Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5 - Metro Plan/Land SwapEUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Action: Initiation of Metro Plan Amendment to Swap Residential Land Inside and Outside Urban Growth Boundary and Add 77 Additional Acres to Urban Growth Boundary for Community Park for Santa Clara Meeting Date: July 12, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 5 Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Andrea G. Riner www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-4909 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY This is a follow-up to the June 14, 2004, joint request from the private property owners, the McDougals, and the City of Eugene Parks and Open Space Division to initiate a metro plan amendment. The purpose of the metro plan amendment is to remove from the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) 120 acres of residential land in the Laurel Hill Valley, and to add to the UGB in the Santa Clara area 120 acres of land for residential and neighborhood commercial development and an additional 77 acres of land to be donated to the City for parks and open space. BACKGROUND The property owners and Parks and Open Space request that the City Council initiate a Metro Plan amendment. The Metro Plan amendment would involve revising the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to include 197 acres of rural land in northwest Santa Clara and to remove 120 acres of forested land in southeast Eugene, in the Laurel Hill Valley. Both of these properties are currently owned by the McDougals or their foundation. The difference in acreage, 77 acres, would be donated to the City of Eugene for use as a community park to serve Santa Clara. In addition, a purchase agreement is in place for the Parks and Open Space Division to purchase 100 acres of the Laurel Hill site. Another 30 acres of the Laurel Hill site is to be donated to the City as a conservation easement. Council Action History This project was presented to the council as a consent item at the June 14 Council Meeting. The council voted to table the discussion, and provided a list of questions for staff response. The item was previously presented to the council at its November 24, 2003, work session. Policy Issues Should the City initiate a Metro Plan Amendment to revise the UGB by swapping 120 acres of residential land and by adding an additional 77 acres of land for park and open space purposes? Or does the council wish to pursue an alternative acquisition of parkland via eminent domain instead? Council Goal Action Priority This project relates to a number of council goals, including sustainable community development, healthy natural and built environment, and accessible and thriving cultural and recreational opportunities. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040712\S0407125.DOC Financial and/or Resource Considerations Financial resources for the Santa Clara Community Park and related land use processes include the 1998 Parks and Open Space bond measure for land acquisition and Parks System Development Charge (SDC) funding for park development. Other Background Information The following is an overview of issues that address many of the questions raised by the council regarding the current land swap proposal and the potential alternative action of eminent domain. Attachment A provides specific responses to questions submitted by individual Councilors. Eminent Domain Alternative The economic value of this deal is highly subjective and subject to what zoning and highest and best use would be considered reasonable. An economic analysis of the proposal was prepared by ECONorthwest, and provided in the report entitled A Community Park for Santa Clara: A Report to the City of Eugene Parks and Open Space Division from the Santa Clara Community Park Advisory Committee. If the council decides to pursue an eminent domain process, the final price per acre will be determined in a courtroom by attorneys and appraisers. The City's real estate staff state that an eminent domain process could result in a cost per acre between $10,000 and $100,000 plus legal costs, with a concern that a jury's determination of value may be more towards the higher "inside the UGB" value. The current proposal not only obtains Santa Clara parkland, but also results in the City obtaining fee title or conservation and public access easements--a total of 207 acres for $950,000, or $4,590/acre. In viewing the issue of land valuation, there are two fundamental questions to consider. Will this particular property be included in the UGB at sometime in the future? And, if it is, is there a benefit in making this decision now and not later? There are three significant benefits to evaluate. One, a community park to serve Santa Clara is obtained. Two, protection for the natural resource values of the Laurel Hill Valley site is ensured, and significant Ridgeline Trail connections are provided. And finally, as a part owner of the property, the City will have an unprecedented opportunity to determine how a property is developed. Unique public/private partnerships may be developed to ensure there are adequate parks, pedestrian and bike paths, and connected residential and commercial neighborhoods that follow the principles of smart growth and provide an exemplary prototype for supporting nodal development efforts. Site Selection The Irvington/McDougal site was selected as the preferred site for a community park by Parks Planning staff before the land swap proposal was received from the property owner. The site selection process was reviewed with the council at the November 2003 work session (Attachment B). Criteria used included size of property, relation to the Santa Clara service area, level of site improvements, site configuration, suitability for park development, presence of flood hazard areas, access, and relationship to the UGB. The selection process was done with a 40-acre park minimum as a basis. The 77-acre number was the counter offer from the property owners, and is the result of a desire to balance the 120 acres coming into the UGB for residential development in Santa Clara with the 120 acres coming out of the UGB in Laurel Hill. While 77 acres was not originally sought, it is certainly preferable. A larger site, comparable to Amazon Park, will accommodate the programming needs identified to-date (Attachment C), addresses future demands, and allows for the ability to provide desired natural open space in addition to active recreation facilities. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040712\S0407125.DOC It should be noted that not only does the Santa Clara area not have a community park, there are no metropolitan parks or natural area parks serving River Road/Santa Clara residents (Attachment D). Project Complexi~. The acquisition of a community park for Santa Clara has always been complex. However, significant public benefits are to be gained, and thus, it has been assumed that the complexity was worth the effort. The significant difference in the level of complexity perceived by the council has been the development of legal agreements to outline the next steps, which include public involvement, design, permitting, planning, and acquisition. While the components of the agreement are typical of parkland acquisition, the size of this parcel and its location outside of the UGB contributes to a need for more detailed and specific written agreements. These agreements are in place to protect the City of Eugene and taxpayers as well as the private property owners, and to provide clarity as the project moves forward. Planning and Design Process: Next Steps If a Metro Plan Amendment is initiated, there are two critical next steps. One will be to begin the public involvement process aimed at developing a good conceptual plan for the 197-acre parcel, including the park and the surrounding neighborhood. On a parallel process, findings will be developed as part of the Metro Plan Amendment application. This work will require the applicants to thoroughly address the issues of agricultural values, transportation, natural resources, and parks and recreation needs. Numerous public involvement opportunities will be provided. In addition to design workshops to develop the site plan, a minimum of two public hearings will be held to provide input on the Metro Plan Amendment findings. These correlate to the joint planning commission hearings (City of Eugene Planning Commission, Lane County Planning Commission) and the joint elected official board hearings (City Council, Lane County Board of Commissioners). While staff desired public meetings prior to the request to the council to initiate the Metro Plan Amendment, it was determined that meaningful public involvement should occur within the context of a site planning phase. In this way, staff will be able to communicate more effectively with the public, respond to issues such as transportation and neighborhood impacts, and to illustrate the parks and recreation uses proposed. Public information about the project has been ongoing with stakeholders, including Santa Clara and Laurel Hill Valley neighbors. Timing The property owners, staff, and private consultants are prepared to begin immediately to develop necessary findings and conduct public involvement efforts related to the Metro Plan Amendment and land acquisition process. Staff s first effort will be to have the necessary materials to present to a joint meeting of the Lane County Planning Commission and the City of Eugene Planning Commission later this year. OPTIONS The council has the option to approve the request and initiate a metro plan amendment or direct staff to initiate an eminent domain process for some portion of the 197-acre Santa Clara property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request and initiation of a Metro Plan Amendment. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040712\S0407125.DOC SUGGESTED MOTION Move to initiate a Metro Plan Amendment to revise the UGB by (1) adding 197 acres in the Santa Clara area, 77 of which will be donated to the City as parkland and 120 of which will be used for residential and neighborhood commercial, and (2) removing 120 acres of residential designated land in the Laurel Hill Valley. ATTACHMENTS A. Detailed response to Councilor Questions. B. Site Selection Matrix C. Santa Clara Community Park Programming Needs D. Parks and Open Space Inventory: River Road/Santa Clara FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Andrea G. Riner Telephone: 682-4909 Staff E-Mail: andrea.g.riner~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040712\S0407125.DOC ATTACHMENT A Each of the four discussion areas (Eminent Domain Alternative, Site Selection, Planning and Design Process, and Project Complexity) are introduced below, followed by more detailed responses to specific Council Ouestions organized as they relate to the four areas. Eminent Domain Alternative If Council decides to pursue an eminent domain process, the final price per acre will be determined in a courtroom by a jury, attorneys and appraisers. Our real estate staff state that an eminent domain process could result in a cost per acre between $10,000 and $100,000 plus legal costs, with the higher "inside the UGB" value a strong possibility. The current proposal results in the City obtaining fee title or conservation easement over 207 acres for $950,000, or $4,590/acre, plus legal costs. The tables on the following page provide a rough approximation of the costs of these two options. Given the wide range in land values that can be anticipated, a low and high estimate was prepared for the eminent domain approach. In addition, an estimated cost has been provided for the option of obtaining only the Santa Clara parcel, and limiting the acquisition to 40 acres. LAND VALUE COMPARISON TABLES Acres Cost/ac Total Santa Clara 77 $ $ Laurel Hill ValleyA 100 $ 9,500 $ 950,000 Laurel Hill Valley B 30 $ $ TOTAL 207 $ 4,589 $ 950,000 Plus 1/2 land use application costs Low Estimate Acres Cost/ac Total Santa Clara 77 $ 10,000 $ 770,000 Laurel Hill ValleyA 100 $ 20,000 $ 2,000,000 Laurel Hill Valley B 30 $ 5,000 $ 150,000 TOTAL 207 $ 2,920,000 Plus legal and land use costs High Estimate Acres Cost/ac Total Santa Clara 77 $ 100,000 $ 7,700,000 Laurel Hill ValleyA 100 $ 20,000 $ 2,000,000 Laurel Hill Valley B 30 $ 20,000 $ 600,000 TOTAL 207 $ 10,300,000 Plus legal and land use costs Low Estimate Acres Cost/ac Total Santa Claral 40I $ 10,000 [ $ 400,000 ] Plus legal and land use costs High Estimate Acres Cost/ac Total Santa Claral 40I $ 100,000 [ $ 4,000,000 ] Plus legal and land use costs The economic value of this property is highly subjective and subject to what zoning and highest and best use would be considered reasonable. An economic analysis of the proposal was prepared by ECONorthwest. This analysis was included in the report entitled A Community Park for Santa Clara: A Report to the City of Eugene Parks and Open Space Division from the Santa Clara Community Park Advisory Committee and provided to Councilors on January 26, 2004. Basically, there are two fundamental questions to consider. Do we believe this particular property will be included in the UGB at sometime in the future? And, if it is, is there a benefit in making this decision now and L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040712\S0407125.DOC not later? There are three significant benefits to evaluate. One, a community park to serve Santa Clara is obtained. Two, protection for the natural resource values of the Laurel Hill Valley site is ensured, and significant Ridgeline Trail connections are provided. And finally, as a part owner of the property we will have an unprecedented opportunity to determine how a property is developed. We can participate in a unique public/private partnership to ensure there are adequate parks, pedestrian and bike paths, and connected residential and commercial neighborhoods that follow the principles of smart growth and provide an exemplary prototype for supporting nodal development efforts. Another factor to be considered when weighing the pros and cons of pursuing an eminent domain process, will be the impact on ongoing land acquisition efforts. Parks and open space acquisition programs have encountered numerous property owners with deeply held stereotypes about government land acquisition programs being a win- lose scenario. Typically, private property owners believe they have nothing to win in entering into negotiations with a public agency. Considerable progress has been made over the past few years in deconstructing this myth and building a more trusting atmosphere between the City and the development community. Responses to Councilor Questions a) Have we gotten a recent appraisal on the 77 acres? I4&at is it valued at? Response: No, we typically do not get an appraisal on parcels that are being donated, unless the donor requested it as a condition of the donation. If an appraisal were to be completed for the donation, it would likely have been based upon the value of subdivision land within the UGB, because the donation was contingent upon the property being brought into the UGB. b) I trust the 77 acres "fair market value", if we got to eminent domain, would consider the fact that it's outside the UGB at present. Yes? (And a side question: Is it safe to say that the market value of the 40 acres would be 40/77 of the value of the 77 acres?) Response: If we were to initiate condemnation by the power of eminent domain, the fact that the site is outside of the UGB would be taken into consideration. However, it is important to remember that fair market value in a condemnation case is typically determined by a jury that may have little or no real estate appraisal experience. There would likely be expert witness testimony given from 2 or more appraisers and perhaps the owner. We would expect the owners to present a case that although the property is outside of the UGB, properties to the east, west, and south of the subject are inside the UGB and urban services are available to serve the subject property. In addition, the site is shown to be included in the UGB in two of three scenarios currently being studied in the Regional 2050 study, and was previously identified as Urban Reserve land. They would likely try to convince the jury that although it is not in the UGB at this time, it is just a matter of time, and that during that time the value will continue to appreciate as land values have done in the past. There is a substantial range in value between "exclusive farm use" land outside of the UGB valued as low as $10,000 per acre compared to residential subdivision tract land within the UGB now selling for over $100,000 per acre. Since the condemnation would be against the owner's wishes the jury may give them more of the benefit of the doubt. In regards to the acquisition of smaller site, it would be reasonable to assume that the market value would be established at a per-acre cost, and could be applied to an alternative 40-acre purchase. Site Selection The Irvington/McDougal site was selected as the preferred site for a community park by Parks Planning staff before the land swap proposal was received from the property owner. A number of criteria were used that made this site the preferred site, including size of property, relation to the Santa Clara service area, level of site improvements, site configuration, suitability for park development, presence of flood hazard areas, access, and relationships to the UGB. This selection process was done with a minimum 40-acre park as a basis. The 77-acre number was the counter offer from the property owners, as the result of a desire to balance the 120 acres coming into the UGB for residential development in Santa Clara with the 120 acres coming out of the UGB in Laurel Hill. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040712\S0407125.DOC Responses to Councilor Questions a) There are a number of benefits being provided the owners in this deal that were not anticipated, could you provide a definitive list? I/ghy didn't the ciO;put this out as an RFP? 16' it a fair and legal government practice to negotiate this closely with one property owner to the exclusion of others? Some examples, splitting the cost of the land use processes now and in the future, allowing direct access to the parkfrom their newly annexed property, "owners" have to approve the city's choice of consultants and experts, guarantee that Parks will support the amendment to the Metro Plan not only for the city's interests but for the interests of the "owners," etc. Response: Real estate transactions are not subject to bidding requirements under public contracting laws, consistent with the long standing legal doctrine that each piece of land is unique. In this case, the City desires to purchase not one, but two of the property owners' parcels. The benefit to the property owner is the ability to develop their remaining property to higher densities than is currently allowed under existing zoning. The property owners realize that this is a significant benefit, and thus have agreed to a number of conditions that favor the City of Eugene, primarily the donation of parkland and the protection of the Laurel Hill Valley site. These benefits arise from their ownership of the City's preferred community park site. Any other benefits to the private property owner were by mutual agreement with City staff, who evaluated each condition of the purchase agreements to make sure that the City of Eugene would stand to benefit as much or more than the property owner by agreeing to a particular condition. b) 16' there a legal understanding of a definition for "willing seller, "and does this "collaboration "fit that definition? Response: A willing seller was one of the evaluative criteria, but not the only one. It is not a legal term, but is generally used to mean a property owner who is willing to negotiate with the City, rather than someone we would have to take to court. Other willing sellers may exist, but they do not own the preferred site for a community park to serve Santa Clara. c) How much was originally allocated in the Ballot Measure for acquisition of this park? Wasn't it only supposed to be at most a 40-acre park? Was the Moon Mountain site in the Ballot Measure as targeted for acquisition for a park? How much was allocated for it? and d) The 1998 ballot measure explanation pamphlet called for a community park of approximately 40 acres. I assume that size was set so as to be a quality, succes6ful community park site. So why are we up to 77 acres now ? Response: The bond measure earmarked approximately $1,000,000 for the purchase of a 40-acre park to serve Santa Clara. The bond measure did not target individual sites for Ridgeline Trail acquisition, but instead identified target acreage in six general planning areas. Approximately $400,000 was estimated to purchase 45 acres somewhere between 30th and Moon Mountain, of which 25 acres have already been obtained at a rough cost of $500,000. The 40-acre figure was identified as a minimum, not a maximum. While 77 acres was not originally sought, it is certainly preferable. This larger site is comparable to Amazon Park, which is 90 acres. It will accommodate the programming needs identified to-date, address future demands, and allow for the ability to provide desired natural open space in addition to active recreation facilities. It should be noted that not only does the Santa Clara area not have a Community Park, there are no Metropolitan Parks or Natural Area Parks serving River Road/Santa Clara residents. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040712\S0407125.DOC Planning and Design Process: Next Steps If a Metro Plan Amendment is initiated, there are two critical next steps. One will be to begin the public involvement process aimed at developing a good conceptual plan for the 197-acre parcel, including the park and the surrounding neighborhood. On a parallel process, findings will be developed as part of the Metro Plan Amendment application. This work will require the applicants to thoroughly address the issues of agricultural values, transportation, natural resources, and parks and recreation needs. Numerous public involvement opportunities will be provided. In addition to design workshops to develop the site plan, a minimum of two public hearings will be held to provide input on the Metro Plan Amendment findings. These correlate to the two planning commission hearings (City of Eugene Planning Commission, Lane County Planning Commission) and the two elected official board hearings (City Council, Lane County Board of Commissioners). Public information about the project has been ongoing with stakeholders, including Santa Clara and Laurel Hill Valley neighbors, primarily through the advisory committee process. a) The draft agreement calls for a Preliminary Plan to be agreed on before the Metro Plan amendment is adopted. Is it correct to assume that Council would see this plan before we needed to vote on the MP amendment? Response: Yes. The agreement was drafted with that provision so that the Council and the public would have a better sense as to what the development would look like before the Council was required to vote on the UGB amendment. b) What input would Council have regarding the plan (before it's agreed to)? I'd think the councilors in that area would be particularly interested. Response: The preliminary plan is a development plan, and as such, should not come before the council as whole. However, individual councilors would be encouraged to attend community meetings and other opportunities to learn about the proposal and offer suggestions, criticisms, etc. In doing so, the councilor would need to be careful that he or she does not say something that could be interpreted as bias on the UGB amendment and therefore disqualify the councilor from participating in the decision on the amendment. How could it legally guarantee any specific outcome (e.g., constraints that would minimize the conflict with the horse arena) before any commission or council deliberation and votes? Response: The City, through Parks, has contract rights as a joint applicant, and as a future long-term property owner, will have a vested interest in making sure that conflicts with surrounding uses are minimized. However, for the reasons contained in the question, i.e., no land use approval of specific development plan, there could not be a guarantee as to the precise development. The property owner could guarantee to the city, in a way that would be enforceable as a contractual matter, that certain constraints are included to minimize conflict with the horse arena. If such constraints cannot be developed, then the Council could always deny the UGB amendment. d) One of the short-term "next steps" shown in the PowerPoint presentation on this topic at our 11/03 meeting was to do public meetings to further discuss the swap proposal over the "next few months". Yet I'm unaware of any meeting with the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens, for example. Why hasn't this been a topic for the affected neighborhood associations ? Response: Staff have previously presented the proposal at a meeting of the Santa Clara neighborhood group, and included the Neighborhood Leader in the Community Advisory Committee, but has not met with the Laurel Hill Valley neighborhood group as of yet. While staff desired public meetings prior to the request to Council to initiate the Metro Plan Amendment, it was determined that meaningful public involvement should occur within the context of a site planning phase. In this way we will be able to communicate more effectively with the public, L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040712\S0407125.DOC respond to issues such as transportation and neighborhood impacts, and to illustrate the parks and recreation uses proposed. e) Are there specific Metro amendments or code provisions that can constrain the development on the "OWNERS"property that would protect the rural character of Mr. Defoe's (not sure of spelling) property? My understanding is that once it is annexed and zoned the "owners" can do basically whatever is legal, and it will be sub-urban development as that is the proposal. Can we honestly promise that the proposal will not negatively impact his use of his now rural property? and Several people talked about trying to minimize conflicts between Major Defoe's horse facility and the residential and commercial development that would take place. I realize no detailed plan has been done, but please suggest in general terms how one could avoid conflicts between the Oregon Horse Center and the almost 1000 estimated housing units planned (not to mention the commercial). I'm struggling to imagine how this could be done. Response: Creating a development that is compatible with existing uses will be a primary goal of the overall master plan for the 197-acre site. Several of the proposed park uses are compatible and even complimentary with the horse facility activities, and thus could be used as an effective buffer between residential properties. The effective placement of adjacent uses, such as housing and parks, parks and farmland, housing and commercial areas, will all be critical components of the overall site master plan that will form the basis of the Metro Plan Amendment package. The public, planning commission, Lane County Board of Commissioners and Council will be able to evaluate the success of this plan at the time of reviewing the metro plan amendment for approval. g) Speaking of costs: Has there been any estimate on the increased traffic load from the 1000 residential units plus commercial on the SURROUNDING streets outside the parcel itself? Could the magnitude be great enough to require offsite transportation improvements? Response: Transportation impacts will be evaluated during the next phase of the project, and will need to be successfully addressed in the Metro Plan Amendment findings in order for project approval. Preliminary review of the project by City staff in Transportation Planning indicates that offsite transportation improvements will not be required. Project Complexity The acquisition of a community park for Santa Clara has always been complex. The significant difference in the level of complexity perceived by Council has been the development of legal agreements to outline the next steps, which include public involvement, design, permitting, planning, and acquisition. These agreements are in place to protect the City of Eugene and taxpayers as well as the private property owners, and to provide clarity as the project moves forward. Responses to Councilor Questions a) Page 105 section 2. 3 addresses "Wetland Mitigation. "Am I correct that it means that the "owners" will be allowed to use the balance or some portion of the balance of the 77 acres not needed for the park as mitigation for developing wetlands on their newly annexed site? I4Zhy did you include the value of the property in the park acquisition if we don't need it for the park, and then provide the additional benefit to the "owners "for mitigation? I4Zhy wouldn't we land bank it for low- income housing given the intensity of the proposed surrounding uses and the proximity to the park? Response: The desired community park for Santa Clara would have both active recreation space and natural open space for habitat protection and passive recreation. Allowing the private property owner to do wetland mitigation on the park property provides a way to do enhancement of farmed, marginal wetland areas to provide a higher habitat, aesthetic, and water quality value to the community. In regards to the land bank option, the development L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040712\S0407125.DOC of the property using smart growth principles requires a mix of housing types. With this approach, unsubsidized but affordable housing is an expected outcome. b) In the case of the fees and expenses for the Metro Plan amendment application, including the cost of consultants, the complexity of this "special deal" will astronomically increase the cost of processing as the agreement commits the city taxpayers to paying half the costs of the above. How much more is it costing us to process this deal compared to a simple purchase from a willing seller followed by a metro plan amendment to bring the park into the UGB? (Include the costs currently accrued for all the considerable staff and legal work, and ongoing monitoring and implementation of the agreements, what about legal costs when there is a dispute?) Response: The most significant costs to date for this project was the development of the Santa Clara Community Park Advisory Committee, the consultants hired to study the land swap proposal, and the economic analysis. The cost of this work was approximately $70,000, half of which was paid for with the $35,000 Community Parks Forum Catalyst Grant from the American Planning Association. A cost estimate of the Metro Plan Amendment process is forthcoming, but it is estimated to be in the vicinity of $40,000, of which the City would pay half. This amount is felt to be less than the cost of pursuing eminent domain, developing a site master plan, and applying for a metro plan amendment. Due to specificity of the agreements, serious legal disputes are not anticipated. I understand and support the various benefits of the swap plan, but I'm worried about the costs to the citizens. As one example packet page 107 seems first to indicate that McDougal would be responsible for aY infrastructure improvements within their portion of the site, but then at 3.3 it says the McDougal will get SDC credits for part of their cost. Doesn't this mean that SDC balances will be diminished that will reduce potential application of these funds elsewhere in the city? Do we have an order of magnitude estimate of what these credits could be? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? The McDougals will be responsible for all infrastructure improvements within their portion of the site. As stated in the agreement, the McDougals are not entitled to any SDC credits for the donation of the land or for the improvements required to develop their land. The SDC credits relate to shared infrastructure improvements, mainly streets. Consistent with rules that apply to all development, SDC credits would be allowed for developer- constructed improvements which are required as a condition of development and are off-site or oversized to accommodate other future developments. These credits are calculated based on the portion of improvement costs that would otherwise be funded directly by SDCs so there is no net decrease in the balance of available SDC funds. The agreement ensures that, if the City shares in the cost of an improvement that qualifies for SDC credits, the City receives its share of the credits. A preliminary estimate of SDC credits for the overall project is in the range of $150,000 to $250,000, with parks receiving approximately 25 % of these credits. d) ~hy does the Laurel Hill Valley agreement say that the parcel is restricted to uses of conservation, parks, and trails FOR ONLY 36MONTHS? Could the Council decide after three years to sell it off j~br development? ~here did this "36 months" come from? Response: This property belongs to a charitable foundation created by the McDougals. The Foundation has appraised the property at a value that is higher than the amount the City wishes to pay for the property, based on the City's appraisal. Because the Foundation is a charitable entity, it is unwilling to accept what it views as a "discounted" purchase price unless the property is to be used for a public (charitable) purpose. The public-use restriction provides evidence for the Foundation's records that the property is being acquired for park purposes. The City was not willing to accept a permanent restriction on the property, however, and the parties were able to compromise on a limited term restriction. The public use restriction expires in 36 months after which the City will be free to use the property for any purpose that is consistent with City policies. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040712\S0407125.DOC e) What does the sentence right at the top of page 104 in the agreement mean when it says that "a PORTION of this public open space would be available for future development as a community park"? The agreement seems silent on what the rest of the open space (besides the "portion") could be used for. Response: This is to provide the City flexibility in using portions of the 77 acres for other public parks and open space uses, such as linear parks, stream corridor protection, or natural areas. It is understood that the large majority of the 77 acres will be the Community Park. f) The R-G story on 6/13 implied, by a couple of paragraphs, that the city no longer intended to put the Laurel Hill parcel outside the UGB. But all the docs in the packet say it WOULD be placed outside the UGB - please confirm the packet is right and the R-G was wrong. Response: The media was mistaken. The agreements and the motion that the council was asked to adopt explicitly states that the 120-acre Laurel Hill site will be moved outside of the UGB. g) I befieve Parks staff has gone way beyond the direction given by council for a "no net loss swap ", the agreement repeatedly states that more detailed plans and negotiations are yet to ensue. Given the extensive nature of the modifications and concessions that have occurred since that initial direction, how much more will this proposal morph before it is finalized (in the event you get council approval to go ahead with it as proposed as opposed to my motion to purchase the property?) Response: The agreements provided to Council describe a detailed framework that will guide the project. A further level of detail will be provided as a master plan emerges, and when the project is presented to the Council for metro plan amendment. Any changes will be a refinement of this current proposal, and will be based on input from the two planning commissions, the public hearings, and from the public design workshops. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040712\S0407125.DOC ATTACHMENT B SITE SELECTION MATRIX Santa Clara Community Park STUDY SITES THOMPSON GAINSBOROUGH BEACON BABB FULL CIRCLE FARM McDOUGAL FIRST TIER CRITERIA PROPERTY AREA 40 PROPER TY WI THIN SAN TA YES YES iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:~:~i:~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii YES YES YES SECOND TIER CRITERIA TOTAL SITE AREA 39 acres 41 acres 52 acres +/- 77 acres UNIMPROVED OR YES YES YES SIGNIFICANTLY SUITABLE FOR FULL PARK NO YES YES PROGRAM _ NO SIGNIFICANT FLOOD - YES HAZARD AREA ~ I SERVICE AREA ~ · ~ ~ RELATIONSHIP TO UGB ADIACENT I Flood Hazard Area encumbers less than 60% of site ATTACHMENT C Santa Clara Community Park INITIAL PROGRAM ESTIMATES Play Area/Picnic 1 2 2.0 2.0 Unprogrammed Play 1 5 5.0 3.0 2 Soccer 6 2.25 13.5 9.0 4.5 Softball/Baseball Fields 4 2.5 10.0 10.0 Natural Areas ns ns 20.0 10.0 5 5 Basketball 5 0.2 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.2 Off-Leash Dog areas 1 5 5.0 5.0 Skatepark 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 Group Picnic Facilities 1 2 2.0 2.0 Swimming Pool 1 2.5 2.5 2.5 Community Center 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 Performance Space 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 Summer Day Camp Area 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 Volleyball 4 0.15 0.6 0.6 Community Gardens 1 2 2.0 2.0 Tennis 4 0.25 1.0 1.0 Parkin , Restrooms, etc. ns 12 15.0 10.0 5 Total Facility Area at SCCP C:\Documents and Settings\CEEXELF\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3B\AIS Attachment C.doc ATTACHMENT D Parks and Open Space Inventory: River Road/Santa Clara Awbrey 1 5.17 2.17 3.00 Filbert Meadows 1 3.33 3.33 Lo~Oak : 2.93 Rosetta Place 1 1.20 1.10 0.10 Terra ~i~ Walnut Grove 1 20.00 2.00 18.0( VV~ndov~ 452 ~.00 3,52 Subtotal 9 52.6 3.04 117.84 31.72 Subtotal 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subtotal 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subtotal 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subtotal 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Willamette West Bank 1 50.40 50.40 Subtotal 2 60.40 0.00 1.00 59.40 North Eugene High School 1 Subtotal 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTALI 121 113.001 3.041 18.841 91.12 D-5 Revised 7/7/2004