Laserfiche WebLink
DateHostParticipants:Participants: <br />Notes <br />RR/SCCity/ <br />Unincorp <br />10/25Task Force 4 RR/10 SC5/9Pilot session <br />member <br />11/21RCCO24 RR1/23Pilot session <br />1/12RR resident14 RR1/13West RR, Cherry Lane, Park <br />Avenue North <br />1/20North9 RR/12 SCEst. 5/16High School students <br />Eugene <br />H.S. <br />2/2SCCO35 SC17/18Wide variety of participants <br />2/8RR resident6 RR0/6Mid RR: Horn Lane area, par- <br />ents <br />2/9SC resident9 SC8/1NW SC, Dorchester Ln., retired <br />2/26RR resident9 RR0/9Lower RR: Park Avenue <br />3/2SC resident7 SC1/6East and North SC: Scenic Dr., <br />Springwood Dr. <br />3/8Latino rep.3 RR2/1Latino families <br />3/14SC resident7 SC7/0Mid SC: Winery Lane <br />TOT14969 RR/80 SC47/102 <br />Methodology for Analyzing Outcomes <br />Although analysis of open-ended questions is a more involved process, it can more accu- <br />rately reflect true concerns than a highly structured survey. The results of the core questions <br />were entered into a spreadsheet and sorted by general categories that emerged during the <br />analysis. Categories with a wide variety of responses were then broken down into more spe- <br />cific sub-categories. Because River Road and Santa Clara had slightly different numbers of <br />workshop participants, comparisons between the two neighborhoods are best accomplished <br />by working with percentages (Table 3). <br />Workshop evaluation outcomes were very positive. The final evaluation asked participants <br />to rate the workshop on a scale of 0 (poor) to 5 (excellent) according to the following criteria: <br />overall, usefulness for understanding issues, usefulness for gathering input, environment for <br />productive discussion, facilitators knowledge, and whether the workshop met expectations. <br />The average workshop rating was 4.4. <br />Outcomes by Category <br />Listed below in italics are the general categories resulting from the analysis, followed by the <br />sub-categories and the key words describing the sub-category. <br />Land Use: <br />Development: Developers, new houses, growth, planning issues such as infill, flag lots/ <br />panhandle lots, subdivision, standards, code, and zoning. <br />Density: low density, large lot size, large yards, room between houses. <br />Rural qualities: Country feel, neighborly, large lots, history, quiet, agriculture, privacy, trees, <br />roads without sidewalks. Answers in this category either listed “rural”, “country” or more than <br />one of the above descriptors. <br />Rural/urban interface: semi-rural, sub-urban, close to farms, edge of city, urban growth <br />boundary. <br />River Road/Santa Clara Transition Project—Public Outreach Report <br />13 <br /> <br />