CC Minutes - 04/18/07 Work Session

Home Browse Search

opportunity to building on the currently R-1 zoned land in a safe and respectful way. He said the same standard about not building on geologically sensitive lands should be applied uniformly throughout the City, including the entire south hills; that should be followed by a discussion of what land was buildable and what land was not buildable. Ms. Bettman indicated she would support the main motion and oppose the amendment. She said it was her understanding that the neighbors had attempted to meet with all of the councilors. She said the issue was not new; Ms. Taylor proposed similar motions in the past and it had been the subject of multiple work sessions. She said that the proposed amendment to the motion would kill the acquisition by predicating it on a future expansion of the UGB, which was not a justifiable expansion according to the Metro Plan; there was no quid pro quo in State land use law. Mr. Poling agreed that the land was not buildable based on current technology, but in the future it might be. He said the property was zoned R-1 and included in the total acreage for the residential land supply. He was only asking for a replacement for that acreage. He said his first contact by the neighborhood association to meet and discuss that particular topic had happened the previous evening. He said the amendment did not kill the acquisition; it just guaranteed replacement of what was being removed from the buildable land supply. Mr. Zelenka said he fully supported a willing seller approach as the first strategy but lengthy negotiations had not resulted in the City’s acquisition for a variety of reasons, resulting in yet another unsuccessful application to build by the owners. He said use of eminent domain was not stealing, as fair market value would be paid for the property. He said eminent domain should be rare and a last resort when other strategies had failed and there should be an overriding public purpose to its use; a park was an overriding public purpose. Mr. Zelenka said he had toured the site and did not think it was buildable land; planning staff had the same opinion when the application to build on the Beverly property was denied. He noted instances of slides that endangered people and property and said that factor should be strongly considered as the City encroached into the hills. He said that should be the subject of a separate discussion. He said City acquisition would preserve an important drainage area and create a unique and beautiful place. He said the City had committed, along with Lane County and Springfield, to a process called the “little look” that would involve a series of questions, including ones related to commercial and residential land studies, the function of the UGB and the role of jurisdictions. He would not support the amendment as he did not think the site was buildable land, acquisition would be delayed for a considerable amount of time and the “little look” process was just being launched. Ms. Piercy concurred with Mr. Zelenka’s comments and the need to commit to the process with Lane County and Springfield. She said the amendment would interfere with that process. She felt the action was time-sensitive as a building proposal had been denied and the acquisition should move forward before another application was submitted. Mr. Clark reiterated that he had not been contacted or met with anyone to discuss the issue or had access to information until he was called late the previous evening. He said the issue was new to him and he did not feel he had been involved in the process to the extent that he was able to act on the particular piece of property. He was committed to the concept of an extensive “little look” process, which was why he made his motion six weeks ago. He felt the amendment was not contrary to that process and showed good faith that the area was worth protecting. He was uncomfortable with the heavy-handed eminent domain approach MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2007 Page 3 Work Session