Laserfiche WebLink
hoped the focus of expertise on a short-term solution would be applicable to River Road and other areas and <br />that was the wish of other council members as well. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly clarified that feedback from people in River Road and Santa Clara was only from the chairs of <br />those neighborhood associations. He felt the discussion needed to focus on all areas where there was a <br />short-term concern. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé was concerned that the process would skip over the Planning Commission to develop solutions for <br />the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to amend the motion to limit it to Jef- <br />ferson-Westside. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that leadership from River Road and Santa Clara neighborhoods recognized the emergent <br />issue in Jefferson-Westside and believed the council should consider a short-term solution for that area. She <br />still believed that a focus on Jefferson-Westside would result in options that would be applicable in other <br />neighborhoods; the difference in Jefferson-Westside was the density that was permitted while the issue with <br />River Road related more to the character of the infill. She wanted the broadest support from the council and <br />would support Mr. Papé’s amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said a solution requiring a code amendment would have to go through the Planning Commission <br />and require public hearings. He said the motion simply requested a work session and asked staff to discuss <br />a specific problem in the meantime. He was concerned that the motion to amend would establish a precedent <br />that gave priority to those neighborhoods that were well-organized and that was inappropriate from a <br />planning perspective. He said there were issues in many other parts of the community and he did not want <br />to see some neighborhoods treated differently than others. He could not support the amendment. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said protecting the Jefferson-Westside neighborhood was good for the city. She said there <br />were chronic and acute problems and disagreed that the motion was a reaction to a neighborhood that was <br />politically organized. She believed the reason the neighborhood was organized was because it was facing a <br />threat to the largest investment most people would ever have: their home. People should not be faulted for <br />responding to a threat rather than just moving. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy asked if there was a difference between the friendly amendment from Mr. Poling and Mr. <br />Papé’s proposed amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé said there were different problems in different neighborhoods; it was not homogeneous. He did not <br />want to see an “end run” around normal processes. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly clarified that he was not faulting the neighbors in Jefferson-Westside for being organized; he was <br />merely concerned about the other areas that did not have the means or expertise to organize. He said the <br />friendly amendment focused on close-in neighborhoods, while Mr. Papé’s amendment would focus on <br />Jefferson-Westside only. <br /> <br />The motion to amend passed, 6:1; Mr. Kelly voting in opposition. <br /> <br />The main motion as amended passed, 6:1; Mr. Kelly voting in opposition. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />