at this meeting. He indicated he would vote against the plan. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 2005 Page 3 Work Session