CC Minutes - 01/18/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

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