CC Minutes - 01/16/08 Joint Elected Officials

Home Browse Search

Clark asked how the Board reached their vote. Dwyer stated his decision was based on the record. He said the record indicates that these things have worked in the past. He added that they will put in the specifications for the aquaclude and if anything happens, the application said they would mitigate the program caused by a problem. Bettman asked what the purpose of this meeting was. Dwyer said they have a process and people are entitled to a conclusion to a process. He said if they don’t like the conclusion, they have to be able to access the procedural rights that allow this to move forward. He added by the council not taking a position, they are denying the procedural rights of an applicant that deserves some finality or a way to move forward to get to a conclusion. He said it is not fair to allow a process to be thwarted. Dwyer thought the city council only took a straw vote. Bettman recalled that they were under the impression from their staff that they could spend time deliberating the other issues but since their definitive piece disagreed with the County’s finding, the only process is to take it to MPC. She said there is a process. She stated that the council did not thwart anyone’s rights. She said the council did what they needed to do in order to expedite the process. She commented that if there is no agreement on whether the resource is adequate. The rest is moot. Stewart stated they were told by staff that a straw poll was made and it wasn’t a final decision and a final decision hadn’t been made yet. He said they were also told by staff that some of the deliberations the County had might help move the city council to a final decision. He said the County hasn’t made its final decision but they are prepared to adopt the findings. He stated the county and city are at differences. He asked if they go to the MPC process if they could work out the differences. He added up to this point they were not lead to believe that the straw poll was a final decision. Emily Jerome, City of Eugene, responded that what the County has done has placed the County and city in the same position. She said both bodies have taken votes (straw polls) on particular criteria and the MPC does not begin until both jurisdictions have adopted ordinances with findings and conclusions. She said the city council at any time could make that decision. She said if the ordinances differ, that is when it would be referred to MPC. Kurt Yeiter, City of Eugene, explained that they are not asking for council deliberation on the findings tonight. He said their recommendation is to bring back several options at a subsequent meeting with findings for all of the criteria for denying on the overarching issue of resource. Bettman said they took a formal motion to ask staff to prepare a resolution that finds that there was not sufficient evidence that a significant resource exists on the subject site consistent with the attached draft findings. She said someone asked if this superseded a straw poll and staff said it does. She stated that they revised it and talked about using an ordinance instead of a resolution. She said they look at internal factors whether there are issues of production changes or the product changing. She asked if they had looked at external factors such as initial operations and transportation issues. She said the Eugene Code requires a transportation impact analysis which has to cover 20 years. She added there is a state transportation planning rule that says if they change the use, it becomes a sub-study of the metro plan. She said it was designated as part of the inventory for residential property. She asked if the change of use triggers the state transportation rule. She asked if the County’s waiver supersedes the state 5 MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page Joint Elected Officials Meeting