Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman felt the council was relying on the applicant’s assertion that traffic was not a factor. She <br />opined that this was not good government. She said with every development there was an assumption that <br />it would impact traffic. She felt that otherwise the City of Eugene would end up “holding the bill” for <br />whatever kinds of upgrades or improvements that would need to occur because of the traffic impact. She <br />averred that a TIA was just a part of conducting due diligence. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said while Ms. Bettman referred to this item as the council was relying on information from the <br />applicant, he would be relying on the unanimous consent of both planning commissions to guide his <br />decision. <br /> <br />Mr. Yeiter noted that there were three questions under Traffic and the City could find a conflict due to <br />traffic but it could also find such a conflict could be minimized through the imposition of conditions. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Clark, Mr. Yeiter affirmed that the planning commissions had not <br />challenged the County’s assertion that a TIA was not needed because of the consistency of production. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka surmised that this was because production would not be increased at this time. He pointed out <br />that unless there was a conditional use that would dictate that production would stay at that level, it could <br />change. He said if the gravel operation decided to double production there would be a concurrent doubling <br />of traffic. He did not see how they could make this assumption without making a conditional use <br />provision. <br /> <br />Ms. Jerome stated that the first step would be to determine the impact area, which could not be more than <br />1,500 feet from the proposed expansion area boundary unless there were circumstances that warranted the <br />consideration of a larger area. She noted that both planning commissions had found 1,500 feet to be the <br />appropriate area. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka indicated he would vote that this was a conflict because there was no indication that a <br />conditional use was being considered and no TIA to indicate otherwise. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark ascertained from Ms. Jerome that the council was to determine whether there was a current <br />conflict as opposed to a conflict over a period of time. He related that he had some concern regarding the <br />future of the company. He said if the current owners sold the business there would be no way to know <br />how the future owners would choose to operate the business at this point. He did not know if the council <br />could make this decision based on this potential. <br /> <br />Ms. Jerome commented that this pointed to the importance of making conditions. She did not think the <br />council could make a final decision without knowing where the County was going with respect to those <br />decisions. <br /> <br />Mr. Yeiter pointed out that aside from the county mining permits, production levels were also regulated by <br />LRAPA and other agencies. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to extend the meeting by five minutes. The <br />motion failed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in favor. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 1:31 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 21, 2007 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br />