Item 1: PH on Ordinance Amending Metro Plan (Delta Sand and Gravel)

Home Browse Search

would need to go to Step'4~ It would be appropriate at thistime if the Planning'Commissions chose to recommend.whether or not this application met the requirements for a Metro Plan amendment. In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Howe said if the elected' officials felt the conflict had been minimized there was no need to go through the ESEE analysis. Otherwise, the applicant has the burden of going through the ESEE analysis. Mr. Sullivan said he felt compelled to explain to the Board of Commissioners why he was in'the minority on every vote. It might be appropriate for each commissioner be given an opportunity to explain clearly why there were in majority support or majority opposition. Ms. Colbath said under their process, if there are any commissioners who were in the minority, a minority report could be forwarded to the Eugene City Council along with it's the Planning Commission's' recommendations. Mr. Carmichael noted consensus to follow Mr. Sullivan's suggestion. Mr.- Siekiel-Zdzienicki said the City of Eugene made a major mistake by not annexing but by allowing residential land along the future extraction ar.ea, rather than creating a heavy indq,strial to a light indu$trial to a commercial to a multi family to a buffer zone these problems would not exist if a buffer zone had been created. He said dust and water issues had not be~n adequately addressed, and he would deny the application because he did not think the issues could be' mitigated. Mr. Becker said it was difficult to support action that would move a mining operation within 150 feet of residential properties, and he would vote to 'deny the approval of the application. Mr. Carroll ,had nothing further to, add. .Mr. Duncan would wait ~ilJhe mi~Q!i!y_~ort was publis4~________~______,____,___,______________,__,__'_'" Ms. Colbath passed. Mr. Sullivan said this was a difficult deliberation. This was a larger issue than an aquifer or a question of whether flood waters could be present, and cited several points supporting his position: . The applicant clearly qualified as a PAPA as provided by LCDC. The property was contiguous to an .existing, approved sand and gravel operations. Goal 5 resources would' be protected and future. approval woul~ be subject to DOGAMI regUlations in accordance with the Metro Plan. .. . Many of the minimizations proposed would be measured omy after construction began. He said he . would support verification on conditions of approval by authorized authorities. . State Goal 9, economic development, relied on this' critical component for environmental and economic development. . The applicant listened to the opponents, and hadinade some of the requested changes. . This was an issue of balance, but the balance had to do with.Goal5, that stated when there was a conflict that could be minimized then Goal 5 superseded agricultural land. . The Lane County comprehensive plan stated that the county was required to protect aggregate deposits from encroachment. The applicant did not encroach upon the residential area; rather, the residential area, through no fault of the residents, had encroached upon a very val':lable Goal 5 resource that was needed in this ar~a for both environmental and agricultural purposes. . Randy Moore, from t4e responsible enforcement agency, had assured the commission in writing that . if t~e ~pplicatio.n' ~as approved by the Board. of Commissioners and the .Eugene City. Council, he