CC Minutes - 07/23/08 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman stated that it was the City’s right and authority to negotiate for a vacation of the magnitude involved in the neighborhood in question, where, she maintained, so many vacations had been granted that traffic connectivity and circulation, including bicycle and pedestrian traffic, was an issue. She reminded the council that the single criterion governing the application was whether the vacations benefited the public, not whether the arena benefited the public. For that reason, she had looked for ways for the UO and City to work collaboratively to make the alley vacation in the public’s interest, as opposed to the City realizing only a minimum amount of money. She favored a later decision date, and questioned how the needed collaboration to create the public benefit to justify the vacation could happen in such a short time frame. City Manager Ruiz indicated staff could return to the council by August 13 with a recommendation based on a completed process, including any needed collaboration and negotiations. Ms. Bettman questioned whether the City Manager could have all the details worked out by the August 13 date. She said that date did not give the council the chance to give the manager direction on possible conditions, such as a land exchange to promote north-south connectivity and more definition regarding the UO’s commitment to pedestrian access. City Manager Ruiz said staff could return with findings in regard to the alley vacation and discuss other potential conditions with the UO. Mr. Zelenka opposed the motion. He said that the decision date for the council did not impact the UO schedule “one bit.” He said the UO’s desire to commence work on September 30 was dependent on the Attorney General’s decision, and he believed a September 8 council decision could still accommodate that start date. He said the UO needed to complete the CUP process, which could not conclude until October. He also maintained that the motion “breaks faith” with the neighbors with no real need on the part of the UO. He had asked specifically that the alley vacation coincide with the CUP process and he thought the UO had agreed to that when the public hearing was scheduled. He believed a false sense of urgency was being created by the UO. Mr. Zelenka thought the council needed to be thoughtful and retain the existing date. Mr. Clark said he believed from watching the faces of the UO officials present during the last discussion that they thought the later date would have a detrimental impact on their planning. He determined from City Manager Ruiz that staff believed it could provide the information needed by the council in time for an August 13 decision date. Mr. Clark indicated support for the motion because he wanted to move forward expeditiously. Ms. Taylor did not support the motion because she thought the council needed time to negotiate an arrange- ment that was in the public’s interest. She did not think the manager could demonstrate in such a short time that this was the case. She thought if the vacation was shown to be in the public interest six councilors would be willing to support an emergency clause. She said collaboration “cut two ways.” Mayor Piercy believed the arena would be built and she had an interest in keeping the UO on schedule. She said the council was told on July 21 that the emergency clause required the support of a majority of councilors, but now the council had learned that including such a clause required six votes, which she believed made a difference to the conversation. She hoped the UO and City could work in collaboration as it had just done in regard to the recent Olympic Trials and she looked to the UO to work with the neighbors to resolve the issues of concern to them. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2008 Page 2 Work Session