Laserfiche WebLink
the issue of degree of impact. He did not think any criteria should deny a residential treatment <br />center from being located in a neighborhood, but it might be legitimate to limit the number of <br />treatment beds in a certain area because of neighborhood impact. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Rayor that existing social services should be grandfathered if a dispersal <br />policy was adopted. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly thought there were some services that lent themselves to clustering, and suggested that <br />master planning for that clustering would be appropriate. He agreed with Ms. Taylor that transit <br />was key to the provision of social services. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked if it was reasonable to contemplate asking the Planning Commission to work <br />on the issue. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the commission's work program was already quite full, <br />and suggested that staff ask the commission if it could accommodate the effort. He added that <br />staff could also do some initial research in the shod-term and come back to the council, which <br />could direct it toward the Planning Commission at that time. Ms. Nathanson suggested <br />alternatively, the Human Rights Commission could be charged with the effort. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked staff to investigate to what extent the City could influence the situation, <br />noting the passage of federal legislation that would allow supersiting authority for church-based <br />activities. She also wanted to hear more about any other limits to the City's authority. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman thought the Human Rights Commission's work plan was also very heavy at this time. <br />She suggested that the Neighborhood Leaders Council also be involved in the process. She said <br />that the conditional use permit approach only worked if it was significantly changed or folded into <br />a different zoning context. She termed the conditional use permit process a "beauty contest" and <br />said that if one had a good cause, it was difficult to argue the good cause did not belong in a <br />particular location. She did not believe the conditional use permit process worked in this context. <br />Ms. Bettman was particularly interested in how such uses affected downtown, saying she believed <br />the City needed to reestablish home ownership downtown and make those neighborhoods <br />liveable as a natural support system for downtown. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ agreed that the Human Rights Commission had a full work plan. He said that the <br />commission discussed how to fit in additional work plan items, and agreed that while there was <br />energy on the part of the commission, the work plan precluded the addition of much more. If <br />something needed to be done in the near term, he suggest the commission be left out of the <br />process. <br /> <br /> Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> develop and initiate a public process to involve neighborhood groups, <br /> residents, and providers in analyzing social service siting, impacts, and <br /> needs and return to the City Council with options and recommendations for a <br /> resolution. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Fart, Mr. Meisner indicated his motion did not exclude <br />businesses. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br />The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 21, 2001 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />