Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman stated she believes in the primacy of the people who would be financially impacted and concurred there would be improvements which fulfill transportation needs of other people in the community; however, she stressed the product must be done in a way that did not negatively impact the neighborhood and the property values. Ms. Gardner clarified that “McLean” was not one of the affected streets as noted in the council packet. She turned to the property owner input and said that input was part of the design of the Crest Drive Neighborhood Group Subcommittee, primarily made up of property owners on the affected streets. Ms. Bettman stated she would support the motion as a good portion of the costs could be reimbursed. Mr. Papé? applauded the process and recognized that while this project would take more time and energy, it would be a better product due to its consensus nature. City Manager Taylor commented that the work of the neighborhood reinforced by the recommendation of the City Manager captured everyone’s attention. Mr. Papé? expressed a desire to hear from the neighborhood members. Ms. Gardner said that opportunity would present itself as the process moves forward. In response to a question from Mr. Papé?, Ms. Gardner responded that classification was not now a focus; rather, the focus was on the street design which was more significant in terms of how the street would function. Mr. Kelly echoed previous comments and complimented those involved in the process. He concurred that this process could be a model for other projects throughout the City. Mr. Kelly opined that some projects could sometimes take longer due to contentiousness between the City and its constituents, whereas this project begins on a positive note. In conclusion, Mr. Kelly spoke to standards and guidelines and noted that standards must follow the law. However, he urged the members of the CDCT to bring any issues around standards (which could be amended if deemed appropriate) to the City Council, in order to preserve the integrity and intent of the process. Mr. Pryor offered his compliments to all individuals involved in this project thus far. He stated that the intent to “do it right” while being cost-effective may make the process more lengthy but would result in an exemplary product. Mr. Pryor spoke to the collaborative process and pointed out there must be a balance between a “context-sensitive design” and the assurance that a boutique system was not created. He opined that the process would ensure an appropriate balance. Mayor Piercy called for a second round of comments and questions. Ms. Taylor opined that the fact that only two neighbors were in attendance indicated people were less concerned and less angry with regard to the process. She spoke to the financial component and pointed out that property owners on side streets would not be contributing to the financial aspect but would benefit. She revealed that some of those owners have expressed an interest in contributing to the process. Ms. Taylor noted that some property owners may lose their houses if they were required to pay an assessment fee. She urged staff to ascertain if there was an avenue to allow contributions from side street owners and waive charges for property owners who cannot afford the assessment fees. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Gardner replied there were four at-large representatives from the neighborhood on the committee, in addition to the 16 representatives from affected streets. Ms. Taylor noted that some of those owners were feeling neglected by the process. Ms. Gardner assured the council there would be ample opportunity to involve both affected property owners and broader representatives of the neighborhood throughout the process. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 8, 2006 Page 8 Work Session