Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ms. Bettman declared that she had a “major problem” with Lane County’s decision to waive the requirement <br />for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon expressed hope that the council would not make this issue “unnecessarily excruciating” for <br />anyone involved. She felt the information that had been provided was thorough and the councilors had been <br />allowed adequate time to digest the information. She wanted to have a thoughtful and deliberative <br />discussion that would move toward resolution in a timely fashion. <br /> <br />Mr. Yeiter stated that Step 1 on the worksheet asked if the Post-Acknowledgement Plan Amendment <br />(PAPA) information was adequate. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman reiterated her feeling that a TIA was necessary in terms of information needed for a decision to <br />be made. She disagreed with the assumption that the actual production would not increase. She believed <br />there could be impacts to local transportation infrastructure. She also thought an Economic, Social, <br />Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) assessment should be conducted. She averred that the sampling had <br />been performed in a way that mixed aggregates so that even though the quantity was established, the <br />quantity of the standard that was to be fulfilled was inadequate because of this mixing. She doubted <br />whether the resource was significant. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy noted that the Eugene Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the PAPA was adequate <br />and that the Lane County Planning Commission voted 4:2 that the PAPA was adequate. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Yeiter stated that the planning commissions found there to <br />be enough information upon which to base a decision. He said even if the majority found there was adequate <br />information, the issues could be raised under each topic. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark surmised that the commissions ascertained there was sufficient information without the TIA. He <br />asked what the legal standard was for adequacy of information. <br /> <br />Ms. Jerome explained that the OAR listed five factors for adequacy. She cited an attachment to the staff <br />report from the date of the hearing and noted that it had listed the OAR criteria. She stated that the Planning <br />Commission, based on County staff recommendations, found that there was enough information in current <br />plans about that area and this had been deemed sufficient. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy called for a straw vote. <br /> <br />Straw vote: the information in the PAPA was deemed adequate by a 5:3 vote; Ms. Ortiz, Ms. <br />Bettman, and Ms. Taylor voting no. <br /> <br />Mr. Yeiter explained that Step 2 on the worksheet referred to the quality and quantity of the aggregate <br />resource. He recalled the substantial testimony from the geologist regarding whether the site qualified as a <br />substantial resource and as a Goal 5 resource. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy noted that the Eugene Planning Commission indicated by a 3:2 vote that it considered the site <br />to contain significant material and the Lane County Planning Commission indicated its feeling that the site <br />was an inadequate resource by a 4:2 vote. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 21, 2007 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br />