CC Minutes - 07/27/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In response to a question from Mr. Poling, Ms. Muir explained how the opportunity siting language would be added into the high-priority items. Mayor Piercy said the MUC process provided opportunities for success while presenting major challenges at the same time. Mayor Piercy said she heard in the community that there were some difficulties getting Goal 5 materials in a timely manner for review. She expressed her appreciation for the “buddy” system and was interested in continuing the dialogue. She said it was important to get out in front of the discussions so the Planning Commission did not do a lot of work in a direction that the council did not want to go. Mayor Piercy said it was important for the council and commission to stay tuned with each other. Although the council may at times disagree with the Planning Commission, it was important for the commission to understand that the council’s often had to address conflicting needs. Mayor Piercy called on the council for a second round of questions and comments. Mr. Kelly said there was inevitable tension in some of the discussions because a neighborhood’s priority understandably is the neighborhood, whereas the challenge that the Planning Commission and the council faced was looking at everything in a citywide context. Being listened to was not the same as being agreed with, and that can create tension if the Planning Commission takes a different direction than what is recommended by citizens or the council chooses a direction that varied from the Planning Commission recommendation. It did not mean the council ignored the commission; it simply meant that the council sifted through all the information given to it, weighed it all against other factors, and made a decision. Mr. Kelly said what CAHFN had been saying was that an opportunity siting discussion was needed as well as a need to be realistic. If what happened in the end did not erode livability or the property values of those who invested in the neighborhood, then good things were happening. Ms. Muir said the traditional land use process would be used for the update of the 1989 plan, meaning there would be a noticed Planning Commission work session followed by a public hearing, followed by a recommendation to the City Council. The council would also hold a work session and a public hearing. Referring to the Historic Review Board (HRB) workplan, Ms. Taylor asked if the Santa Clara school was a historic site. Ms. Taylor asked if someone was going to study the building, as she understood the fire did not touch the historic part. She hoped the structure would be saved. Mr. Yeiter understood that the school had not been designated and it had not been studied further since the fire. He said it was not currently part of the Planning Division’s work program. Furthermore, the River Road study did not go north of Beltline, thus would not include the school site. Ms. Ortiz reported that she met with George Russell, Superintendent of Eugene School District 4-J, regarding the Santa Clara school. The school district planned to sell the building. The River Road/Santa Clara Park and Recreation District was hoping to purchase that site. Ms. Ortiz understood that the fire affected the main structure. It would cost a significant amount of money to repair the part of the building that shared a common wall with the historic section. The Eugene School District 4-J School Board would decide whether it wanted to put money into the building. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 27, 2005 Page 7 Work Session