Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

premature and no one had yet discussed the use of those properties. He thought that when those properties were used, they should be used correctly. Those properties were acquired for use for the long-term public interest. He noted the testimony related to the multiple uses for the facility, and asked if the council had heard anything other than fears and opinions to the contrary. He asked if those fears and opinions were fact and if they outweighed the public interest. He believed there was time for a future discussion of conditions through the CUP process. This was a separate process. President Frohnmayer requested council approval. Ms. Jerome informed the council it had a statutory obligation to keep the record open for seven days, and there was an additional seven days that could be available to allow for rebuttal. She noted the code required the council to take action with 30 days of the close of the record, which could be difficult given the break. Responding to a question from Councilor Bettman about the timeline for the CUP process, Planner Steve Ochs said the CUP was in the completeness stage. When the application was deemed complete, there would be 120 days allowed for the local decision, including an appeal to the Planning Commission. A hearing date would be set when the application was deemed complete. Councilor Bettman said it appeared that the rush for approval was an artificial rush given that the UO could not proceed without the CUP. Ms. Jerome indicated there might be some level of construction permitted as a result of the CUP, and it could be that the UO wanted to move forward with ground breaking. Councilor Bettman said she viewed her role as determining whether there was a public benefit from vacating the alley as opposed to maintaining it. Speaking to the City’s proposed assessment for the vacation, she maintained it was artificially low because it included more than the 20 feet of right-of-way. She asked the precise acreage when the alley, street, and right-of-way easements on both sides and the end were included. She wanted to see a higher number. She was not willing to use it to mitigate impacts from the arena as she thought the neighborhood organiza- tions should be negotiating with the UO to offset those costs. Councilor Bettman could justify a public benefit with more realistic estimate of property that was being conveyed to the UO and with a land exchange that was really in the public benefit, like parkland along the riverfront. Councilor Clark thanked all those who testified. He emphasized the decision was whether vacating the alley was in the public interest. He noted that Councilor Poling had asked him to request that he be contacted if the council decided to postpone the action beyond the break. Councilor Zelenka also thanked those who testified. He said the UO would like to start excavating soon and the neighbors supported that. However, both the alley vacation and a CUP were required to get to the building permit stage. The timeframe for that was November-December. He said the UO was seeking an opinion from the Attorney General allowing it to move forward with excavation without a building permit. He asked City Manager Ruiz to speak to that issue. City Manager Ruiz indicated the UO requested such an opinion, which would allow it to grade and excavate on the property without a permit. He said the City had not yet received an opinion from the Attorney General’s Office. If not granted, the UO could move forward if the alley vacation was granted because it would be the UO’s property, or the City could choose to issue a temporary or irrevocable permit for grading on the project site. Ms. Jerome added that the City had not yet determined how it would proceed with an Attorney General’s opinion. Councilor Zelenka appreciated UO concerns about cost delays but also appreciated the neighbors’ concerns about the impact of the arena, particularly post-construction impacts. They wanted those impacts mitigated to the degree possible. They were seeking a relatively modest amount to mitigate those impacts. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 14 Public Hearing