Item 1: JEO Meeting: Delta Sand & Gravel

Home Browse Search

Commissioners heard from the City Council. He reviewed the timeline for the process, noting that the last comments from Douglas DuPriest, attorney for the organized opposition, and Steve Cornacchia, attorney for Delta Sand and Gravel were included in the last packet the City Council had received. He related that during the public review period a series of questions from Ms. Bettman had been submitted, but the staff timeframe was short and staff had answered the questions it was able to respond to. Mr. Yeiter stressed that the decision should be based upon the record. He said the City would provide general recommendations to the County, so that as much as the council could come to agreement regarding where the potential conflicts were and what the conflicts were that were not minimized or mitigated the council could then forward its input to the Board of Commissioners. He underscored that the process was well-regulated by state law. He cited the proposed gravel extraction versus housing as an example of a potential conflict. He said the councilors then needed to decide if the conflicts were minimized. He related that state law required that where there were existing regulations that dealt with impacts or conflicts that those regulations would serve as the threshold for minimization and if the application and proposed use would meet those thresholds, they were by definition minimized. Mr. Yeiter welcomed Kent Howe, Lane County Planning Director, and Stephanie Schulz, Project Manager for Lane County Public Works. He also noted that City Attorney Emily Jerome was present to provide legal counsel. Mr. Zelenka asked Mr. Yeiter to review the Lane County Planning Commission’s conflicts and the Eugene Planning Commission’s conflicts that commissioners felt were not mitigated. Mr. Yeiter noted he had prepared a summary, Attachment E in the packet. He stated that both commissions felt the information was adequate, but the Eugene commission felt the site qualified as a significant aggregate resource and the County commission found that the sampling method was inadequate. He reported that both commissions found that potential conflicts having to do with dust, noise, groundwater, wetlands and sensitive habitat, and agriculture existed. He summarized the Eugene Planning Commission’s findings which were that the impact that was not minimized was dust. He related that the County had found there would be no impact to traffic and this was not challenged through the planning commission process. Ms. Bettman noted that the materials indicated that if the County and the City could not agree on the impacts and minimization efforts the issue would go to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) for dispute resolution. She considered this to be a “very undesirable” outcome of the process. She was uncertain how the MPC would address such an issue, given that the consortium included the City of Coburg, Lane Transit District (LTD), and the City of Springfield and those members had not been at the hearings nor had they reviewed all of the materials. Mr. Yeiter responded that both the City and the County code indicated that the decisions in order to become effective must be the same but the codes did not define ‘same.’ He said legal counsel for both entities extrapolated from the codes that the two should be unified in whether the amendment was approved or denied, but the findings could be different. He explained that staff recommended a straw vote at this time because it would allow the City and the County to “go back and forth.” He conveyed staff’s desire for as much detail as possible. Ms. Jerome clarified the staff recommendation. She said one of the ways the County proposed that certain impacts be minimized was through the imposition of conditions that only the County could impose. She averred that she would not want to see the council take specific action until the council had specific assurances or could see that the County was heading in a direction that would accommodate the minimization conditions the councilors desired to be imposed. She believed the PA05-6151: Delta Sand & Gravel Deliberation Votes – Metro Plan Amendment and Rezone worksheet County staff had prepared MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 21, 2007 Page 2 Work Session