Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 08/13/08 Work SessionM I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon August 13, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, President; Bonny Bettman, Vice President; Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to reschedule the discussion of the MUPTE ordinance for a work session after the council break, on a date to be determined by the Mayor and City Manager. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Jennifer Solomon had not yet arrived to the work session. A. ACTION: th An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Villard Alley Right-of-Way between East 13 Avenue thth and East 15 Avenue; an Ordinance Vacating a Portion of East 13 Avenue Right-of-Way and East of Its Intersection with Franklin Boulevard City Manager Jon Ruiz indicated staff was ready for discussion and questions regarding the ordinances. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4986, an ordinance vacating a portion of Villard Alley right-of-way. Ms. Taylor indicated her confusion that the council was not discussing the arena while the materials in front of her indicated differently. Planning Division staff Steven Nystrom replied that while the agenda item summaries before the council referenced the public interest/benefits of the arena, only the alley and street vacations were to be discussed. Ms. Taylor said her information only reflected how the vacations would not hurt the public interest and not specifically how they would benefit the public interest. She asked Mr. Nystrom to summarize the public benefits of the alley and street vacations. Mr. Nystrom said the alley had minimal public benefit in terms of its provision of access to the general public. Ms. Taylor again asked Mr. Nystrom to summarize the public benefit of the alley vacation. Mr. Nystrom stated the primary benefit to the City from the vacations would be that it would enhance redevelopment opportunities in the surrounding areas. In response to Ms. Taylor’s inquiry regarding driveways adjacent to the alley in question, Mr. Nystrom stated the elimination of those driveways would enhance traffic circulation. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the ordinance to add a new Finding D and section 5, to read as follows: D. As required by EC 9.8710, the City Manager determined that the applicant should pay a special assessment for the two vacations in the amount of $482.950. The Council has determined that the special benefit amount actually should be $1,467,171, which is $984,221 more than the amount the applicant has deposited with the City. Section 5. Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided in the Eugene Charter of 2002, this Ordinance will take effect only upon the applicant’s payment of $984,221, which is in addition to the assessment already deposited. Ms. Bettman, noting that the Basis of Value report provided to the council was not an appraisal, stated that one of the prime pieces of property along Franklin Boulevard had been reduced in value by 65%. She said the reduction was rather arbitrary and based solely on the fact that there was going to be a sidewalk. She felt that it was reasonable for it to be the University’s responsibility to provide a sidewalk and that City taxpayers should not be burdened with the expense. Ms. Bettman stated that decisions had been made between City staff and University personnel regarding the area in and around what was formerly known as Williams Bakery that the council had not been privy to. She indicated there were eighteen parking spaces in the area that generated between $36,000 and $40,000 for the City. She stated that the adjusted special assessment described in her motion was based on these parking spaces generating $40,000 amortized over twenty years. She felt this was a justifiable figure. Ms. Bettman agreed with Ms. Taylor that much of the testimony heard regarding the alley vacations in relation to the arena dealt primarily with the public benefits or lack thereof, but felt that the council had not adequately examined the financial costs of the arena to the City. She felt her motion addressed that discrepancy. Mayor Piercy asked Mr. Ruiz if City staff had reviewed the benefit amounts Ms. Bettman had referred to in her motion. Mr. Nystrom answered the subject properties had been appraised in accordance with standard practices normally used by staff. City Attorney Glenn Klein stated the City had determined the value of the subject properties using the guidelines described in the Basis of Value report provided as Attachment E in the agenda item summary, also referred to as City Council Agenda page 219. Mr. Ruiz confirmed Ms. Bettman’s motion would list the property at 100% of its assessed value rather than the 35% arrived at by staff. Addressing Ms. Bettman’s statements regarding the potential value of the parking in the subject properties, Mr. Ruiz commented it was his understanding the vacations would remove only two double-headed parking meters rather than eighteen separate spaces. Mr. Klein was concerned that the approximately $800,000 increase based on lost parking revenues as described by Ms. Bettman did not address the two standard criteria used to determine special assessed benefits as described in the Basis of Value Report, namely the value of the real property and the costs incurred by the City in the construction of public improvements. He felt that making such a demand on the University would be challengeable and that the University would most likely win such a challenge as being inconsistent with City Code provisions. Mr. Clark, after confirming with Mr. Klein that the University was in fact a public entity as part of the Oregon State Board of Higher Education, asked Mr. Klein what the legislative intent and latitude of intent of EC 9.8710 actually was in relation to its use in arriving at the assessed value of the special benefit. Mr. Klein was unable to describe the original legislative intent as the provision had been in existence for more MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2008 Page 2 Work Session than twenty years, and said the parking factors described by Ms. Bettman were outside the latitude of intent of the provision. Mr. Klein felt this was the reason the University would ultimately win out, because parking was not a factor enumerated by EC 9.8710. Mr. Zelenka asked Mr. Nystrom to explain the process by which the value of the Franklin Boulevard property had been reduced by 65%. Mr. Nystrom said the determination on the reduced value was made because the City would not be entirely vacating the properties and the City would be retaining a certain amount of public interest over them. Mr. Nystrom, responding to Mr. Zelenka’s question about what specific interest the City would be retaining, stated the City would retain a public utility easement over the vacated area, as well as pedestrian access th easement in the case of 13 Avenue. Mr. Nystrom said the 65% reduction in value of the properties was a result of standard rates applied by staff for other similar circumstances. He was unable to cite any previous specific examples of similar reductions. Mr. Zelenka asked why the assessment was different for the southern area where the public utility easement resulted in a listed value of 50% of the assessed value as opposed to 35%. Mr. Nystrom speculated some of the land in that area would be used for more private concerns, whereas in the pedestrian area there would be greater public use of the property. Mr. Zelenka felt the listed values of the properties and the reductions of same seemed fairly arbitrary and that there were no hard and fast rules governing reductions of assessed values. Mr. Nystrom again commented the assessed values and resultant reductions were arrived at by Public Works staff using standard methodologies. Mr. Zelenka asked if anyone present could provide more information as to how the assessed values and reductions were determined. Eugene Public Works Director Kurt Corey commented that the individuals making the determinations were licensed appraisers and the percentages were based on their best profes- sional judgment. Mr. Ruiz commented the appraisers used their best professional judgment based on past practices and experience. Mr. Zelenka confirmed that Ms. Bettman’s motion increased the price of the special assessment to $451,250. Mr. Ruiz commented that would indicate that the City was not retaining any value or was not willing to pay for any of the value retained. Mr. Zelenka asked if Ms. Bettman would be willing to entertain a friendly amendment to make the special assessment 50% of the assessed value as opposed to 100%. Mr. Bettman felt Council should continue discussion on the matter before raising the possibility of a friendly amendment. Ms. Ortiz asked Mr. Ruiz how the City could have a conversation with the University of Oregon about how they could pay a special assessment in lieu of taxes like EWEB does. She understood the University was a significant asset to the City and that they warranted special consideration, but felt the University also made significant demands on Eugene taxpayers and City resources. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Ruiz said a well-rounded discussion of the University’s contribution to the City and the community at- large was an important conversation to have. He said that such a dialogue could easily be initiated between himself and University of Oregon President David Frohnmayer. Mr. Klein offered some examples of City resources that received financial and/or administrative support from the University including the police substation near Sacred Heart Medical Center and inter- governmental agreements involving the Eugene Fire Department. Ms. Bettman asked if it was the Council’s purview to be allowed to put conditions on an alley vacation such as the one being discussed. Mr. Klein replied that the council was allowed to put certain conditions on vacations, but that they must be consistent both with the Eugene City Code as well any constitutional restraints on what the City could require. He felt a court would say that the amount which the council was trying to require the University to pay would not be allowed because it fell outside of guidelines listed in the City Code. Ms. Bettman asked how parking would not be included in the value of a property as a source of potential revenue. Mr. Klein responded that revenue-producing capacity was only one of three methods that appraisers used to determine the value of property, and that the estimations in the Basis of Value report were arrived at by examination of the real market value of the property rather than an examination of revenue- producing capacity. Ms. Bettman asked if the Basis of Value report took into account any of the easements on the subject properties. Mr. Klein indicated he had no such information in that regard. Ms. Bettman emphasized the Basis of Value report was not an appraisal. Ms. Bettman said she would be willing to introduce a motion to send the City Manager back to the University to renegotiate the value of the special assessment based on more realistic allocations of benefit that included consideration of the revenue-producing capacity of the properties. Ms. Bettman commented there was a history of inequity between the University of Oregon and the City of Eugene and that the City Council rarely had any leverage to address issues of the University’s benefits to the community versus its demands on City resources. Mr. Clark said the conversation regarding public safety with regard to the University might be better addressed at a later time. Mr. Clark said the conversation regarding the alley and street vacations seemed fairly arbitrary with regard to the assessed values and reductions being discussed, and he was having a tough time disagreeing with the expert recommendations of City staff. He asked Mr. Klein if the City would be getting into any sort of legal trouble with the University by arbitrarily adjusting the special assessment figures, and also what might be a better mechanism to determine those figures more thoughtfully. Mr. Klein replied the City would get into trouble legally if it acted arbitrarily and felt it would be difficult to determine a better mechanism to determine special assessment figures if the council’s intent was to settle the matter in a timely fashion. Mr. Klein reminded council the person who had signed off on the Basis of Value report, Real Property Officer Lloyd Williams, was a licensed appraiser who engaged in special assessment determinations on behalf of the City on a regular basis. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Klein felt the council could not ask the City Manager to renegotiate with the University if they wanted to act immediately on the matter, particularly in light of the fact that staff’s evaluations had been deemed to be an effective determination of the value of the properties. Mr. Clark’s inclination was to trust the staff’s recommendation with regard to the timing of the process and felt the University would be highly inclined to appeal any decisions the council might make to readjust the special assessment values. Mr. Pryor appreciated the conversation around the property vacations, but felt uncomfortable that the tenor of the conversations the council had been conducting with the University might make it difficult to move beyond the matter in the future. He was uncomfortable using the council and City’s authority as leverage against the University in this matter. Ms. Solomon reminded the council they had had the Basis of Value report since April 14, 2008, and objected to Ms. Bettman’s motion coming up in the eleventh hour. She was uncomfortable that the University had not had the opportunity to weigh in on the discussion, and felt the council had not acted with full transparency in the matter. Ms. Solomon asked Mr. Ruiz how many more decision points there would be for the council in terms of having the arena built. Mr. Ruiz answered that the property vacations matter before the council was probably the last formal step and that any other decisions regarding the planning and construction of the arena would be taken care of through other land use action channels. Ms. Solomon indicated she would not support Ms. Bettman’s motion for the reasons she had previously stated. Ms. Taylor asked Klein what the constitutional problems would be in asking the University for more money, particularly since it was her understanding that the council could pull out of the project altogether with no resultant legal difficulties. Mr. Klein confirmed that it would not pose a constitutional problem for the council to determine it would not be in the public’s interest to vacate the properties, and cited a Ninth Circuit Court case of the University of Oregon Foundation versus the City of Klamath Falls wherein that city had agreed to vacate a property and then asked the foundation for further remunerations regarding geothermal wells. He said the court’s determination was that the city’s actions were unconstitutional because it indicated the city was treating the applicant differently than other applicants. Mr. Klein could not say for certain the City would lose on appeal if Ms. Bettman’s motion was passed and that he had not undertaken any sort of constitutional analysis in that regard, but he said the council would certainly be treating the University differently than any other applicant who might apply for a property vacation. Mr. Klein, responding to a request for further clarification from Ms. Taylor, confirmed that the City could most likely refuse to vacate the properties altogether on the grounds that it would not be in the public interest to do so. Ms. Taylor asked Mr. Klein if the council could indeed ask the City Manager to renegotiate with the University. Mr. Klein said that, only if they did not approve Ms. Bettman’s motion today, they could conceivably say what was before them was not in the public interest and ask the City Manager to renegoti- ate. Ms. Taylor averred this was precisely the problem with rushing through the process. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2008 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Bettman stated her awareness of a City Code provision requiring homeowners performing remodeling projects to put in sidewalks at their own expense and questioned why similar provisions did not apply to the University. Ms. Bettman expressed that rushing the decision to vacate the properties was not in the public’s interest, particularly if the council was unable to ensure that the inherent value of the properties was adequately considered. Ms. Bettman said her motion was designed to make the property vacations serve the public interest so that the council could endorse it. Ms. Bettman, with the consent of the second by Ms. Taylor, withdrew her previous motion to amend the vacation ordinances. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to postpone and direct the City Manager to renegotiate the cost basis of real property of the alley vacation to maximize the public benefit and to negotiate an inter-governmental agreement with the University of Oregon on a contribution in lieu of taxes. Mr. Zelenka felt further discussion on a contribution by the University in lieu of taxes would be a great idea so that the actual financial benefit provided to the City by the University could be more accurately determined. Associate Planner Steve Ochs, responding to a request from Mr. Zelenka, clarified the color classifications of the maps in the council agenda materials as the council had been provided black and white copies. Mr. Nystrom said the University would still have the ability to utilize the vacated properties for access to existing housing, despite any pedestrian or public utility easements. Mr. Zelenka, addressing Mr. Clark’s previous comments about the timeliness of the matter, said the alley vacation was not needed at this time. Additionally, Mr. Zelenka stated the University could not excavate the site until they had received a building permit which could only be granted when they had received a conditional use permit (CUP). Mr. Zelenka believed the University had manufactured the current sense of urgency around the project in order to force the City to prematurely grant the property vacations so that they could get it under their belt, but that they would ultimately sit on the execution of the project for several months. Mr. Zelenka asked if the Basis of Value report was not in fact an appraisal of the property. Mr. Ruiz confirmed it was not an appraisal, to which Mr. Zelenka responded that it did not appear that the report or the property vacations were maximizing the public’s benefit or interest in any way. Mr. Zelenka asked if changing the special assessment from 35% to 50% of the full assessed value would be considered arbitrary. Mr. Klein answered he was not familiar with everything in the public record on the matter and could not fully respond to Mr. Zelenka’s question. Mr. Klein reminded the council that Section 9.7450 of the City Code required them to make a decision within thirty days of the close of the record, which in this case would be September 10, 2008, unless a longer time frame was agreed to by the person or entity initiating the application. He said if the council MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2008 Page 6 Work Session wanted to consider new evidence such as a new appraisal they would need to re-open the record, which could not be done given the processes involved and the upcoming council break. Mr. Klein commented the excavation permit process was not as simple as Mr. Zelenka had described since there were some types of excavation that could occur under the City Code, and that the City had been awaiting the Attorney General’s determination as to whether this was an instance where excavation could proceed. Ms. Solomon said the matter before the council was simply a stall tactic and that the council had had all the time and information necessary to make a thoughtful and well informed decision. She said the questions before the council could have been asked when the record was closed instead of in the current work session. She believed the council’s behavior in the work session was seriously compromising what little integrity it still had. She said the University had followed the processes that had been defined to them, and urged the council to not change the goal posts or attempt to extort the University any further. Mr. Clark, averring that the council’s primary mitigating factor should be the public interest and benefit, stated a recent public survey had indicated that an improved relationship between the City of Eugene and its inter-governmental partners such as the University of Oregon was the fourth highest priority to the public. He worried that, by the council’s willingness to postpone the matter, the City would ultimately be costing the University up to $12 million for the sake of only $200,000 for the City of Eugene. He said the council had all of the information necessary to make a decision immediately. Mayor Piercy called for a vote on Ms. Bettman’s previously stated motion to postpone and direct the City Manager. The motion failed, 3:5; Pryor, Clark, Poling, Ortiz and Solomon dissenting. Returning to Mr. Pryor’s motion to adopt Council Bill 4986, Mayor Piercy opened the meeting to further discussion. Mr. Zelenka thought the increased cost issue of the property vacancies was a total red herring, and expressed that while he was in favor of the arena being built he wanted to ensure that neighborhood interests concerning traffic and parking were fully mitigated. He said he had very high hopes that the University would act out of goodwill, but his experience was that the City had received nothing more from the University than a lack of cooperation and transparency and a manufactured sense of urgency surrounding the project. He was further bothered that the University’s actions had necessitated the City’s expenditure of approximately $10,000 in legal fees to combat the University’s lack of cooperation and engagement with the community. Mr. Zelenka said the University had broken a promise to him to have the Villard Alley vacation linked to a conditional use permit once he had introduced the property vacations matter into the council’s agenda. Mr. Zelenka said that after numerous meetings with various University personnel, the City Council had not received a single concrete proposal to specifically address any issues of traffic, parking, noise, or litter. He believed passing any motions on property vacations would be a tacit endorsement of the arena project without any indication as to how the CUP process involved would actually play out. Ms. Bettman disagreed with Mr. Zelenka’s characterization of the cost issues as being a red herring, and said the financial aspects of the proposed property vacations were in fact on the record and that they had been brought up by members of the public via correspondence as well as by herself in previous public MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2008 Page 7 Work Session hearing sessions. She said she was not interested in the City giving away another public asset to the University simply because they had arranged for a full court press on the City Council in order to make them rush the matter through. Ms. Bettman felt Mr. Clark’s statement that postponing the matter might cost the University up to $12 million was nothing short of ridiculous. She said her understanding was that the CUP process would not even be complete until November of 2008 and that asking the City Manager to renegotiate with the University would have been in the public interest. Ms. Bettman said the City had been apprehensive in its efforts to request more remuneration from the University for several years, especially for public safety concerns related to the University. Ms. Bettman summarized saying that since rushing the vacation process was not in the public interest and since the council did not have an appraisal, and also because she believed the discounts on the valuation of the property were arbitrary, she would be voting against the alley vacation. Ms. Taylor agreed with everything Ms. Bettman and Mr. Zelenka said, and said she did not even know how it was in the University’s interest, let alone the public interest, for the council to rush the vacation process. Mayor Piercy called for a vote on Mr. Pryor’s motion to adopt Council Bill 4986. The motion passed, 5:3; Bettman, Zelenka and Taylor dissenting. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4987, an th ordinance vacating a portion of East 13 Avenue right-of-way. The motion passed, 5:3; Bettman, Zelenka and Taylor dissenting. B. WORK SESSION: Regional Transportation Planning Public Works Engineering Division staff Rob Inerfeld restated the list of staff recommendations from the agenda item summary regarding a number of regional transportation planning issues that were previously discussed during the Joint Elected Officials (JEO) meeting on July 15, 2008. He said staff was seeking the council’s concurrence on the recommendations. With respect to the fifth Regional Transportation Planning (RTP) item regarding the development of a Eugene-only Transportation System Plan (TSP), Mr. Inerfeld indicated it was his understanding that the public involvement component of any such TSP was very important to the council. Mr. Inerfeld said the plan was for staff to return to council on September 15 at the JEO meeting with a work plan that would then go to the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) at its October meeting. Mayor Piercy confirmed with Mr. Inerfeld that decisions regarding a TSP work plan would be made at the local level before they would be taken to the JEO meeting in September. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to initiate a TransPlan amendment to delete the West Eugene Parkway (WEP) from the project list and plan as part of the short term amendments, and to add the two Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) facility th projects, West 11 Avenue from Terry Street to Greenhill Road, and the Beltline Highway MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2008 Page 8 Work Session from River Road to Delta Highway, into the constrained project lists. Ms. Bettman said she had read in her materials that the deletion and additions specified in her motion would require the initiation of a Metro Plan amendment and asked if she would need to add that amendment to her motion. Mr. Inerfeld replied that a TransPlan amendment would be sufficient. Ms. Bettman stated that TransPlan was due to be updated by staff in 2008 rather than 2007 for multiple reasons. She said the decision from ODOT was that TransPlan was not part of the RTP and that it seemed like a convoluted way to appease ODOT. Mr. Inerfeld said ODOT was the entity that had recommended the WEP language to the TransPlan recommendations, and confirmed Ms. Bettman’s earlier statement that the WEP was not a planned transportation facility for the purposes of the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). Mr. Clark was uncertain that he could support the motion as he was unclear what the impact of it would be. Mr. Clark, referring to the second of the five TransPlan recommendations, asked Mr. Inerfeld if the planning horizon of 2022 was where the TransPlan update would occur. Mr. Inerfeld answered that the planning horizon estimation had been adjusted to reflect slower population growth than was originally projected. Mr. Inerfeld said staff would like for a TransPlan update to happen within the next few years, presumably to coincide with the RTP update planned for 2011. Mr. Clark, referring to the third of the five staff recommendations, recalled a previous vote where council discussed the Beltline Highway from River Road to Delta Highway as being the top regional transportation priority for the City. He asked if a vote on Ms. Bettman’s motion would change that priority in any way. Mr. Inerfeld answered that it would not. Mr. Clark was not sure of the value of voting affirmatively on Ms. Bettman’s motion and asked Mr. Inerfeld to identify any potential harm as Mr. Clark interpreted the motion as being contrary to ODOT’s suggestion. Mr. Inerfeld commented it might divert staff time at the City and LCOG that would otherwise be spent on the TSP update and ongoing studies. Mr. Zelenka asked why staff recommended that the RTP issues be addressed over the next several months instead of being taken care of immediately. Mr. Inerfeld replied that there were procedures to be followed with the City Planning Commission and council and that immediate action would not be feasible beyond the act of initiating the changes to TransPlan. Mr. Zelenka averred that the federal portion of the TransPlan had been removed from the RTP. Mr. Inerfeld said that State laws dictated that some sort of transportation facility be constructed to serve the City’s planned land uses and that removal of the WEP from the TransPlan would violate that mandate. He further stated that staff’s recommendation to fold the WEP into the constrained plan would allow the City to comply with state laws. Mr. Zelenka offered that for all intents and purposes the WEP project was dead as it had no funding or authorization to proceed, and that continuing to discuss the WEP was undue process. Mr. Inerfeld said the language staff was recommending to be added to the TransPlan was for the purpose of providing developers the opportunity to rely on the WEP in the interim as it would still be in the TransPlan. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2008 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Zelenka asked what the difference was between the language of staff’s recommendation and the language of Ms. Bettman’s motion. Mr. Inerfeld stated it would be easier for staff to initiate their recommendations than it would be to execute the deletions and modifications described in Ms. Bettman’s motion. Mr. Zelenka said it would be his preference to execute the WEP now rather than later and asked what would be pushed back if the City focused on the WEP immediately. Mr. Inerfeld could not say specifically what would be pushed back, but that it might impact the West 11th Transportation Corridor study, the West Eugene Collaborative, the EmX expansion with the Lane Transit District, and pedestrian/bicycle planning in the south hills area of Eugene. Mr. Inerfeld said it was necessary for the City to balance the land use and transportation systems in West Eugene, and that they might not be able to do so at this point because the City had no other facilities it could use to substitute for the WEP. He summarized saying that the State required the City to have some other project in place in order to take the WEP out, and that the City was currently unprepared to do so. Mr. Zelenka asked Mr. Klein if that meant that Ms. Bettman’s motion would be considered illegal. Mr. Klein answered that it might be difficult to determine the legality of the motion as it involved multiple jurisdictions such as the City of Eugene and Lane County, and that any removal of the WEP from TransPlan would be considered acceptable provided the City could prove that something was planned to take its place. Mr. Klein said he did not perceive a problem with Ms. Bettman initiating removal of the WEP but that if it were done now the City would have nothing to replace it with. He further explained that the staff’s recommendation to change the language as suggested by ODOT was designed to prevent developers from exploiting the WEP project to re-zone their properties. Mr. Zelenka said it was his understanding the WEP did not solve the transportation problems in west Eugene in the first place and that the City was already non-compliant with State and Federal guidelines. Mr. Klein said that the WEP, as part of TransPlan, was already considered consistent with State planning goals, the TPR and Goal 12. He further stated that any opportunity to amend the TransPlan was also an opportunity for government officials to say that the plan was not consistent with State requirements. Mr. Zelenka, noting the population projection from the second of the five staff recommendations, asked if that figure was based on the slower population growth that Mr. Inerfeld had mentioned earlier. Mr. Inerfeld confirmed that it was. Mr. Poling, referring to the third of the five Staff recommendations, said a recently formed stakeholder group looking at the Beltline improvements had actually focused on the area from Coburg Road to the Beltline’s potential intersection with Crocker Road. He asked if the wording of the recommendation or Ms. Bettman’s motion would need to be changed to reflect that determination. Mr. Inerfeld commented that when the RTP was updated to a financially constrained plan, the area from River Road to Delta Highway was specified because it was identified as having the most severe problems. He commented that the section of the Beltline from Delta Highway to Coburg Road remained on the Illustrative list. Mr. Pryor said he was satisfied with staff’s recommendations, and subsequently could not support Ms. Bettman’s motion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2008 Page 10 Work Session Mayor Piercy believed Ms. Bettman was intending to ensure that no one could base anything on the possibility of the WEP returning at some future date. Ms. Bettman confirmed that was one of her intentions. Mayor Piercy asked if the current language of staff recommendations would also ensure the same thing. Mr. Klein replied that the language suggested by ODOT would ensure that no one could rely on the WEP’s existence in the TransPlan in order to try to justify a re-zoning or similar re-designation. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to extend the City Council meeting by ten minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Pryor believed that the WEP was most likely never going to happen. He was committed to a variety of post-WEP projects such as the West Eugene Collaborative. He felt the staff recommendations were probably the way the council needed to go. He said he would not be supporting Ms. Bettman’s motion, primarily because he felt the timing of the relevant issues were better addressed by staff’s recommendations. Mr. Clark could not support Ms. Bettman’s motion primarily because he felt it would lead to an inefficient use of staff time in relation to the other corridor studies, as well as because of the potential for other people to abuse the WEP as justification for Goal 12 findings. Ms. Bettman said removing the WEP from the RTP only meant that it would not receive Federal funding and that leaving it in the TransPlan with the caveat that you could not use it to develop would not mean that the WEP could never be built. Ms. Bettman, referring to the record of decision from 2006 on the matter, felt a 2011 update of the TransPlan was overly optimistic. She felt that her motion to delete the WEP was timely as the council was initiating TransPlan amendments anyway. She said leaving the WEP in the TransPlan would lead to a huge public outcry and take focus off of other important transportation issues. She said the council needed to put a stake in the heart of the project. Mr. Zelenka felt the City’s relationship with ODOT was actually quite good despite rumors to the contrary. Mr. Zelenka asked why the staff’s recommendations to amend the TransPlan were not required to be initiated as motions brought by the City Council. Mr. Inerfeld did not believe staff needed a motion by the council to initiate amendments. Ms. Bettman said that motions were indeed required and that the staff’s recommended amendments were due to be tabled as a motion at the City Council meeting as part of the work plan on September 15, 2008. Mr. Zelenka said the City did not actually have a regional transportation plan, but rather grouped several local transportation plans into what City Staff referred to as a regional transportation plan. Mr. Zelenka said it was very inefficient to have to employ both State and Federal processes with regard to transportation planning. Mr. Inerfeld commented that the City was moving in the direction of having its own transportation system plan and that the City would need to have at least two plans. Mayor Piercy called for a vote on Ms. Bettman’s motion to initiate a TransPlan amendment to delete the West Eugene Parkway (WEP) from the project list and Plan as part of the short term amendments, and to add the two Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) th facility projects, West 11 Avenue from Terry Street to Greenhill Road, and the Beltline Highway from River Road to Delta Highway, into the constrained project lists. The motion tied, 4:4; Zelenka, Bettman, Taylor, Ortiz in favor; Clark, Poling, Solomon, Pryor against. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2008 Page 11 Work Session Mayor Piercy voted to break the tie in favor of the motion. The motion carried, 5:4. The meeting adjourned at 1:41 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2008 Page 12 Work Session