Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Brown pointed out to Mr. Clark that the council received the Olive Plaza management letter three <br />days earlier. He did not think the code provided sufficient protections for Olive Plaza residents, who <br />were very worried about the project's impact. He wanted to provide those protections. He also pointed <br />out the many people who came downtown or passed by every day that might be affected by construction. <br />Mr. Brown questioned how Capstone Collegiate Communities environmental analysis could be <br />considered proprietary. He believed the council should have access to that information or it would not be <br />doing its job. <br />Speaking to the issue of parking, Mr. Brown said the parking was for the caregivers as well as residents. <br />Olive Plaza was offering to pay for the spaces at rates greater than those charged to occupants. <br />Mr. Farr suggested the council avoid dissecting individual projects on an ad hoc basis. He agreed with <br />Mr. Clark that if code deficiencies existed, they should be addressed by the council. <br />Ms. Ortiz did not support the motion, although she thought the concerns raised by Olive Plaza <br />management were valid. She concurred with Mr. Clark about the appropriate approach to existing code <br />deficiencies. <br />Mr. Brown questioned the staff conclusion that no lead paint was present, maintaining the substrate "has <br />got to contain lead in there somewhere." Ms. Laurence said with the exception of the lead found in the x- <br />ray facilities no lead was found. Mr. Brown asked who performed the analysis. Ms. Laurence did not <br />know and said she could follow -up. Mr. Brown emphasized the dangers of lead and the importance of <br />appropriate construction methods to contain it. <br />Mr. Poling said he could not support the amendment, which he interpreted as moving the goal posts in the <br />middle of the process. He also objected that the amendment had been presented without prior notice to <br />the council. <br />Mr. Farr, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to call the question. The motion failed, 5:3; Mr. <br />Poling, Mr. Clark, and Mr. Farr voting yes. <br />Mr. Zelenka agreed with Ms. Ortiz that the concerns expressed by Olive Plaza management were valid <br />but he also questioned the last - minute nature of the amendment and the lack of time for staff analysis of <br />its implications. He suggested the council address the concerns on a broader basis as suggested by Mr. <br />Clark. He believed it was inappropriate to require Capstone Collegiate Communities to comply with <br />rules that other developers were not required to follow. <br />Mr. Zelenka pointed out to Mr. Brown that the City did not require other proposed construction projects <br />to supply an environmental analysis but it did require them to comply with all applicable laws related to <br />demolition and the health and safety of citizens. If those rules were inadequate, the council should <br />change them. <br />Ms. Taylor believed the project deserved more time for review due to its scope and location. <br />Mr. Brown said he would have preferred to have provided the resolution to the council earlier but had <br />been attempting to respond to the many people who wanted to like the project but still had concerns. He <br />said that a project in Baltimore had been delayed for two years to allow that city to address every concern <br />expressed by residents. <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council May 9, 2012 Page 3 <br />Work Session <br />