Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly said he shared concerns regarding the loss of agricultural land, but was considering the proposal <br />because residents of the Santa Clara area deserved a community park as much as residents of other regions <br />in the City. He asked if there had been efforts to purchase the land, rather than acquire property through a <br />land swap. Ms. Riner said the owner was not willing to sell the property outright. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked if it was legally feasible and defensible for the City to use its power of eminent domain to <br />acquire the 77 acres at fair market value. Ms. Riner said her understanding was that it was possible, but the <br />City would still need a change to the UGB to bring the 77 acres inside. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he was interested in moving forward with the proposal, but asked staff to evaluate the <br />potential alternative of eminent domain. He asked for a definition of the ;;Santa Clara service area." Ms. <br />Riner said the service area was based on having some adjacent neighbors within walking distance of the <br />park. <br /> <br />Citing Mr. Kelly's remarks as expressing her objections, Ms. Bettman said that a straight swap with no net <br />gain was a reasonable proposal, but the proposal under discussion was not that. She said the current <br />proposal not only expanded the UGB to provide a park for Santa Clara, it also provided 120 acres of land <br />that was now within the UGB for the owner to develop at a much higher density than would be allowed <br />under any other circumstances. She said the proposal would greatly benefit the developer by providing a <br />framework with which to change the zoning and bring the property within the UGB and the City would have <br />to provide the infrastructure to serve the park, which would also serve the developer's property. She <br />expressed the hope that all of the information would be available during the public process in an easy-to- <br />understand format. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked for a written response to four questions: <br /> <br />· Had the City ever condemned property for park purposes? <br />· What was the current use, not zoning, of the Santa Clara site? <br />· Was the 120-acre Moon Mountain property included in the City's buildable land inventory? <br />· What was stated in the bond measure, and any explanatory information, about was commitment was <br /> made to the Santa Clara area in terms of a community park, reservation of funds for acquisition, the <br /> impact of donation, and other details? <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 asked what was currently being farmed on the Santa Clara site and if any of wetlands area was <br />being farmed and could be returned to wetlands if the park was developed. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if the other site initially under consideration was inside the UGB. Ms. Riner replied that <br />none of the sites identified on the short list was inside the UGB. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey stated he hoped the process would move forward and asked if the City Manager intended to <br />slow the process down based on the council's discussion. Mr. Taylor replied that the intent was to provide <br />the council with an opportunity to identify concerns that staff should research and address and to provide <br />parameters for discussions with the property owner regarding acquisition or land swap. He said the <br />council's feedback and questions would guide staff and help to address the specific concerns raised by the <br />council as the process moved forward. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 24, 2003 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />