My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 05/11/05 WS
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2005
>
CC Minutes - 05/11/05 WS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 10:28:33 AM
Creation date
6/15/2005 12:04:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Work Session
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/1/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Dawson stated that the HPB would continue to pursue <br />regulatory barriers to affordable housing because this was part of its mission, though the amendment, if <br />passed, would remove this from being a stated outcome in the plan. <br /> <br /> The vote was a tie; 4:4; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Ortiz voting in favor <br /> and Mr. Poling, Mr. Pap6, Mr. Pryor, and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. Mayor <br /> Piercy voted in favor of the amendment and the amendment passed. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the last Projected Outcome to delete <br /> reference to Eugene City Council to read, 'Bring to Springfield City Council in 2007, im- <br /> plement in 2008.' <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman opined that the language on page 55 of the plan predetermined and prejudiced a land use issue <br />outcome. She averred the amendment would not preclude the ability of the HPB to present problems that <br />might arise in the code; it would merely bring such matters before the City Council first. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy asked Ms. Dawson to speak to the amendment. <br /> <br />Ms. Dawson said the HPB would continue to discuss the issue in both cities over time. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ affirmed from Ms. Dawson that the HPB had reviewed the whole document. Ms. Dawson said the <br />issues were talked about by the HPB and were left in the plan because it was felt to be important to address <br />such land use issues in both cities. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon iterated that this had been discussed at the last HPB meeting and that the whole group had <br />agreed that the group was a consortium and that all three jurisdictions should be reviewing barriers to low- <br />income housing development. She thought the City of Eugene should stay on board and indicated she would <br />not support the amendment. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor called it a neighborhood protection matter. She averred that there should be a good reason <br />before apartment houses and duplexes were allowed in "unsuitable places." <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly felt the issue was one of who would lead in developing changes to the code. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ reiterated that the code would not change prior to being vetted up through the normal process, <br />which was to come through the Planning Commission and before the City Council. He wanted to hear any <br />good ideas the HPB might have and underscored that it was still up to the council to adopt them. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asserted that the language as it stood set a timeline and circumvented the council's normal <br />procedure and would prejudice the outcome. She felt the discussion needed policy direction from the council <br />first. She added that the language reflected work that the Planning Commission was already doing on <br />mixed-use development. <br /> <br /> The motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting in favor. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 2005 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.