Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Pap~ moved, seconded by Mr. Kelly, to forward three options to the public <br /> for consideration: 1) an option to increase the penalty and restitution for <br /> perpetrators of graffiti; 2) an option for property owner abatement that <br /> excluded single-family residences; and 3) an option that included public <br /> responsibility for graffiti abatement up to a certain number of incidents or <br /> dollar amount, with property owner responsibility after that point. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee indicated support for the motion because it would elicit public comment. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner supported the motion with the understanding that the council may choose to mix and <br />match elements of the different options at the time it considered adoption. <br /> <br />Responding to a request for direction from Mr. Johnson, the council agreed that the hearing would <br />be focused on the three approaches outlined by Mr. Pap~ rather than on three separate <br />ordinances. <br /> <br />Responding to Mr. Meisner's comments about the possibility the council could choose to use <br />elements of the different options, Ms. Taylor said she would object to bringing up something new <br />after the hearing that people did not know about. <br /> <br /> Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. <br /> <br />Mr. Torrey said that Ms. Taylor had requested that the council not adopt the budget the same night <br />that it held the public hearing on the budget, June 21. However, because of a meeting conflict <br />and the fact a number of hearings had been held regarding the budget, he did not think it was <br />unreasonable to adopt the budget that evening. Mr. Meisner clarified that there would be an hour <br />available for discussion. Mr. Lee asked that the public notice be clear the council intended to take <br />action that night. By a straw vote of those present, the council agreed to adopt the budget on <br />June 21, with Ms. Taylor and Mr. Rayor noting their opposition. <br /> <br />C.Work Session: Amending the Metropolitan Area General Plan to Adopt a New "Residential <br /> Land Use and Housing" Element and Related Changes to the Plan Text and Glossary <br /> <br />Mr. Torrey said that the council was being asked to give preliminary approval to the proposed <br />changes to the Metropolitan Plan. Any changes proposed by the council would also be <br />considered by the Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners, and the <br />three bodies would have to ultimately reach agreement on the document. <br /> <br />Jim Croteau, Planning and Development Department, reminded the council of the public hearing it <br />held with Springfield and Lane County on April 14. The meeting packet included all the public <br />testimony received, as well as the minutes of the April 14 meeting. Mr. Croteau referred the <br />council to Attachment 2, which included the staff analysis of testimony and recommended <br />changes to the document in response to the testimony. He noted that the legal counsels for the <br />three jurisdictions had also reviewed the document and recommended changes, which were also <br />incorporated into the document. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly commended Attachment 2 as being very clear and understandable. <br /> <br /> Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to take conditional action to <br /> adopt Metro Plan amendments as presented in Attachment 3 and as <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 1999 Page 6 <br /> 5:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />