Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Yeiter reviewed the applicable criterion related to consistency with relevant statewide planning goals with a focus on Goal 5 requirements. Mr. Yeiter recommended that the council use Attachment A, the Delta Sand and Gravel Decision Tree and Summary Findings, as a starting point for discussion, and provide broad direction to staff for revised findings if it found that necessary. Staff would revise the findings to the extent directed. He noted that Stephanie Schultz and Lane County Planner Director, Kent Howe, and Lane County Planner, Stephanie Schulz, were present, as was Emily Jerome of the City Attorney’s Office. Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. Ms. Bettman spoke to the issue of conflict resolution, determining from Ms. Jerome that the decision, if not unanimous, was not final for either jurisdiction. The Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) was then called upon to resolve the dispute with input from the applicant and interested parties, and then could make a recommendation to both bodies. The MPC could not force a particular outcome; the final decision was still up to the jurisdictions. Ms. Bettman spoke to the timeliness of the decision related to the application and asked why the MPC referral would be considered given that Eugene’s representatives were bound by the decision of the City Council. She pointed out that any vote taken at the MPC would require the City’s MPC representatives to uphold the council decision, further delaying the applicant or neighbors’ ability to seek a remedy or for the neighbors to seek a remedy through the appeals process. She asked if the council could dispense with that process. Ms. Jerome said no; the City and County both had code language that called for the MPC process. The council would have to pass a code amendment to override that provision. Continuing, Ms. Jerome said the matter must be referred to the MPC within five days and the MPC must meet within 30 days to discuss the matter, including an opportunity for public input that would not necessarily include a hearing but could include written testimony. Ms. Jerome said the MPC did not have to make a recommendation to the two jurisdictions, but if it chose to make a recommendation it must do so within 30 days. If the MPC did not act, the MPC would be considered to have denied the application. Responding to a follow-up question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Jerome said that the maximum time frame for MPC action would be 80 days. Ms. Solomon arrived. Ms. Bettman said it would be difficult for her to support Ordinance 1 as recommended by staff because it stated that the application was consistent with other criteria, and she did not agree. She noted the motion she intended to offer the council, dependent on discussion. Mr. Zelenka asked if adoption of Ordinance 1 suggested that the other issues identified in testimony could be mitigated. Mr. Yeiter said yes, with the exception of dust. Mr. Zelenka asked if the findings could be replaced by a finding that spoke only to the quantity of the resource and dust. Ms. Jerome said that the law indicated that once the council found a conflicting use could not be mitigated, it was next required to do an ESEE analysis to determine whether despite the lack of minimization, the aggregate use was so important that it should be allowed anyway. That was addressed in Ordinance 1. Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka about the potential response from LUBA, Ms. Jerome reminded him of the council’s finding that the site contained no significant aggregate resources, which was the focus of Ordinance 2; Ordinance 1 was broader. LUBA would have to determine the City was correct in regard to the resource to get to the conflicting use analysis. She reminded the council that the findings also spoke to MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 21, 2008 Page 2 Work Session