CC Minutes - 11/28/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

criteria, the City was only missing one community park which was located in the River Road/Santa Clara area and which staff continues to search for a suitable site. Mr. Papé turned to page XIII – Natural Areas – Prioritize natural resource acquisitions using criteria beyond natural resources to include opportunities for recreation, education, and protection of important visual resources. He asked for an explanation of that priority. Ms. Weiss replied that the inclusion of natural resources was not the only criterion and that recreation potential must also receive attention. Mr. Papé then pointed out that the Executive Summary states there were performance measures and page 71 states they would be developed. Ms. Weiss said she would follow up on that anomaly. Ms. Bettman stated she was reluctant to repeal the existing policies if there were no replacement policies. She questioned what legal weight the strategies would have with such a document. Mr. Klein responded that that point will be addressed by a memorandum to the council. Ms. Bettman then referred to the revisions to the strategies, in particular the strategy that the City had no authority outside the city limits. She asked for clarification. Ms. Weiss responded that the strategy Ms. Bettman referred to speaks to the City not having powers of condemnation outside the city limits. She added that a number of the revised strategies do stipulate that the City did not have authority on lands outside the UGB. Mr. Klein added that such authority was shared in the urban transition area and, therefore, council cannot unilaterally adopt a document in that area; rather, a new policy must be adopted by the City and Lane County. Ms. Solomon voiced a concern regarding the properties that were not in the inventory, such as those owned by other entities and particularly those in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) wetlands. She pointed out that such exclusion distorts the data and could ultimately jeopardize the success of a ballot measure. Ms. Solomon then expressed her belief that the City should not be the sole provider of all the parks, recreation, and open space services and this plan stated as much. She opined that such a philosophy undermines opportunities for partnerships and could reduce incentives to bring forward creative ideas. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to direct the City Manager to pro- ceed with the public hearing on the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehen- sive Plan on December 12, 2005, with adoption set for December 14, 2005. Mr. Poling stated that a monumental effort went into this project. However, he spoke to the short timeline to adopt the plan and said that based upon the comments made at this work session and those that would be made at the public hearing on December 12, perhaps it might be prudent to postpone the December 14 adoption date at the end of the public hearing. Mr. Papé agreed, and offered the following friendly amendment: Mr. Papé offered a friendly amendment, accepted by Mr. Poling and Ms. Solomon, to remove the December 14 adoption date from the process. Mr. Kelly pointed out that the majority of the council voiced concern over “special districts;” however, he noted that there were several paragraphs on page 69 of the plan that stipulated special districts as an option. He asked that that language be omitted from the plan as it can be discussed at a later time. Mr. Kelly further suggested that performance measures be reported to the City Council on an annual basis and noted in the plan accordingly. The motion, as amended, passed unanimously. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 6 Work Session