Laserfiche WebLink
requirement that there be a transportation study. She added that the Eugene Code says the transportation <br />impact analysis has to cover 20 years. She said she reviewed the notes she took of the testimony and <br />had a note that stated Mike Alltucker in his comments said that currently they are producing 4 million <br />tons per year to be mined. She added that will increase to 8.5 million per year. She said that in their <br />testimony DS&G made the point that they were going to increase production and that is inconsistent <br />with the assertion in the application that production will not increase. She asked about the inconsistency. <br />She commented that over 20 years, if production varies and they excuse the TIA based on the claim on <br />the record, there will be a stable production over 20 years. She saw an inconsistency with the Eugene <br />Code requirements and with the State Transportation Planning rule and concerned about the conflicts <br />that are occurring and the interchanges are in a failure mode. She said with all of the specific criteria <br />they look at, that unless they do an ESEE analysis, there is no opportunity to look at the impact on the <br />people who have built houses and moved into their neighborhood. She noted that with every hearing, <br />there was never a representative of the company that showed up to say a housing development shouldn’t <br />have been built because they had the land and they planned to expand the gravel pit. She stated families <br />are now living there. She added that they are going to be impacting those families and their property <br />values. <br /> <br />Pryor recalled that after they had their joint meeting, the city just had one meeting to discuss this. He <br />recalled they voted to have a resolution prepared but didn’t’ remember voting on the resolution. They <br />told staff to prepare a resolution, but he didn’t think they had an official action. He recalled saying if <br />they can’t get past Step 2, they shouldn’t spend any more time on the rest of the steps. He commented <br />that if they focus at Step 2, it is a dead action. He didn’t think it was a productive use of time to process <br />all of the other decisions knowing they are going to reject them.. <br /> <br />Green read the council action after Step 2 as being done. He said under the Metro Plan Agreement, <br />there is a provision to go to MPC. He didn’t advocate that process as it doesn’t lend itself to a <br />resolution. He said they would spend too much time to go no where. He said the applicant deserves to <br />know this so they could go onto the next level. <br /> <br />Poling didn’t think they came to a conclusion on Step 2. He recalled the motion they passed was to <br />direct staff to prepare an ordinance. He said they never voted on the ordinance. He didn’t think Step 2 <br />was completed. <br /> <br />Piercy asked what the next step would be. <br /> <br />Howe said final action would be directed to the planning directors to draft the findings because there <br />wasn’t agreement. He thought the County wanted it with the perspective that the County was able to get <br />to yes, but the Eugene City Council couldn’t get past significance of a resource and the application <br />denied. <br /> <br />Dwyer commented that this process was not conducive to good government. He thought the quicker <br />they could come to a conclusion, the better off it would be for everyone. <br /> <br />Clark asked if this process is appealed to LUBA, if the City of Eugene would bear the sole costs for its <br />defense. <br /> <br />Jerome said that was a policy question for staff. <br /> <br /> <br />6 <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page <br /> Joint Elected Officials Meeting <br /> <br /> <br />