Item B: Santa Clara Park Update - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Reasons for Support Survey results identified a variety of factors as compelling reasons to support the proposed project. The factors most likely to make Eugene residents support the proposal include protection of forest and stream headwaters, not net change of the Urban Growth Boundary, community involvement in project development, and the knowledge that city services are already in place. Ultimately, arguments in favor of the project are not as clear, again stemming from the complexity of the project and the difficulty in identifying the multiple benefits of the project. For example, protecting forest and headwater streams was one of the highest rated goals by Eugene residents. However, a similar question about acquiring ridgeline open space was the lowest rated factor in question #30. Obviously, these two goals were not seen as one and the same. Potential Misunderstanding of Project An important finding from the report is that certain questions in the survey may have been misinterpreted. Results for all respondents show a dramatic increase from initial opposition to final opposition (from 23% to 41%) to the proposal, as compared to the slight increase from initial support to final support (from 37% to 38%). While this implies that additional information sways many of the undecided respondents towards opposition of the project, other results suggest that confusion and misunderstanding of the proposal heavily affected responses to Q39: "Now, after what you have heard, would you support or oppose the proposed land trade, community park, and development of property in Santa Clara?" The questions that may have been misinterpreted include Q 15, Q 16, and Q 18, which ask respondents to determine how development scenarios, likely to occur without (instead of) the proposal, affect their support for the proposal. The high rates of opposition in response to these questions contradict responses to Q30 as well as Q40, which cite the impacts of additional housing development as the primary reason for opposition. The report notes that "regarding condemnation of land, it appears that people were rating the idea of condemnation, rather than the idea that without the project, condemnation could occur. The same is true for 'without the land trade proposal, the developer wants to develop the entire parcel with housing.' In other words, a majority of participants stated that they would move towards opposing the land swap proposal if they knew that without it government condemnation was involved. Clearly, participants were actually expressing their strong opposition to condemnation as a land acquisition approach. A likely cause of the confusion and an issue that has challenged staff from the beginning is that this proposal does not translate well into easily understood "sound-bites". Hot button issues, such as annexation, condemnation, agriculture, traffic, development and developers, trigger responses that are disproportionate with other responses. Important Actions Survey results from Q30 determined the importance of various actions the City could take with regard to the proposal. Community involvement in decision-making was rated as the most important factor. This suggests that both opponents and proponents of the project want more opportunities in determining how the development will look. Whether it has been made clear that the land swap approach provides the most public involvement opportunities is not known. The next most important actions the City could take are "minimizing traffic impacts to neighbors," and "preserving prime agricultural land." These results provide useful direction to staff for refinement of the project approach. L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050518\S050518B.doc