Item 2A: Approval of Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the City and between $150,000 and $250,000 in systems development charge (SDC) credits. She thought the Metro Plan amendment and the eventual rezoning of the property represented extraordinary benefits as well. She felt the land swap would set a precedent and no other willing sellers would come forward because they would now know they could "leverage the City for multi-million dollar deals." Mr. Kelly called the issue a "tough one." He had initially thought the proposal had some merit as there was no question that Santa Clara needed and deserved a community park of a larger scale. While he appreciated the creativity of the original idea, he would support the motion. He supported acquiring a park site to land bank, but did not believe the land swap was in the best interest of the City. Mr. Kelly said the City needed to go through a City-wide planning process for growth that would include opportunity mapping, asset mapping, and density distribution and a determination of how much growth each neighborhood must absorb. He averred that without this process proposed growth planning was being done in isolation. Additionally, he felt this proposal was ahead of the River Road/Santa Clara Transition Plan discussion. Ms. Taylor supported the motion. Ms. Taylor offered a friendly amendment to the motion to change the word 'parcel' to 'parcels.' The maker and second of the motion accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Taylor called the proposed development "inappropriate." She said it was wrong to change the UGB for a developer. She felt the survey was "terrible" and opined that it was "obviously designed" to persuade people. She reiterated her delight in the alliance formed between the Santa Clara park advocates and the people who sought to preserve a parcel of land in the Dillard Road/Nectar Way area. Mr. Pap6 was uncertain as to how to decide on this issue. He pointed out that there were greater community interests to take into account beside just what the north end of Santa Clara wanted as this park was slated to be a large park for all of the community to use. He was concerned about the commitment to a community park in that area the City had made to the people of Eugene and of the River Road/Santa Clara area in 1998 when placing the bond on the ballot. He wanted the funds that were allocated to remain in that area. He stressed that the council needed to work diligently to provide balance in park spaces throughout the city. Mr. Pap6 related that he met with Ms. Riner, staff and a constituent to try and work on this issue and a question had been raised as to whether Razor Park could be developed. Ms. Riner responded that it was part of the West Bank system along side the Willamette River. She recalled that there had been a planning process for that park and hundreds of people had looked at the plan. She said the planning process resulted in a decision to keep Razor Park as it was for natural resource uses. Mr. Pap6 wondered if there were other parcels along side the river that could be developed into a community park. Ms. Riner replied that the City had looked at a 40-acre parcel along the river and determined it would encounter many of the same issues: access, UGB expansion, impacts to neighbor- hoods, and no willing seller. In response to another question from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Riner said acquisition of park land along the MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 18, 2005 Page 2 Work Session