Item C: Crest Drive Neighborhood Context Sensitive Solutions Process

Home Browse Search

? To present ideas ? To communicate, openly and honestly, and to reach consensus on a street design ? This is our opportunity to work with the city- we are more responsible to the neighborhood than to the entire city ? We are responsible because of the “pioneering” aspect of this project ? Our responsibility is to come up with a Context Sensitive Design process for the city ? First, we are to come up with an appropriate design for the neighborhood streets. Second, we are responsible to say “no” if we disagree with the design. Third, we have a commitment to the city to see this through. ? To reach consensus ? We are responsible to the City at large, the neighbors, and those who drive through the neighborhood. To the City, we will create a model process. To the neighbors, we will ensure livability. To those who drive through, we will create safe roads. ? Our responsibility is to be collaborative and representative of the neighborhood. We are not one single voice, but rather a representative voice. ? To come up with design preserving the neighborhood characteristics while considering design standards. ? To uphold neighborhood integrity in the context of CSS ? To become an example for the City and the nation During the sharing portion of this exercise, a question was posed by one of the committee members. “Out of the scarce available resources dedicated to other projects in the city, how much is being dedicated to this project?” Bill and Josh recommended that this question be addressed during the City of Eugene’s informational presentation later in the meeting. Building Operational Agreements- Continued This item was a continuation from the two previous meetings. The committee was asked to first consider and discuss implementing a back-up decision-making process. Back-up Decision-Making Process Bill addressed comments and questions raised at the previous two meetings in regard to choosing consensus as the model for decision-making for the Crest Drive Process. He noted that in comparison to other decision-making models such as parliamentary voting, consensus requires more up-front time and resources, while greatly reducing implementation time. On the other hand, parliamentary voting requires little up-front time, yet requires much more time and resources for implementation. Bill also noted that using consensus provides the City Council with a better understanding and a clearer picture of the committee’s progress. It shows the Council the level of support for items discussed and deliberated. He also noted that building consensus oftentimes begins with a question. “Is there support for….?” Margot noted that she desired having a backup decision-making process to the consensus model. She mentioned that this could simply take the form of a minority report or the inclusion of two separate options. A group discussion followed: Question: “How will the neighbors be involved in decision-making?” Response: “Through an established communication process.” Page 17 of 27