Laserfiche WebLink
that such programs were generally associated with Iow-income housing programs and were <br />included in the goal. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 applauded the goal of constructing 100 affordable housing units annually but suggested <br />the City step back and coordinate a more comprehensive approach to the provision of housing <br />that included other agencies. Mr. Kelly, a member of the Housing Policy Board, responded that <br />such coordination occurred now. The City does not build Iow-income housing itself, but instead <br />works with a variety of nonprofit agencies and other governmental units on housing proposals. He <br />said that Ms. Nathanson's remarks about what available opportunities were well-taken. Regarding <br />the issue of owner-occupied versus rental housing, Mr. Kelly said the City Council establishes the <br />organization's direction through the Consolidated Plan. Mr. Johnson added that Eugene and <br />Springfield coordinate on an action plan with the cooperation of Lane County. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner supported the motion. He was frustrated with the City's housing programs. He <br />asserted that the community's costs for building Iow-income housing were higher than other <br />communities and the regulatory barriers facing projects "extraordinary." He thought the City made <br />the problem worse, citing as an example the staff proposal to acquire properties near the <br />Roosevelt yards for expansion of police services; those properties were in a stable, Iow-income <br />neighborhood with Iow cost housing. City purchase of those properties would force those <br />residents to relocate, possibly at City expense. Mr. Meisner said that the City also facilitated the <br />conversion of Iow-income neighborhoods near downtown to commercial purposes. He said the <br />work plan was focused on housing construction, not housing allowances or other approaches. <br />Mr. Meisner complained that "We never do anything different." <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed with some of Mr. Meisner's remarks. He also agreed with Mr. Farr's remarks but <br />suggested rather than oppose the amendment, Mr. Farr suggest another work program item to <br />address the broader class of "affordable." <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said he could support the motion if it did not impact items 1 and 4. <br /> <br /> Mr. Farr moved to amend the amendment to the work plan so it was no <br /> applicable to items 1 and 4. The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> The motion to amend passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. PapS, and Mr. Farr voting <br /> no. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Mr. Johnson said that the council was required by State <br />law to review each housing project exemption proposal individually as they came before the <br />council. He said that the council could direct him to assume that authority. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr indicated that he would come back to the council with a work plan item related to housing <br />affordability. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson asked the council to reconsider the action priority title given the changes it made to <br />the work items. He recommended Increase the supply of low-income housing throughout the <br />community. The council accepted the suggestion. <br /> <br />Action Priority: Provide a variety of additional housing in the downtown and provide a <br />stable downtown and neighborhoods adjacent to downtown by preserving existing housing <br />and residential uses <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 12 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />