06/10/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner' to insert the suggested wording - "It is the legislative intent of the City Council that the recommendations of the Ridgeline Park section of the South Hills study be achieved through clearly constitutional means." - at the end of the \ Ridgeline P~rk section. . In making the motion Councilman Williams said he thought it was proper city action 'to protect the South Hills ridge line as a park, maintaining 'the trees and as much! 'of the area above the 900-fqot level in its natural state as the people of Eugene 'were willing to pay for. He thought it appropriate to give them an opportunity to make their decision on access to that land. He had no quarrel, he said, if there was transfer of property rights that were satisfactory to the land owner, but the city did not have the right to say property above the 900-foot level could not be developed and that the city had no intention of buying it. He was saying the option should be kept open to allow city purchase, permitting the voters to make a financial commi tment. Mr. Murray said he had no disagreement wi th that viewpoint. Assistant Manager cautioned the Council about closing the door on use of police power in interest of ,p~blic safety, that is when terz'ain, soil condi tions, etc., would call ,for rational , police power decision that certain land uses could n9t. occur. Mr. WiJ.l~ams answered that where constructIO,n on hiTls~de proper'ty was ,risky from a public safety standpoint, the Council could clearly say development there could not happen. His concern was about using police power not for safety purposes but for public desire. '1 I . Discussion ensued between Councilman Williams and Councilwoman Beal with regard to authority of a governing body to permit reasonable uses of property without obliga- :tion or responsibility to protect property owners against financial loss because 'of their own speculation. Mr. Williams said that when Council decision was that jno development or use of property should occur, then the question became one of I : acqui,ring that property. To' say development could not occur at all wi thout ac- 'quisition would have to be for valid safety reasons, not for scenic beauty. Mrs.Beal: :reCOgniZ~d tha~ the city could not have agricultural land beca~se of its dedication \ ,to more ~ntens~ve settlement, but she wondered about the loss ~ncurred by a prop- ! lerty owner who purchased land for development - land designated by a land planning I ibody for farm use which could not then be developed in the public interest - and : 'suffered loss because of the refusal of the governing body to permit subdivision ! 'development. Mr. Williams' understanding of the law was that a governing body ,could properly deny the right to speculative development of land - if property was ,farm land when purchased ,the governing body had the right to say it would remain ; farm land. He said it was conceivable that property above the 900-foot level in : the South Hills could be called farm land ,(tree ,farm) but there would be no guarantee' ito protect its purchase for development. However, there was the right to use that I ;land to some extent. Assistant Manager noted recent legislation in Marin County, I 'California whereby development of farm lands was restricted to one unit per 60 acres" :based on land use studies. The result was that development was abandoned, with :farmers obtaining more land. In acquisition of property, values rose from 5% to :20%. He felt that, type of preservation should be considered. icouncilman Murray asked for clarification of the motion - whether it 'would be con- ;sidered an amendment to the motion on the floor at adjournment of the May 20 Council meeting. Mayor said it would be considered an amendment, to be acted upon formally at the June 10 meeting. '. Counoilman Keller asked if it was Mr. Williams' intent that purchase of ridge line property would be referred to the voters. If so, what time schedule would be in- rolved for people wanting to sell land or make trades. Mr. Williams answered ,that eventually a recommendation would be made for purchase 'of substantial amounts ,of land above the 900-foot level which would properly require provision of f~nds by the voters. Mr. Murray didn't disagree but asked the Council to bea~ in mind 'that such a move was speculative. Jim Saul, planner, at Councilwoman Campbell's request, explained that one of the study recommendations, if adopted, was that the Joint Parks Committee proceed immediately with detailed price figures, designa- tionof specific areas for acquisition, and report to the Council with suggested funding sources and mechanisms for acquiring the properties. The time element would be at Council's discretion, he said, but the staff and the Joint Commi ttee were aware of the urgency of the matter if the study was going to be successful. . Councilman McDonald asked if the intent of the main motion, including this amend- 'ment, if adopted, was to obligate the city to purchase of ridgeline park property :at some future time. Mr. Williams answered that it was not the intent of/this motion to obligate the city to purchase the properties. The intent was to give that option if the voters so desired. In the ~vent that was not their desire and other acquisition techniques were not acceptable, then property owners would have the right to use thei~ land under normal city ordinances and zoning procedures. He agreed with Mr. Hershner's understanding that this amendment would provide that 'property above the 900-foot level, if it could be :reasonably served with municipal 'services and if it could be developed so as not to be hazardous to the public safety (land slides, surface water, etc.), could be developed rather than the ci,tg:1?, saYJ:_I}~i t had~" be_J:~,!._t. 9P-~!l...fo:r:_v~,~~i.I2~:_~__~ _.'~__ ___ _, _ _'.' ..___' _-____,_._' ~\ , ~2.. 6/i0/74 - ii