Laserfiche WebLink
(2) Lack of Parks, Recreation and Open Space Services in Santa Clara. <br />Ms. Weiss <br />opined that much of the testimony presented on this issue was based on Table B.2 in the <br />plan; however, she explained that the table provides a baseline inventory of the existing <br />services throughout the entire City, Additionally, it broke the inventory down by <br />planning area. She stressed that it was not the intent of the table to be a forecast of <br />service provision to the Santa Clara area. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy called for council comments and questions. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she did not oppose the adoption of a project list. She said she would oppose a <br />process whereby the plan was adopted as a refinement to the Metro Plan and shaped as policies <br />rather than strategies. Ms. Bettman expressed regret that the PROS Committee did not review the <br />policies that would be vacated due to an appeal of the 1989 Plan; however, she recognized that <br />many of the values would be covered as pointed out by staff. Ms. Bettman spoke to the systems <br />development charges (SDCs) and pointed out that the last Parks, Recreation and Open Space <br />bond measure paid for a significant amount of new capacity to accommodate new growth; <br />therefore, a new list was necessary to recover some of the cost of that new capacity. She stated <br />she supported Option B in the AIS which repeals the 1989 plan and provides for a resolution that <br />adopts the PROS Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Bettman voiced concern about fulfilling the Metro <br />Plan policy to develop a system of regional metropolitan areas by encouraging the development <br />of private recreational facilities. She stressed that she does not support “privatization” as a City <br />policy and therefore opined that a resolution was the prudent step for the council to take. In <br />conclusion, Ms. Bettman urged staff to review its website as there were many obstacles to reach <br />the project list and it was not readily accessible with references. She requested that it also be <br />prioritized. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor complimented staff on an excellent plan. However, he voiced concern over <br />unanswered issues that remain. Mr. Pryor opined that if the plan was adopted with the issues <br />unresolved, the community would perceive that it has not been heard. He pointed out that there <br />was an “artificial” pressure to adopt the plan in order to meet the bond measure timeline. Mr. <br />Pryor revealed that some members of the Planning Commission said they approved the proposed <br />ordinance reluctantly and would have preferred to spend more time on this project. He noted that <br />the commission was under the false impression it had to act in an expedient manner to meet the <br />bond measure timeline. Mr. Pryor turned to the concerns of the community regarding the project <br />list and pointed out that it was possible to have a plan with a project list and he would rather <br />discuss the list prior to the adoption of the plan. He opined that a plan without a project list was <br />all vision and no substance. In conclusion, Mr. Pryor encouraged the council to create a strategy <br />which allows the process to move more slowly and thoughtfully. <br /> <br />Mr. Pape? questioned the difference between what was aspirational and what flows in policy and <br />said he was hesitant to move forward until that question could be fully clarified. Specifically, he <br />spoke to the Santa Clara component and pointed out that the council has not completed projects <br />for that area which were approved 20 years ago. He voiced doubt that the proposed ordinance <br />would assist in that regard. Additionally, Mr. Pape? voiced concern that land use specialists <br />cautioned the City not to move forward without a project list, as legal consequences could ensue. <br /> <br />City Attorney Jerome Lidz clarified there was nothing unlawful about incorporating a project list <br />into the PROS Plan; however, he pointed out that it clearly would not be unlawful to separate the <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 18, 2005 Page 1 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />