Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Development Department (PDD) Susan Muir had talked about the need for a process to figure out how this would work. He said there were no good precedents for how to enable a neighborhood organization to access these public funds. Mayor Piercy stated that the third item on the agenda, Sign Code Enforcement, could be rescheduled in order to fully discuss this item. There was general concurrence. Ms. Ortiz shared Mr. Kelly’s concerns regarding how the money would be distributed. She thanked everyone for their hard work and commended their dedication to keeping their community intact. Mr. Papé was appreciative of the process. He agreed that annexation should be placed on the back burner in order to focus people on the other issues. He asked the community organization leaders if they felt the council had listened to their concerns. Mr. Finigan felt the council had listened. He said the difference between this process and the one that had been conducted in the 1980s was that community leaders were coming to the council because that was where the solutions lay. Mr. Handy agreed with Mr. Finigan, but wished to “tease out some nuances.” He thought it was a little more complicated because the City had to listen to, discuss with, and respect the ideas of River Road/Santa Clara residents. He felt that how the City and the neighborhoods worked together would become the hallmark of how they had been listened to and how the next steps would be taken. Mr. Papé asked Mr. Finigan and Mr. Handy if they felt the relationship between the River Road and Santa Clara neighborhoods and the City of Eugene improved. Mr. Finigan replied that the people involved in the process seemed to understand that they had to work with the City on this. Mr. Handy responded that the effort of the City was improving. He averred that the determination of infill standards, street standards, and low-impact development standards would contribute to the improvement of the City’s relationship with residents, especially as citizens could actively recognize the role of the City in the creation of improved standards. Mr. Papé called out the work of Assistant City Manager Carlson and thanked him for it. Ms. Taylor thanked the Transition Team for their work. She asked Mr. Handy if he was requesting a no vote to the motion. Mr. Handy asked if there was a motion on the table. Ms. Taylor clarified that it was a suggested motion, but that it had not been made yet. She expressed skepticism about accepting a report. She asserted that a plan could later be used to implement policy she did not necessarily agree with. Mr. Handy stated that there was one aspect of the report that did not have traction in the community. He reiterated its hesitation to endorse the recommendation for the City to proceed with an annexation plan. Ms. Taylor averred that the council needed to discuss infill standards for the whole city. She alleged that all of the neighborhoods she knew about were “suffering from inappropriate infill.” Ms. Taylor was also skeptical about the statement that said 2/3 of the participants favor annexation. She thought the people who did not favor annexation would not have participated in this process. Mr. Reed clarified that 1/3 favored annexation and 1/3 were undecided. Ms. Taylor opined that the River Road/Santa Clara area should have been a separate community or there should have been a plan for annexation all at once. She felt the City was “stuck in a place” because of past mistakes. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 21, 2006 Page 6 Work Session