Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 11/28/05 Mtg M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Session Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall November 28, 2005 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Andrea Ortiz, Gary Papé. Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy welcomed everyone to the City Council meeting and reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. th Lauri Segel , 1210 East 29 Place, said while she was supportive of the West Eugene Wetlands Education Center, she was uncertain whether it was appropriate for the site to be on soil that supported Kincaid’s Lupine and the Fender Blue Butterfly. She remarked that it had not been mapped as habitat but she did not understand why. She thought it was a “stepping stone” site for migrating butterflies. She felt additional information was needed and this information had the potential to drive the City to consider other locations. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, reiterated his objection to the use of “less-than-lethal” weapons by the Eugene Police Department (EPD). He felt police charges against him had been retaliatory. He said the charges had cost him $90 and declared that the District Attorney should print a check for $90 to reimburse him. He commented that the only way to solve police problems was for people to come forward, “people who have been attacked and stolen from.” Mr. Vishanoff said, regarding the issue of homelessness, the City should discuss the University of Oregon’s proposal to build a basketball arena. He repeated his long-held assertion that more public input was needed regarding this issue. Joe Christison , 1535 Garfield Place, spoke regarding the University of Oregon’s announcement that it would sell its Westmoreland Student Family Housing complex. He underscored that students who lived at Westmoreland were lower income members of the community. He averred that affordable housing was a key component to upward mobility and diversity. He stressed that minority group members and non- traditional or older students had special needs. He asked the council to consider what would happen to the community if there was no access to higher education. He noted the recent riots in France, which were riots he felt were caused by despair. He hoped the council would speak out against the sale because students really needed the complex. He said there were no other affordable housing options to take the place of Westmoreland. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 1 Regular Session th David Watson , 2131 West 16 Way, said he was also a Westmoreland Student Family Housing resident. He assumed the council already had the facts so he wished to share the personal consequences the loss of Westmoreland would bring about. He felt fortunate that he would graduate by the time the sale went through. Had Westmoreland been sold the previous year, however, he would not have been able to graduate from school. He related that he and his wife did not have a low enough income to qualify for low-income housing. He said the two of them “took a gamble” and sacrificed day-to-day amenities six years earlier in order to get educated and take a “larger piece of the pie.” He shared their struggle through college, taking small jobs such as delivering pizza to get by. He felt that, should Westmoreland become low-income housing, it would be populated with residents who lack direction and the resources to better their lives. Joe Collins , 2333 Hawkins Lane, was pleased to see that the charter amendment passed and a police oversight body would be formed. He opined that the EPD needed such oversight. He related his strong suspicions that his neighbor was a drug dealer and his experience with trying to document it and raise police awareness about it. He said the police were not responsive enough. He suggested that the District Attorney’s office and judges also needed oversight. He thought District Attorney Harcleroad and Police Chief Lehner should be fired. He said more information was available on his Web site: www.seethelawsuck.com. th Tim Whitley , 280 West 30 Avenue, spoke in support of the land transfer to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the purpose of establishing the West Eugene Wetlands Education Center. He declared the benefits of supporting the land transfer were many. He noted the land proposed to be transferred would remain in the public trust and would remain accessible to the public. He underscored that the City was working in partnership with the BLM, an agency that shared community goals, and the transfer would bring BLM management into play on the property. He said the primary purpose of the education center was as a community asset to help educate the youth and all of the community about the excellent environment that all experienced in the area. He encouraged the council to support the land transfer to help in the six-year effort to construct the West Eugene Wetlands Environmental Education Center. Teresa Damron , 605 Howard Avenue, wished to convey a River Avenue Stakeholders Group minority report. She said she had struggled to find where the win-win solution would be. She asserted that many group members wanted the work to be postponed until the plans that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) had for the River Avenue connection to Beltline Highway were known. She related that she read in an email that all of the minority report requests could be incorporated into the project. She asked the council to put language in its vote on the matter that would guarantee the requests listed in the minority report would be incorporated into the River Avenue project. She averred that if the council would do so it would have her full support. Kevin Matthews , Box 1588, Eugene, president of the Friends of Eugene, declared he had “process concerns.” He averred that the Parks Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan raised significant questions. He asked the status of the plan and how it would replace the existing plan. He asked how land inventories were treated for different lands, such as wetlands. He felt these questions warranted input, but thought it would be better to answer the questions before the public hearing. Regarding the proposed land transfer for the environmental education center, he asked that the motion include language that indicated that the letter of intent would not preclude a large amount of “necessary additional research” and moving to MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 2 Regular Session better site and transfer options if research identified them. He called it a “nuanced thing.” He thought it would be a “little too casual” to proceed with the transfer without putting the extra language into the motion. Bing Li , 1569 Garfield Place, stated that she was chairperson of the Westmoreland Tenants Council. She said without Westmoreland Student Family Housing, the University of Oregon would only offer 350 apartments for student families. She underscored that the current student population was 23,000 and increasingly fewer apartments were available. She declared that the university was disingenuous in the information it provided to the public that indicated the sale of Westmoreland was due to high maintenance costs. She asserted that the State paid for maintenance. She pointed to the University’s assertion that a two-percent return on its investment was not enough and opined that the University was not a business. She said the University alleged that there were structural problems, yet tenants heard from another consultant that the place could last another 50 to 100 years. She stated that the Westmoreland complex had a 95 percent occupancy rate and not 87 percent as reported in the news by the University. She stressed that this issue was not just about Westmoreland, it was about the whole community. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and called for questions and comments from the council. No comments were offered at this time. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes -October 12, 2005, Work Session -October 19, 2005, Workshop B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Approval of Home Investment Partnerships Program Funding to Acquire Existing Housing Units Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilor Bettman said she submitted minutes corrections electronically. Mayor Piercy deemed the corrections, without objection, approved. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 3.ACTION: Minor Land Use Code Amendments An Ordinance Concerning Land Use; Amending Sections 9.0500, 9.2160, 9.2161, 9.2171, 9.2173, 9.2180, 9.2450, 9.2470, 9.2683, 9.2685, 9.2686, 9.2741, 9.2760, 9.2761, 9.2775, 9.2795, 9.3220, 9.3822, 9.3910, 9.4730, 9.4830, 9.5250, 9.5350, 9.5500, 9.5750, 9.5800, 9.6105, 9.6410, 9.6420, 9.6610, 9.6615, 9.6630, 9.6640, 9.6650, 9.6670, 9.6709, 9.6730, 9.6745, 9.6805, 9.6810, 9.6815, 9.6820, 9.6830, 9.6870, 9.6885, 9.7015, 9.7020, 9.7110, 9.7605, 9.7655, 9.7805, 9.7885, 9.8010, 9.8030, 9.8055, 9.8090, 9.8215, 9.8220, 9.8310, 9.8320, 9.8325, 9.8410, 9.8440, 9.8515, 9.8520, MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 3 Regular Session 9.8700, 9.8710, 9.8715, and 9.8720 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adding Sections 9.8335 and 9.8580 to that Code; and Providing Effective Dates City Manager Taylor stated that Steve Nystrom, Principal Planner for the Planning and Development Department (PDD), had returned as lead staff person for the minor land use code amendments. Mr. Nystrom called attention to the motions before the council. He thought, in general, that staff had worked with the various motions and tried to respond to council concerns or questions that had been raised. He hoped it helped to clarify or alleviate concerns that had been expressed. He said staff was in support of the amendments by and large. He asked the council to consider adoption of the ordinance with the proposed motions before it. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4910, an ordinance concerning minor land use code amendments. Councilor Papé said he did not find language on corner lots and fence heights, a concern of his constituents. Mr. Nystrom responded that an amendment regarding this item had initially been considered but enough concerns were expressed about policy issues surrounding it that it had been deferred to the second round of code amendments. City Attorney Glenn Klein clarified at Councilor Kelly’s request that the Staff Recommended Motions (A) through (E) provided in Attachment A to the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) could be made individually and could be referenced by letter. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to amend the motion with Staff Recommended Motion (A) from page 235 of the Agenda Item Summary. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to amend the motion with Staff Recommended Motion (B) from page 235 of the Agenda Item Summary. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to replace Staff Recommended Motion (B) with a motion to amend Council Bill 4910, Section 13, to remove any proposed revisions to the current code entries for lot area minimum for duplex, triplex, and fourplex lots on Eugene Code (EC) Table 9.2760. Councilor Bettman averred that policy issues were involved in Section 13 and, as such, she would prefer to have those discussions when the council talked about major land use code amendments. Councilor Solomon asked Mr. Nystrom for his input on the amendment. Mr. Nystrom responded that the City had on its books for a long time an option for people subdividing land which allowed them to create R- 1 lots for alternative housing types such as duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes. He said the question for staff had to do with how to address a larger lot meant for a fourplex that was sold by a developer to someone who wanted to build a single-family home and whether an exception to the lot size limit for such a home could be allowed. He stated that should the amendment not be approved, a lot designated for a duplex and so on MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 4 Regular Session would be required to remain so designated. He noted that PDD only saw one or two of such requests per year. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Solomon, Mr. Nystrom affirmed that the substitute motion would remove the original amendment’s flexibility. He reiterated that the current language was inflexible and the original amendment had sought to increase the flexibility. He thought, should the code remain the same, staff would have to be more “up front” with developers so that it was understood that a designation could not be changed at a later date. Councilor Kelly acknowledged that this referred to land zoned R-1, residential, only and that R-1 land had no minimum density requirements. However, he wished to underscore that the City’s growth management policy sought to promote density. He asked if the fact that a developer would label a lot for a duplex, triplex, or fourplex would have any impact on whether an application was approved or denied. Mr. Nystrom replied that it did in terms of maximum density. He said the number of units proposed could not exceed the maximum. Councilor Kelly asked why a developer would ever designate a lot for a duplex, triplex, or fourplex. Mr. Nystrom replied that it was in essence a streamlined approach that would allow a developer to create such units without having to go through a planned unit development (PUD) process. Councilor Kelly indicated that he was willing to support Councilor Bettman’s amendment if only to bring it back for more discussion in the second round of amendments. Councilor Bettman averred that if flexibility such as the original amendment would allow was approved, a person who was zoned for a fourplex could build a single-family house on a 16,000 square foot lot. She felt a developer could “totally circumvent” the maximum lot size and this was antithetical to the City’s growth management policies. Councilor Papé indicated his willingness to delay the discussion. He thought he would advocate for allowing some flexibility to take things one step down, such as allowing a fourplex to be replaced by a triplex. In response to a question from Councilor Solomon, Mr. Nystrom affirmed that the topic would be deferred to next round of potential amendments with a yes vote on Councilor Bettman’s substitute amendment. He could not say what would happen to the proposed amendment next, except that it would be placed on the list for the Planning Commission to review in the next phase. Roll call vote; the motion to substitute Councilor Bettman’s motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Poling voting in opposition. Roll call vote; the amended Staff Recommended Motion (B) passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to amend the motion with Staff Recommended Motion (C) from page 236 of the Agenda Item Summary. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 5 Regular Session Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to amend the motion with Staff Recommended Motion (D) from page 236 of the Agenda Item Summary. Councilor Kelly explained that the issue was related to cul-de-sacs and accessibility in cul-de-sacs. He appreciated Mr. Nystrom’s response to his concerns, but he still had an issue with the language. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to amend the motion to replace the word ‘may’ in proposed EC 9.6820 with the word ‘shall.’ Councilor Papé thought the amendment seemed reasonable, but he asked staff to respond to it. Mr. Nystrom explained that the intent was to make it clear that the ‘require’ statement had limitations, mostly to do with exactions and findings for making those exactions, and by having strong language it could read in a way that seemed to preempt the provisions. He said it was more for the reader than for anything else, because the code still had to do with “Dolan” issues and, legally speaking, the code still had to deal with those issues regardless of whether the language said ‘may’ or ‘shall.’ Roll call vote; the motion to amend Staff Recommended Motion (D) passed unanimously, 8:0. Roll call vote; the amended Staff Recommended Motion (D) passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to amend the motion with Staff Recommended Motion (E) from page 237 of the Agenda Item Summary. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved that Council Bill 4910, Section 2, be amended to remove any proposed revisions to the current code entry for Recreational Vehicles and Heavy Truck, Sales/Rental/Service on EC Table 9.2160. Councilor Bettman expressed concern that the proposed land use code amendment, without her amendment, would permit recreational vehicle and heavy truck sales, rental, and service businesses to develop in all C-2, Commercial areas including those in the downtown area and other areas she felt would be inappropriate for that use. She noted that such a business could still apply for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in order to locate in an area that was zoned C-2 and this would allow the public to weigh in on it. Councilor Kelly commented that it was a policy issue, though a relatively minor one. He also thought it had potential to increase property value on some parcels and, as such, should be deferred until the City Council discussion on the Ballot Measure 37 “givings” tax. He indicated his support for the amendment. Councilor Pryor asked to what degree recreational vehicle and heavy truck sales, rental, and service facilities differentiated from motor vehicle sales, rental, and service facilities. He wondered if it had to do with the size of the facility or its impact on the land. Mr. Nystrom replied that he could not speak to the origin of how the two uses were separated initially as it happened “many years ago in the code.” He assumed that it had to do with the size of the vehicles and the larger visual impacts they had. He said the issue staff raised was that they were seen infrequently and tended to be in locations that had not had the kinds of concerns and issues that were raised by Councilor Bettman. He stated that they were typically in areas that were a little MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 6 Regular Session more impacted with other commercial uses and auto-related uses. He said a CUP typically addressed compatibility and impact issues and the reality had been that the sites that had been brought forward did not have those kinds of concerns. He felt there had not been a lot of value gained in the larger process. Councilor Pryor asked if Mr. Nystrom could think of any inherent reason why a recreational vehicle lot would be significantly different from a car lot aside from the size of the vehicle. Mr. Nystrom replied that he could not. Councilor Pryor asked if the lots themselves were considerably larger than car lots. Mr. Nystrom responded that this was not typically the case. Councilor Solomon favored the staff-recommended motion. In response to a question from Councilor Solomon, Mr. Nystrom said land zoned C-3 was typically commercial land in the downtown area and auto-related uses were discouraged in general in that area. Councilor Bettman averred that larger vehicles had an impact on the size and nature of the site and the adjacent transportation infrastructure. She felt this use should be allowed by CUP only in land that was zoned C-2. Roll call vote; the vote to amend was a 4:4 tie; councilors Bettman, Ortiz, Kelly and Taylor voting in favor and councilors Poling, Solomon, Papé, and Pryor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy cast a vote in support of the amendment and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved that Council Bill 4910, Section 14, be amended to delete proposed subsection (5)(d) from EC 9.2761. Councilor Bettman opposed the subsection because she felt ‘natural resources’ was not defined in the language. She thought it would provide exceptions to maximum lot size on “very general, broad, and un- defined terms.” In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, Mr. Nystrom stated that there were references within the criteria of approval for many of the land use applications that would be triggering this issue. He said there were ways to look at linking them. He commented that it became a “word smithing” challenge to corral what natural area issues would be. He acknowledged that to Councilor Bettman it seemed too broad. He said there was language in the code now through the land use applications that one could try to link to and he was uncertain if there was a simple amendment that would satisfy all of the council, as the language was a little different in each application as well. Councilor Kelly supported the amendment in order to add the item to the second round of land use code amendments for further discussion. Councilor Taylor asked if the natural resources could be trees. Mr. Nystrom replied that it was one of the areas that could be identified in the land use criteria. He observed that one of the concerns, if one looked at it from a “Goal 5 point-of-view,” is that it would not necessarily be inclusive enough. He said, however, that if one looked at the criteria for the underlying land use applications, it would include things like trees and some other key vegetation. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 7 Regular Session Councilor Bettman opined that the language was too general. She was concerned that a developer could use such general language to gain exemptions to the maximum lot size based on a natural resource, such as a tree, and then build a house and cut down the tree. She felt there was no enforcement. She averred it was vague and unless the phrasing was wordsmithed it was a good discussion to have in the second phase. She also thought there were issues of the Goal 5 natural resources and there were provisions for adjusting setbacks according to the natural resources that were being protected. In response to question from Councilor Papé, Mr. Nystrom stated that in larger scale projects, especially a PUD, there were tools that allowed planners to look at the “balancing act” more holistically. He said it was the smaller scale projects that had less flexibility and this language sought to provide them with a little more flexibility. Councilor Papé said while he appreciated Councilor Bettman’s concerns, he thought the council needed to trust staff and delegate. He indicated he would oppose the motion. Roll call vote; the motion to amend failed, 5:3; councilors Bettman, Taylor, and Kelly voting in favor. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved that Council Bill 4910, Section 14, be amended to remove any proposed revisions to the current code entry for subsection (6) of EC 9.2761. Councilor Bettman explained that this motion accompanied the first amendment she proposed and the council had passed. Mr. Nystrom concurred. He said it was a companion piece to this and in essence was a narrative explaining the same intent. Roll call vote; the motion to amend passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Taylor moved that Council Bill 4910, Section 15, be amended to remove any proposed revisions to subsection (1) “Purpose of EC 9.2775.” The motion died for lack of a second. Councilor Bettman said she would vote to oppose the motion. She thought the process had been constrained by the number of code revisions the council had to review and the time allotted to review them. She felt there was a trend toward decreasing densities in wealthier neighborhoods, allowing a code that made it easier to have larger lot sizes and less density in new development. She asserted that this differed from what the City was doing in existing neighborhoods, which was cramming in infill without design standards. She opined that the direction the code changes were headed in was toward a fundamental inequity. Councilor Bettman also requested that fewer code amendments be submitted at a time for council review. She felt most of the councilors did not even know what was in the code amendments and the impact they would have on the ground and the neighborhoods in their wards. She asked that the next batch of code amendments contain less land use amendments to consider. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 8 Regular Session Councilor Kelly asked that staff let him know what the public process would be for the second round of land use code amendments as constituents had been asking him this. He agreed with Councilor Bettman’s suggestion to bundle amendments in smaller amounts. He thought the amendments should be bundled by category. Councilor Taylor agreed with Councilor Bettman’s assertion that having over 80 minor code amendments was too much. She also thought the amendments should be submitted in smaller amounts. Mayor Piercy said she was impressed by how staff walked the council through some of the amendments. Roll call vote; the main motion as amended passed, 7:1; Councilor Bettman voting in opposition. 4. ACTION: th An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of the Alley Right-of-Way Located Between 10 Avenue and Broadway, Parallel to Olive and Charnelton Streets; Providing for and Effective Date; and Providing for a Sunset Date Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved that the City Council adopt th Council Bill 4911, an ordinance concerning alley vacation between 10 Avenue and Broadway. City Attorney Klein noted that Attachment C on page 341 of the council packet contained an improved version of the ordinance that indicated the alley vacation would not go through should the Oregon Research Institute (ORI) deal not go through. He asked that Councilor Poling specify which version of the ordinance the council would consider adopting. Councilor Poling specified that he moved Ordinance B, from page 341 of the council packet. City Manager Taylor said this issue was a matter of some urgency as the financing for the ORI was conditioned on new market tax credits that would expire at the end of 2005. He urged the council to adopt the improved version of the ordinance and underscored its specificity to the ORI deal. Councilor Bettman supported the motion. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 5. ACTION: Land Transfer to Bureau of Land Management (Environmental Education Center) City Manager Taylor asked Sarah Medary, Natural Resources Manager for the Parks and Open Spaces Division of the Public Works Department, to speak to issues that had been raised. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 9 Regular Session Ms. Medary said that staff was working through the next steps of building the Environmental Education Center (EEC). She stated that the federally owned “Red House property” had to be transferred into local ownership in order to continue working towards a multi-partner development of the site. She explained that in working with the Federal Congressional Delegation, they had been contacted by the Association of Oregon and California Counties (O & C) and it identified that the BLM site was purchased with funds generated from O & C lands. She stressed that the O & C had a “no net loss” policy with the BLM for O & C lands and asked the BLM to honor the policy. She said staff felt the land transfer would be a “win-win solution,” in that a parcel in West Eugene had been identified that had a majority of BLM funds in it as they had purchased an overlying/underlying conservation easement on it. She conveyed staff’s proposal that the City give the remaining fee title ownership on that piece of property to the BLM so that it could honor the “no net loss” policy with the O & C Counties. Ms. Medary noted that under the City ownership, the goals for the property proposed to be transferred were habitat conservation, natural resource values, recreation connections and the BLM shared those same goals. She stressed that this transfer did not represent any loss to the city. She asked the council to support the proposal, which would happen if and when the “Red House site” was legislatively transferred to the City of Eugene. She added that if the City was not able to build the ECC on that site, all of the transaction would be reverted and the City would retain ownership of the Quarry Lane site, the site proposed to be transferred. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to direct the City Manager to execute a land transfer of approximately 19 acres of the Quarry Lane site to the Bureau of Land Management, if needed, to satisfy the “no net loss” policy with the Association of Oregon and California Counties. Councilor Bettman felt there was not enough information in the AIS, though it sounded like a great plan. She said to receive the questions from Mr. Matthews and Ms. Segel had been troubling and this could have been circumvented had there been adequate information in the AIS. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. Medary said the “Red House” site had buildings on it, adding that this was one of the reasons it was considered an ideal site. Councilor Bettman asked what percentage of the site had buildings on it. Ms. Medary responded that most of the site was developed. Councilor Bettman asked what the comparative costs of the sites were. Ms. Medary replied that the Quarry Lane site had cost the City $28,000 and cost the BLM approximately $121,000. She said the City would be giving its $28,000 investment and receiving in return 12 acres inside the UGB at the “Red House” site. Councilor Papé questioned the equity of trading a 19-acre parcel for a 12-acre parcel. Ms. Medary responded that the portion of the site on which the BLM had a conservation easement was 19 acres. She averred that it made sense to pick a piece on which the BLM had already done the work to transfer it into their ownership. She stressed that no additional cost would be brought about by trying to subdivide or do additional survey work on the property as it stood. Councilor Papé expressed concern that this would take 19 acres out of the City’s parks inventory and would only receive 12 acres. Ms. Medary responded that the land would still be in the partnership and would still be publicly owned and tagged together with all of the parcels in West Eugene. She recognized his point, but MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 10 Regular Session wished to underscore that people would walk from one parcel to the next and not readily understand which government agency owned which parcel. Councilor Papé asked what it would take to partition the property and only give the BLM 12 acres. City Manager Taylor replied that he did not know what it would take but it would raise the cost and increase the timeline. He had thought the land transfer was a way to satisfy the O & C concerns and still hold the land in good stewardship. Councilor Papé asked if it would be possible for the BLM to give the City more than 12 acres in exchange for the 19 acre property. City Manager Taylor responded that this would just take longer and part of the reason this item was before the City Council at this meeting was so that the City could move forward with some of the work that was hoped to get accomplished as part of the United Lobbying Front in this next legislative cycle. Councilor Pryor remarked that this transfer might not be absolutely the most perfect deal, but he thought it was a good deal and supported it wholeheartedly. He recalled that he had been supportive of the education center when he had served on the School Board for School District 4J. He supported this motion because it brought the City and schools one step closer to getting the center “to happen.” He did not think the City was exposing itself to an unreasonable level of risk on this deal because if it did not go through everything was required to revert back. Councilor Kelly appreciated Councilor Papé’s comments regarding getting a “like for like acreage.” However, given that the City was receiving a multi-million dollar value in the education center site versus the $28,000 investment the City had made in the Quarry Lane property, he was comfortable in “keeping it simple.” He noted that the Quarry Lane property was outside of the UGB. He acknowledged that it was going to take an act of Congress to transfer the land to the City and indicated he was happy to support the motion in order to bring the transfer to closure in a timely fashion. Councilor Taylor asked if there was urgency in this motion. Ms. Medary replied that there was. She stressed that it was urgent that the bill get introduced in front of Congress before the end of the year. She said much was riding on it, including the possible loss of funds from School District 4J. Councilor Taylor said Mr. Matthews and Ms. Segel brought to her attention that more time to analyze the site may be needed. She also thought more public input could be necessary. Ms. Medary underscored that at this meeting no decisions about building the education center were being made. She stated that if the land was actually critical habitat, all of the necessary steps would have to be taken and there would also be a public hearing related to zoning changes needed to build the education center at all. Intergovernmental Relations Manager Jason Heuser said the Oregon delegation staff had advised staff that they had 10 months to get the bill through the “labyrinth that is congressional politics” and seek passage of the bill. He stated that if it could not be done in 10 months, all of the bills in the hopper in November would expire and a new session of congress would begin when everything went back to “point zero” to start over again. He projected that this would delay the progress of the education center by one to two years. He stressed that the delegation wanted to act quickly and was prepared to introduce legislation, possibly in December. He hoped to get this issue resolved at this meeting in order to beat the 10-month window. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 11 Regular Session Councilor Papé commented that the motion did not seem to contain all of the “what ifs.” He asked if there was sufficient language in the motion to ask for reversions in the document. Mr. Klein responded that the motion was sufficient to authorize the City Manager to move forward in the process and should there be reversions, there was the legislative history to back it up. Mayor Piercy averred that the center would be valuable to the community and acknowledged that many people in the community had worked for it. She encouraged the council to support it. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 12 Regular Session