Laserfiche WebLink
land in Santa Clara considered in the Eugene Comprehensive Lands Analysis (ECLA) was developable, <br />and the drainageways would not be protected by the City. He thought that would also concern Santa Clara <br />residents. He wanted to know what the City could do to address his concern without pushing the <br />timeframe out too far. <br />Mr. Clark asked about the relationship between items 11 and 17 and what the City would be able to <br />address in regard to those items. He also found some of the items on the list less important than the issue <br />of drainageways, and asked staff to discuss the rationale for its recommendations. In response, Ms. Weiss <br />clarified that while staff recommended items 1 through 13 it did not believe it could accomplish them <br />within the current timeline. They would require a timeline extension to accomplish them all. Staff would <br />address the legally required items, 1- 5, to the extent they were legally required within the current time <br />frame. She said in regard to drainageways, staff could develop a timeline for addressing that issue and <br />return to the council. <br />Ms. Ortiz recommended that Planning Commission meetings be broadcast on Metro Television <br />throughout the Envision Eugene process, and requested the cost of that. City Manager Ruiz commended <br />the suggestion and said that unless the cost proved prohibitive, staff would figure out how to make that <br />happen. <br />Mr. Zelenka wanted to know the cost of addressing items 1- 5, beyond the minimum legal parameters and <br />also wanted to know the cost of addressing the items that staff did not recommend. He thought it was very <br />important to do the process right and pointed out the council was working under a self - imposed deadline. <br />City Manager Ruiz indicated staff would return with a recommendation on June 14. <br />Mayor Piercy acknowledged the conflict between the desires of those who wished to do the process right <br />and those who wished to do it quickly and wondered if there was a way to accommodate both interests and <br />give them confidence in the process. Ms. Gardner indicated staff would provide a response to the <br />question on June 14. <br />Mr. Clark expressed disappointment about further process delay, which he said would serve the ends of <br />some but not all residents. He agreed with Mr. Zelenka it was important to do the process right, and <br />suggested failure to address natural resource protections in Santa Clara would result in a divided <br />community, with people working to stop projects using the regulatory system. He thought the City could <br />have avoided that by preparing intelligently. <br />Mr. Clark asked if the City had done any analysis to determine if its infrastructure was sufficient to handle <br />a higher level of density. Ms. Jerome said yes, as it was legally required to do so. The City must <br />demonstrate that it could provide the infrastructure needed for more dense development. <br />Speaking to the triggers mentioned by Ms. Jerome, Mr. Zelenka thought it was bad policy to make <br />irrevocable decisions based on wrong numbers, and he thought the numbers would be wrong. Such <br />triggers would allow the City to make adjustments as time went along. He suggested that the City <br />approach the 2011 Oregon Legislature to seek an exemption that allowed that to occur and to encourage <br />the legislature to modernize the planning rules to recognize that planning had become more complex since <br />the law was written. <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor about the source of the figure attached to the anticipated <br />demand for housing, Ms. Weiss said the number came from the ECLA project. ECLA suggested that <br />MINUTES — Eugene City Council May 24, 2010 Page 6 <br />Work Session <br />