CC Minutes - 04/28/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

force members indicated general support for the motion, although there was concern expressed about the lack of data. Some had questions about the process that would be required as a result. Members emphasized the importance of the up-front communication called for in Mr. Meisner's suggested motion as a way to minimize problems. Members of the task force who were also providers expressed concern about the fact the process could slow a site acquisition process, emphasized the communication that was already typically occurring, and suggested that the Govinda's situation was an isolated incident. Ms. Taylor acknowledged the providers' concern about the need to move quickly in an acquisition situation but did not think that, given the voluntary nature of the motion, it would create problems. Mr. Meisner concurred. Mr. Meisner indicated that the Food for Lane County incident was not the first or an isolated incident. He observed that in the past the council had been provided by staff with information showing the location of every provider and expressed surprise that information had not been given to the task force. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to direct the City Manager to develop and promote a process that encourages social services providers to work voluntarily with nearby neighbors and businesses to develop a "good neighbor policy" prior to starting a social service agency and that the manager report back to the council when the process has been put into place; in addition, to endorse the principle adopted by the Social Service Siting Task Force, that organizations that provide social services should locate and operate social services in a manner that maintains neighbors' safety and their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their neighborhood. Ms. Nathanson recalled the lists of social service agencies and community service agencies kept by the City staff in the past and said she had considered it duplicative of a Lane County effort. She doubted whether anyone's list was correct or comprehensive. Ms. Nathanson said the City Council was made aware of other types of nuisances that might be addressed in a similar manner, such as youth gathering at a market or video center and the associated problems that sometimes came up in conjunction with that. Bars and taverns also attracted problems, and she questioned what the City did about those issues that was different than how the motion proposed to treat social services. Mr. Pap8 concurred with the remarks of Mr. Meisner that the Food for Lane County situation was not unique, and noted the council also received calls about methadone clinics proposed to be sited in neighborhoods. Ms. Bettman wanted to preserve existing residential housing in neighborhoods adjacent to the downtown and suggested that a policy related to that would do much to address the livability issues raised by residents. She hoped the council addressed that issue soon. Mr. Kelly supported the motion. He asked what would happen if the motion passed. Mr. Coyle said that staff could facilitate a community discussion and develop rules that accommodated all people. He spoke to the Govinda's issue and said that Carolyn Frengle of Food for Lane County had been very responsive in resolving the problems. He said that the City had sat down with MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 10 Work Session