Laserfiche WebLink
Dwyer indicated the staff report was provided at the November 1 meeting and staff from <br />public agencies were allowed to testify. He said that staff have provided a supplemental <br />packet of materials that have been received since the November 1 meeting. <br /> <br /> Mayor Piercy opened the Public Hearing for the City of Eugene. <br /> <br /> Commissioner Dwyer opened the Public Hearing for the Board of Commissioners. <br /> <br /> Steve Cornacchia, Eugene, spoke, representing the applicant. He reported that Delta <br />Sand and Gravel have determined that they have approximately 10 years’ inventory of <br />aggregate material at the current site. He added at its current rate of production, they <br />anticipate that in 10 years if not more is added to the site, it will mean the end of Delta <br />Sand and Gravel. He said the company had also determined that, with the exception area, <br />the addition of the 74 acres of the expansion area will extend the life of the company for <br />an additional 15 years. He said the one issue the Eugene Planning Commission did not <br />find in their favor was dust. He said they don’t create dust at the mining operation, but at <br />the crusher at the far extreme corner of the property against the river and Beltline. <br /> <br /> Cornacchia commented that the neighbors in the area of the gravel pit are convinced <br />Delta Sand and Gravel would make their lives miserable if the application is approved. <br />He said they know they could mine the area without a negative impact on the neighbors. <br />He said they have been mining for 40 years. He noted there are homes across from the <br />gravel pit and they dug across the street from the people within the last 15 years without <br />any issues with LRAPA or any regulator agency. He added they received no complaints. <br />He said that was a demonstration of the commitment the company has to being a good <br />steward, professional and ethical in the treatment of the land, and treatment and interface <br />with its neighbors. <br /> <br /> Cornacchia recalled in 1996 LCDC went through a process where they established new <br />rules for the Goal 5 resource. He indicated those rules were a direct result of continual <br />arguments and opposition whenever there was an aggregate facility proposed for <br />establishment or expansion. He said people believe it is impossible to have this type of <br />operation and a livable community next door. He said they have been doing it for 40 <br />years and the manner in which they have been doing it rendered a positive product to the <br />community. He said there was a lack of negative impact on existing neighbors. He said <br />the process for this has taken a year and there have been no complaints or issues with <br />LRAPA. He said what is most important for the criteria of the Goal 5 Rule is the <br />definition of minimization of conflicts. <br /> <br /> Cornacchia explained what they are required to do is to demonstrate there is an adequate <br />and significant resource. He said they are required to identify an impact area within <br />which potential conflicts could be identified. He said they have done that. He said they <br />are to identify the potential impacts that will be within the area. He added following that, <br />they need to demonstrate how those potential impacts will be minimized. He said if they <br />have done that, the rules state the elected officials shall approve if they make an <br />affirmative decision. He said the rules provide a tool to use throughout the consideration <br />Page 2 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 <br />WD bc/m/06121/T <br /> <br />