Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 04/18/07 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall April 18, 2007 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She recognized Ms. Taylor, who wished to place a motion before the council. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved that the City Council direct the City Manager to institute proceedings in eminent domain for the Joe Green (Map 18-03- 20-00, Tax Lot 101) and Beverly (Map 18-03-20-21, Tax lots 101,200,300,302) properties—more particularly described in Exhibits A and B and further moved that the manager or his designee prepare an authorizing ordinance for a public hear- ing on May 21, 2007. Ms. Taylor said it was a crucial time to take action as applications to build on both lots had been denied. She said reasons to acquire the property included water quality as pollution in Amazon Creek had been the subject of cleanup efforts and development on the properties would further pollute the headwaters. She said other reasons included connection to the Ridgeline Trail, protection of wildlife habitat and rare plants, and danger to potential homeowners from slides if building occurred on the sites. She referred to a letter from Art Johnson regarding the City’s liability if building was allowed in slide areas. Mr. Poling expressed dismay with the procedure as he was contacted by the neighborhood association the previous evening about the proposed motion by Ms. Taylor and the motion was not distributed by email until 4 a.m., which gave other councilors very limited time to study the issue. Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to add the following language to the end of Ms. Taylor’s motion: “Finally, the City Manager shall (1) identify at the time of the public hearing a plan for adding to the urban growth boundary and the buildable lands inventory acreage that is equivalent to the acreage to be acquired by the City, and (2) delay completion of the acquisition of the property covered by this motion until the acreage is added. Mr. Poling said if both parcels, which represented approximately 65 acres, were removed from the buildable land supply within the urban growth boundary (UGB) then that amount should be replaced, although it did not need to be in the form of a single parcel. He was interested in allowing a one- or two-year period for that to occur, but had received legal advice against including a future timeframe. City Attorney Glenn Klein explained that including a future time period for addition of equivalent acreage could not be done because the council could not bind a future council, or even itself, to approve a future MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2007 Page 1 Work Session UGB amendment. He said the only way to ensure that the acreage was replaced was to add the additional property before the acquisition was completed, as reflected in Mr. Poling’s motion. Mr. Poling said the two parcels that would be acquired through eminent domain represented a substantial amount of land and could not be removed without affecting the existing supply of buildable land. He believed there were valid reasons for taking action to acquire the property as discussed by Ms. Taylor. He was hesitant to use eminent domain; but this was a prime example of why it was occasionally necessary. He felt that if the City moved forward to acquire the property, it was essential to replace the acreage that would be removed from the buildable land supply. Ms. Solomon asked if the City was in negotiation with the property owners to acquire the land necessary to preserve the waterways. City Manager Taylor replied that negotiations with the owners had been going on for many years under the willing seller strategy. He said the City also examined a variety of strategies to engage partners to assist with funding. He said the use of eminent domain should be rare and when the City acquired property through condemnation, a source of funding should be identified. He said there was no source of funding for the subject parcels. Ms. Solomon asked if it was premature to abandon the willing seller strategy. City Manager Taylor said he had not seen the materials distributed to councilors or discussed the action with the Public Works director. Ms. Solomon objected to the process. She realized that councilors could place any motion on the table at any time, but there was virtually no prior notification and the action should have been the subject of a work session. She did not support eminent domain. She said the transaction was one that the Nature Conser- vancy would be interested in and that organization should work with nearby property owners to acquire the parcels. She was not interested in the City acquiring more property that would come off the tax rolls unless the City sold an equal amount of acreage elsewhere that it owned. Ms. Ortiz said she did not support Mr. Poling’s motion. She said the parcels were not buildable land and several requests to build on the properties had been denied; that was why Ms. Taylor’s motion was timely. She said the Green and Beverly properties had been discussed as long as she had been on the council and the information packet provided to the council consisted of materials that had been provided on earlier occasions. She said it was important for the City to protect those areas that it could and the fact that the property was accessible by the entire community, including by bus, was an asset. She would support Ms. Taylor’s motion. Mr. Clark supported Mr. Poling’s amendment and was also concerned about the process. He had been provided information only a short time before the meeting and, as a new councilor, did not have the advantage of earlier discussions and materials. He was uncomfortable being asked to act on something when he had virtually no exposure to information necessary to make an informed decision. Mr. Clark noted that he had proposed a motion six weeks earlier, which had as its purpose engaging the council in an honest discussion about the lands that should be protected and the lands that were buildable. He wanted a discussion instead of a fight, but the council decision was to wait until the State forced it to act. He said Ms. Bettman raised a point in that discussion that zoning and classifying certain lands for protection was premature because the City did not know what it intended to do in the future with that land and it was dishonest to reclassify it. He said the same argument applied in the current situation as future building technology might enable homes to be constructed on the R-1 land in a safe manner. He questioned stealing the value from the current owners and removing the property from the tax rolls when there might be a future MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2007 Page 2 Work Session opportunity to building on the currently R-1 zoned land in a safe and respectful way. He said the same standard about not building on geologically sensitive lands should be applied uniformly throughout the City, including the entire south hills; that should be followed by a discussion of what land was buildable and what land was not buildable. Ms. Bettman indicated she would support the main motion and oppose the amendment. She said it was her understanding that the neighbors had attempted to meet with all of the councilors. She said the issue was not new; Ms. Taylor proposed similar motions in the past and it had been the subject of multiple work sessions. She said that the proposed amendment to the motion would kill the acquisition by predicating it on a future expansion of the UGB, which was not a justifiable expansion according to the Metro Plan; there was no quid pro quo in State land use law. Mr. Poling agreed that the land was not buildable based on current technology, but in the future it might be. He said the property was zoned R-1 and included in the total acreage for the residential land supply. He was only asking for a replacement for that acreage. He said his first contact by the neighborhood association to meet and discuss that particular topic had happened the previous evening. He said the amendment did not kill the acquisition; it just guaranteed replacement of what was being removed from the buildable land supply. Mr. Zelenka said he fully supported a willing seller approach as the first strategy but lengthy negotiations had not resulted in the City’s acquisition for a variety of reasons, resulting in yet another unsuccessful application to build by the owners. He said use of eminent domain was not stealing, as fair market value would be paid for the property. He said eminent domain should be rare and a last resort when other strategies had failed and there should be an overriding public purpose to its use; a park was an overriding public purpose. Mr. Zelenka said he had toured the site and did not think it was buildable land; planning staff had the same opinion when the application to build on the Beverly property was denied. He noted instances of slides that endangered people and property and said that factor should be strongly considered as the City encroached into the hills. He said that should be the subject of a separate discussion. He said City acquisition would preserve an important drainage area and create a unique and beautiful place. He said the City had committed, along with Lane County and Springfield, to a process called the “little look” that would involve a series of questions, including ones related to commercial and residential land studies, the function of the UGB and the role of jurisdictions. He would not support the amendment as he did not think the site was buildable land, acquisition would be delayed for a considerable amount of time and the “little look” process was just being launched. Ms. Piercy concurred with Mr. Zelenka’s comments and the need to commit to the process with Lane County and Springfield. She said the amendment would interfere with that process. She felt the action was time-sensitive as a building proposal had been denied and the acquisition should move forward before another application was submitted. Mr. Clark reiterated that he had not been contacted or met with anyone to discuss the issue or had access to information until he was called late the previous evening. He said the issue was new to him and he did not feel he had been involved in the process to the extent that he was able to act on the particular piece of property. He was committed to the concept of an extensive “little look” process, which was why he made his motion six weeks ago. He felt the amendment was not contrary to that process and showed good faith that the area was worth protecting. He was uncomfortable with the heavy-handed eminent domain approach MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2007 Page 3 Work Session 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 Ms. Taylor asserted there would be a public hearing and plenty of opportunity for public process. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the second part of Ms. Taylor’s motion included a process that would allow the public to weigh in on the acquisition. She said discussions had been ongoing for some time with no result and it was time for the council to take definitive action. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to amend the motion to direct the City Manager to bring back for council action a motion for eminent domain. Mr. Klein clarified that Ms. Taylor’s motion to direct the manager to institute proceedings in eminent domain meant the first actual step would be preparation of an authorizing ordinance for public hearing. He said that while Mr. Zelenka’s motion clarified that, it was not necessary. Mr. Zelenka withdrew his motion. Mr. Clark asked for clarification on whether the ordinance would be the subject of a work session. Mr. Klein said there would be a proposed ordinance on the May 21 meeting agenda for public hearing and action would need to be scheduled at a later date. Mr. Zelenka hoped in the interim that other councilors could be fully informed on the issue. The vote on the main motion was tied, 4:4; voting in support were Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor and Mr. Zelenka and in opposition were Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Clark and Ms Solomon. Mayor Piercy voted in favor and the motion passed. A. ACTION: Resolution 4908 Concerning City Testimony on Personnel or Collective Bargaining Legislative Matters, and Amending Resolution 4139 by the Repeal of Section 7 Therefrom Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adopt Resolution 4908 concerning City testimony on personnel or collective bargaining legislative matters and amend- ing Resolution 4139 by the repeal of Section 7 therefrom. Mr. Pryor indicated he was willing to adopt the resolution if there was public acknowledgement that more work needed to be done on other sections of Resolution 4139. Ms. Bettman said she had an initial concern about how the amendment and resolution would be tracked in the future but, based on a conversation with the City Attorney, she was satisfied with the procedure before the council. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. B. WORK SESSION: School/Youth Services Funding MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2007 Page 5 Work Session City Manager Taylor introduced Library, Recreation and Cultural Services Executive Director Renee Grube to discuss financial support for youth services. Ms. Grube said the purpose of the work session was to solicit the council’s interest in pursuing alternative revenues to support Bethel and 4J school districts and out-of-school youth services provided by the City. She referred to agenda materials that described past council action on the issue. She noted that in June 2006, the council decided against another levy to fund youth activities because the school districts had identified alternate strategies for funding and concerns with the legal challenge relating to the Measure 5 property tax cap. She said the Supreme Court affirmed that the portion of the levy funding school-based services should be categorized as school tax for purposes of Ballot Measure 5. Ms. Grube indicated that two revenue options had been provided for the council’s consideration: a personal income tax and a business license fee. She said the agenda material included examples of how those had been implemented in other communities. Ms. Bettman thanked staff for the agenda materials and said she could support either option as an alternative funding source, but she wanted to see a clear nexus between the revenue and class size. She said the revenue needed to be spent in the classroom and dedicated to reducing class size. She said the value of a good education was evident to everyone and large class sizes were obstacles to learning. She gave the example of a math class with 47 students that would be increased to 53 students next year. She was willing to consider either option or a combination of them but wanted to see reduction of class size balanced with youth services. Mr. Clark related that he had small children in local public schools and the quality of their education was very important. He agreed that reducing class size was a significant concern. He thought recent action to reduce the library levy and bring library services into the General Fund meant trading one tax for another. He was not certain he could support looking for a new source of revenue in the form of creating a new tax and recent experience suggested that an income tax would not have public approval. Ms. Ortiz stated she was a passionate school supporter and former school board member and willing to consider ways to help the school districts, but was cautious as Bethel had twice defeated a school operating levy. She thought it was the council’s responsibility to do all it could to ensure a good education for children in the community. Ms. Piercy wondered how many trips to the well could be had. She felt there should be a discussion with school boards about the amount of revenue to be raised and how it would be allocated before making a decision. She was confident that everyone understood the importance of education and delaying action would not indicate lack of concern or commitment. Mr. Pryor said as a former school board member he was absolutely committed to children and the City should do whatever possible to assist the school districts. He thought it was appropriate to wait until the legislative session had ended and then have a joint meeting with school boards to identify critical needs. Mr. Zelenka said that education of children was a primary responsibility. He wanted to have a discussion with the school districts but was concerned with the timing. He said the subcommittee on transportation would be reporting back to the council soon with funding recommendations and there were also a new City Hall, downtown development, a Lane County income tax and legislative actions to be considered. He was interested in youth services funding but felt it should be addressed at a later date. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2007 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Taylor asked if it would be legal for the City to fund youth services. Mr. Klein replied that the problem related to a property tax issue and a different mechanism would be used. Ms. Taylor expressed concern with large class sizes and agreed that the City should help where possible, but should wait to see what the legislature would do with K-12 funding before acting. She said that meeting with school boards was a good idea and there should be a meeting with teachers as well. Ms. Bettman remarked that State funding and other support the City could provide, such as turning over a piece of valuable property or systems development charge (SDC) forgiveness went to the school general budget but did not always result in reduced class sizes. She wanted to see how the legislature’s budget would evolve in terms of class size because large classes were the biggest obstacle to learning. She said that both of the proposed revenue sources had been excluded from the transportation subcommittee’s considera- tion and were available for other needs. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to revisit this issue after the legislature had adjourned, with direction to prepare a proposal for either an income tax option or a business license fee to provide funding to re- duce classroom size for the Eugene 4J and Bethel 52 school districts and including City youth services. Mr. Clark offered a friendly amendment to add the phrase “after a workshop be- tween the City Council and 4J and Bethel school board members.” Ms. Bettman and Ms. Ortiz accepted the amendment. Mr. Zelenka offered a friendly amendment to add the phrase “and look at other funding options to achieve this objective.” Ms. Bettman and Ms. Ortiz accepted the amendment. The motion as amended passed unanimously, 8:0. C. WORK SESSION: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment City Manager Taylor introduced Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter and City Attorney Emily Jerome to discuss more definitive direction regarding the City’s review and decision-making on the Delta Sand and Gravel request for a Metro Plan amendment. Mr. Yeiter said that staff was requesting affirmation from the council that its decision was being imple- mented appropriately. He reviewed the council’s previous actions, which determined by straw poll that the application was complete and the site was not a significant resource by Goal 5 standards. He said that draft findings were included with the agenda item summary, which outlined the council’s options. He noted that the Lane County Board of Commissioners had met that morning and voted to postpone the issue until its May 1 meeting. He noted that Kent Howe and Stephanie Schulz of Lane County Planning Division were available to answer questions. Ms. Bettman commented that a major issue was Delta Sand and Gravel’s claim that there would be no increase in production and therefore no increase in the number of trucks. She said that should be reflected in MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2007 Page 7 Work Session the findings. She asked what the outcome would be if the City and County did not agree on whether there was a significant resource and, if they did agree, whether the applicant would refine the testing and sampling procedures and resubmit them. Ms. Jerome said that code provisions regarding the Metro Plan process did not clearly answer that type of question. She said those scenarios had been discussed with County staff and legal counsel and the interpretation of the code provision that the decisions had to be identical was that the decisions had to agree but the reasons for them as expressed in findings did not need to match. She said the Metropolitan Policy Committee would step in if the City and County decisions were not in agreement. Ms. Bettman asked if making a determination on the basis of significant resource precluded deliberation on other items. Ms. Jerome said that on direction from the council, staff would prepare an ordinance that did not become effective until identical decisions were reached. She believed that until the ordinances were finally in effect, the council did have the opportunity to continue to deliberate. She said the process would end when both the City and County decisions were in agreement. City Manager Taylor said staff was recommending for the council’s consideration what was believed to be the most efficient way, based on the straw polls, to put the measure before the County. Mr. Pryor commented that the council would not need to deliberate the criteria if it knew that the application would be denied. Mr. Yeiter said staff was not recommending that the council continue with deliberation of the criteria. He said the County might continue to deliberate. Mr. Pryor said it did not make sense to spend time deliberating on something for which the outcome had already been determined. He said the County’s deliberations should be with the knowledge that from the City’s standpoint the application was denied. Ms. Jerome pointed out that in some cases the council was advised to conduct the thorough process because from a legal perspective, defending a denial was less difficult if each basis for denial had been addressed. She said the effort that would be involved in analyzing all of the criteria in this instance might not be worth the benefit and it was possible the County could proceed through the criteria and provide the analysis. She said waiting to see what the County’s outcome would be was a sound policy decision for the council. Mr. Clark asked if an appeal was possible if the City denied on sufficiency of resource and the County denied on a different basis and how would the appellate body deal with that contradiction. Ms. Jerome said City and County staff would work together to ensure that the actions, which would be in the form of ordinances, were the same. She said the respective findings would likely look different. Mr. Clark asked if denial on the basis of sufficiency of resource had been upheld in the past. Ms. Jerome said there was no precedent in the courts, but she felt there was a basis to justify the finding. Ms. Solomon said she was disturbed by the reluctance to move forward on the application in a forthright and honest manner and give the applicant all of the process that was due. Regarding the issue of resource, she believed the applicant followed all of the protocol established in State statutes and passed all of the tests. She reminded the council that it could approve with conditions and that could include strategies to ensure there was no increase in production. She believed that Delta Sand and Gravel would be willing to adhere to those conditions as it had been willing to respond to all questions during the process. She reminded the council that Delta Sand and Gravel was a local business that provided good jobs for the community and the MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2007 Page 8 Work Session City of Eugene was a consumer of its products. If it was shut down, the City would suffer the consequences of increased prices. Mr. Zelenka supported denying the application on the resource issue but did not understand why the council would not go through the process as there were other, more problematic issues, such as noise and dust. Mr. Yeiter said based on feedback on the County, which conducted more sand and gravel operation reviews, the process would involve between 20 and 30 hours of council deliberation to reach the same conclusion. He said it was the council’s policy and scheduling choice whether to go through the entire process if the site did not qualify. Mr. Zelenka asked if the applicant could appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) if both the City and County denied the application. Ms. Jerome said the appeal could also go above LUBA, but local decision-making would end at that point. She said LUBA could also remand the issue or if a decision became final the applicant could reapply. Mr. Clark said it strained at the idea of common sense that there was not sufficiency of resource at the site, which was only yards away from the site of decades of operation and production. Ms. Bettman said the operation was not being shut down as the applicant indicated ten years worth of aggregate remained. She shared Mr. Zelenka’s concerns about deliberating the other criteria as some of them would weigh heavily for denial of the application. She asked if the council could act on the significant resource issue with a plan to deliberate on the other criteria at a later date, perhaps following action by the County. Ms. Jerome said the County would prefer to have the City deliberate all of the criteria and was willing to postpone action until that occurred. She said legally the council could establish the plan to deliberate at a later date but was not certain how it would proceed on a practical basis. Ms. Bettman said she was only willing to take that extraordinary step if the council was willing to vote in favor of a six-hour workshop to deliberate the entire packet. Mr. Pryor said as an individual councilor he was in favor of the application, but the decision would be made by the body. He agreed with Ms. Solomon that some issues could be mitigated, but not the question of sufficiency of resource. He felt it would be unfair to deliberate further and hold out hope to the applicant that perhaps a different conclusion might be reached. Mr. Poling found it disappointing that the application was being denied without fully exploring the issues. He reminded councilors that based on the information available, the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) determined that Delta Sand and Gravel and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) consultants’ testing had underestimated the amount of resource. He noted that the Eugene Planning Commission agreed that the existence of a significant resource had been demonstrated, but an uncertified person had disagreed. He pointed out that the site was located between the current production site and the river, making it unlikely there would be no resource in that area. He said a preponderance of the scientific evidence and a recommendation from the Planning Commission indicated that there was a significant resource available. He would not support the findings and felt it was a disservice to the process to declare the issue dead at this point. Ms. Bettman stated there was no guarantee where the river would deposit its resources and that did not meet ODOT’s criteria for its aggregate. She asked if ODOT tested or sampled the site. Ms. Schulz replied that ODOT did not test, but reviewed the tests that were conducted. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2007 Page 9 Work Session Ms. Bettman said she did not base her conclusions on opposition to the application; she felt the applicant’s sampling and testing was inadequate because it mixed high and low quality material and averaged the quality of the aggregate to demonstrate that the standard had been met. She did not think that was an accepted way to determine if there was a significant resource of the particular aggregate that met the standard. Mr. Howe clarified that ODOT did conduct sampling in addition to the applicant and verified the applicant’s sampling. He said DOGAMI reviewed both ODOT and the applicant’s sampling and verified that they were done correctly and according to AASHTO provisions. He commented that under the standard practice for sampling aggregate, there were specific provisions that addressed how sampling was done. He referred to information in the packet identified as Exhibit 33, which specifically allowed the combination of samples from various locations to be reviewed for their overall ability to meet standards. He said samples were not required to be taken from one specific location and or prohibited from being combined with materials from other locations. He said the applicant’s methodology was entirely acceptable. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution that finds there is not sufficient evidence that a significant resource exists on the subject site consistent with the attached draft findings. Mr. Clark asked if all of the official agencies involved in the process stated the applicant had conducted appropriate testing and verified the results and the Planning Commission agreed the testing was acceptable and a majority agreed there was a sufficiency of resource. Mr. Yeiter said that was correct, but the findings as prepared by staff determined that the applicant’s methodology mixed such high quality materials with lower quality material that it was unacceptable. Mr. Clark asked if the applicant’s methodology met ODOT standards. Mr. Yeiter said it did. Mr. Pryor said he was proceeding on the assumption that no one would be changing their vote from the 5:4 straw poll taken previously and the application would fail. No one indicated they would change. Ms. Bettman said that findings needed to be consistent with the Metro Plan and the significance of resource according to the plan was not the same as ODOT’s standards. She said the plan required both quantity and quality. She would support the motion. City Manager Taylor asked that the language of the motion be changed from resolution to ordinance at the request of legal counsel. Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Pryor agreed to accept the revised language as a friendly amendment. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved that the findings could not be sup- ported because on further review there was sufficient evidence that there was sig- nificant resource on the site and to direct the city manager to schedule work ses- sions for continued deliberations on the remaining issues. The substitute motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon and Mr. Clark voting in favor. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2007 Page 10 Work Session The vote on the main motion was tied, 4:4; voting in support were Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor and Mr. Zelenka and in opposition were Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Clark and Ms Solomon. Mayor Piercy voted in favor and the motion passed. The meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2007 Page 11 Work Session