Item 1: JEO Meeting: Delta Sand & Gravel

Home Browse Search

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