Laserfiche WebLink
7   <br />  <br /> <br /> <br />  <br /> RESOLUTION: ADOPTION OF THE 2013 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN <br /> <br />Adoption of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan <br /> <br />Ms. Creasy presented to Council. She gave an overview of the recent meetings held on the <br />Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Norris presented a suggested change stem ming from collaboration with Ms. Galvin. <br />The suggestion combines existing section 1.1 in th e Housing chapter and incorporates it into a <br />revised section 5.4, which gives language that addresses im proving access for lower-income <br />households to public amenities. The change was moved by Mr. Norris and seconded by Ms. <br />Galvin. <br /> <br />Ms. Smith said she does not see why we need to delete section 1.1 and believes something <br />is lost by morphing them together. Section 5.4 is about improving access, and Section 1.1 is <br />more about assuaging negative impacts. She said she would vote in favor if Section 1.1 remains <br />intact. <br /> <br />Ms. Galvin said the issue with Section 1.1 is that it seemed to decouple isolation with <br />concentrated poverty. <br /> <br />Ms. Szakos said she supports Section 5.4 and sees no problem with Section 1.1 <br /> <br />Mr. Norris said he does not want anything in our Comprehensive Plan that enshrines the <br />possibility of red lining affordable housing. <br /> <br />Ms. Galvin suggested adding the following langua ge to Section 1.1: "consider the effect of <br />housing decisions on the larger geography of the C ity and its associated infrastructure". Mr. <br />Huja said Section 5.4 is a good addition, and he al so supported Ms. Galvin’s revision of Section <br />1.1. Ms. Szakos also suppor ted the secondary language. <br /> <br />Mr. Norris said Ms. Smith's concern about concen trating poverty in scho ols is not actually <br />addressed in Section 1.1, and it addressed in Sect ion 5.4. Ms. Smith said it needs to be about all <br />neighborhoods. <br /> <br />Ms. Szakos said we need to pay attention to infrastructure and reque sted that Section 1.1 <br />include associated infrastructure. Mr. Norris accepted Ms. Szakos’ amendment. <br /> <br />On motion by Mr. Norris, seconded by Ms. Galvin, the proposed amendment passed. <br />(Ayes: Mr. Norris, Ms. Galvin, Ms. Szakos, Mr . Huja; Noes: Ms. Smith.) Ms. Smith said she <br />would not support the amendment because she believe s it will promote concentration of poverty. <br /> <br />Ms. Szakos gave some editorial changes to staff. She also aske d for updated water and <br />sewer charges for 2013. She noted the Economic Sustainability goals section should say "as a <br />framework for Citywide policy" because the plan has not yet been adopted. She asked to add