pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-11-01 | 3 | limits, which is why there is a provision about R2 in the SA; if the zoning is changed, the land will be a whole lot more valuable than it is today. Ms. Freeman stated approximately 1.7 acres are zoned R2 already, leaving approximately 2.3 acres still zoned for industrial. Mr. Kuhn stated no one is disputing that the SA in no way changes the zoning of the property and somehow eliminates the requirement for Union Pacific to come back to the City Council; Union Pacific has to go through an entire development application process, get public input, and get City approval to develop the property, which is not taken off the table or changed whatsoever by the SA. Mr. Foreman stated that he agrees Union Pacific has to do everything, but the agreement greases the rails; requested the Commission to read it and come to its own conclusion about whether it is germane. Commissioner Reid requested Ms. Freeman to elaborate on the background of the land acquisition and how much community involvement there was up until the Closed Session. Ms. Freeman responded in 2013 when the City started out to develop the Park, she worked with the Recreation and Parks Department on community meetings which had over 300 people attended, as well as 700 to 800 people who participated in an online survey; the survey included options for what people wanted to have in the Park, which was very close to what Jean Sweeney envisioned; as the Park was being developed, it was always understood that the Union Pacific land would become part of the Park; the map portrays that the Union Pacific land is part of the Park, including the bike path; in 2018, the City filed the eminent domain case in public; the case explained that the 1.7 acres zoned R2 was too expensive for the City to purchase; the rest of the 2.8 acres was addressed in public; people believed the Union Pacific land would be added to the Jean Sweeney Park; all the community outreach indicated the land would eventually become part of the Park. Mr. Kuhn clarified a portion of the Union Pacific corridor was never going to be part of the Park; every public project always has public involvement and input; candidly, any piece of litigation involving the City has some sort of public dialogue because taxpayer dollars are at stake, but does not bring the matter outside of the exemption which allows the City Council to meet in Closed Session to discuss and resolve pending litigation; otherwise, every matter the City decides regarding litigation would be open to the public, which cannot be the case. Mr. Foreman stated Complainants are not alleging that is the case; they are alleging when there is an obligation to do something in public, it has to be done in public; it does not have to disrupt the negotiation process or the closed nature of it; with ordinary litigation that had nothing to do with public hearings or a claim against the City, there is no obligation to allow public input; it is a private matter; this is a public matter that involves a public park, housing and zoning; every time the City has litigation, it does not mean it has Meeting of the Open Government Commission November 1, 2021 3 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-11-01.pdf |