CC Minutes - 04/18/07 Work Session

Home Browse Search

but was willing to act as a gesture of good faith if the gesture also included a commitment to address the issue of a buildable land shortage by expanding the UGB in an appropriate way. Mr. Zelenka understood Mr. Clark’s concern. He would not support the amendment but was willing to commit to a “little look” process that would begin the conversation and conclude it by the end of the year. Ms. Bettman said this was the first she had heard of the “little look” and asked for a work session on the process. The vote on the amendment was tied, 4:4; voting in support were Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Clark and Ms Solomon and in opposition were Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor and Mr. Zelenka. Mayor Piercy voted against the motion and the amendment failed. Ms. Taylor agreed that the same principles about building on geologically sensitive land should be uniformly applied and she was asking for action on the parcel because it was threatened. She said the source of funding could be the parks bond, as well as stormwater funds set aside for stream corridor acquisition. She said an earlier environmental assessment of the Green property determined that development would increase the impervious service and cause stormwater problems, fragment wildlife habitat, destroy native plants and disturb the soil, which could lead to erosion. She said the parcel was one of the last pristine properties within the UGB; it was threatened and the timing was right to protect it for posterity as the ridgeline and Hendricks Park had been years ago. Mr. Clark said it was important to protect those things for posterity on which there was agreement and in some cases the heavy hand of eminent domain was justified, but there should be honesty about the process, which was taking something of significant value from someone. He said if at some future point houses could safely be built on such a piece of land that meant millions of dollars were being taken from the owner. He said that was the sort of heavy-handed action that caused 61 percent of voters to support Ballot Measure 37. He felt that more time was needed before acting. Mr. Zelenka thought the park bond funds could be used for the acquisition and there was a sufficient amount. He noted that the owners had been denied permission to build three times. He said it was not future technology that would permit building; geology was the problem and not likely to be fixed. He asked the City Manager to explain the “little look” process. City Manager Taylor said he would provide background information and an explanation of the process to the council in the form of a memorandum. Mr. Pryor stated there were two issues for him: the issue around preservation of the property and the issue of use of eminent domain and the speed of action. He said judging from the information packet, there was considerable conversation that needed to occur. He was also concerned with exercising a tool as strong as eminent domain without due process. He noted the item was not on the agenda for action and arose at the last minute. He did not like being asked to use a tool like eminent domain without more discussion. City Manager Taylor said it would be the first time in his experience where a condemnation action was initiated without it being an agenda item, having a financial plan and staff analysis or the opportunity for the public to be informed and participate. He urged that the item be postponed until those elements could be available to inform the decision-making process. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2007 Page 4 Work Session