CCMinutes - 10/11/04 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

first meeting. She felt the second meeting also did not meet the needs of neighbors as they were asked to launch into a design process for which they were ill-prepared. She asserted that the City had not articulated its case for changing the street designation. She related that the neighbors needed confidence that the street would continue to be called ~%cal" in order to continue to work on street design issues. She said City staff stressed that changing the designation was a change in wording only. She averred that if that were so, then there should be no issue in leaving the wording as it stood. Frank Calciano, 975 Crest Drive, echoed the concerns regarding the change in street classification expressed by previous speakers. He thought that a lack of stop signs contributed to the overuse of the neighborhood and allowed vehicles to travel at high speeds with no impediments from Bailey Hill Road to Willamette Street. He related that the design charette had split the group into ten subgroups and every group designed the street similarly, incorporating narrow streets, traffic calming devices, and more stop signs. He underscored that the vast majority of those in attendance wanted the designation to stay the same, with only two people indicating support for the change to the collector designation. He added that the neighborhood was willing to put in the energy and money to support the effort to design a street with which both the City and the neighborhood could live. David Monk, 3720 Emerald Street, urged the council to include a comprehensive public planning process for the rail yard property in the Planning Commission work plan when it held its joint work session with commissioners later in the month. He encouraged the council to assign a staff person to work with Union- Pacific Railroad in order to find out what it intended to do next and plan accordingly. He said attempts by members of the public to gain information had been unsuccessful. He hoped the railroad would realize that there was more money to be made by selling the real estate than by hanging onto it. Zach ¥ishanoff, Patterson Street, noted that Williams Bakery had sought to remove some of the restrictions on its land. He theorized that this had to do with potential for a new arena. He reiterated that the Fairmount Neighborhood Association was opposed the site review proposal and he intimated there would be a lawsuit. He said citizens were "riled up" and recommended that public input groups be formed. Mr. Vishanoff thought the University of Oregon was discriminating against people by not renting 15 houses it owned, although there was a waiting list to get into the housing. Mr. Vishanoff shared other concerns regarding economic development zones. He opined that rich people did not need tax breaks. Kevin Matthews, 120 West Broadway Street, said Public Forum testimony indicated the people of the City of Eugene wanted economic justice and environmental quality. He applauded AFSCME for speaking up about their needs. He questioned the wisdom of imposing a change in street designation on a neighborhood so roundly opposed to it. Mr. Matthews asked why the City Council sought to "ram through" approval of an enterprise zone proposal. He alleged that "a chunk" of the City Council represented construction, real estate, and development interests. He thought the City would spend potential tax money to bring in businesses that bring in low wage jobs and create needs for social services and infrastructure paid for by taxpayers and the community stood to lose in this scenario. He felt City staff had not presented a salient argument for the benefits of an Enterprise Zone for the community. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 2004 Page 3 Regular Session