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

Home Browse Search

,Commission majority 'did not believe could be minimized to an acceptable level. The motion passed Wlanimously, 5:0. In response to a question from Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki, Mr. Howe stated that the Lane County Planning Commission needed to address the variance issue in its motion to provide direction to the Lane County Board of Commissioners. The Lane County Planning Commission took a recess from 8:00 p.m. to 8:05 p.m. Mr. Carmichael, seconded by Ms. Kirkham, moved to recommend to the Lane County Board of Co~ssioners that the Planning Commission felt the PAPA information was adequate and that the resource was not significant. Lane County Planning Commission did not find that the conflicts with dust, groundwater, wetlands and flooding were minimized and therefore could not recommend approval without an ESEE analysis. Ms. Arkin stated the Planning Commission never discussed whether or not it could approve the motion with approval of an ESEE.analysis. Following a brief discussion, Mr. Carmichael withdrew the motion. Ms. Arkin, seconded by ~. Siekiel-Zdzienicki, moved to recommend to the Lane County Board of Commissioners that the Planning Commission felt the PAPA information was adequate and that the resource was. not significant. In addition, the Lane County Planning Commission did not fmd that the conflicts with dust, groundwater, wetlands and flooding could be minimized to an acceptable level and therefore cannot recommend approval of the application. Mr. Sullivan said he would vote against the motion. Addressing the members of the public in attendance, he said while he often spoke sternly and in a straightfolWard manner, he had a great deal of compassion for the residents, in that he faced many of the same challenges. He was confident that the Eugene City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners would be highly compassionate towards the residents of the area to find balance. in their decision. He applauded the residents for their patience, courtesy and respectful behavior. The motion passed 4:2, with Commissioners Carmichael and Sullivan in opposition. Mr. -Belcher thanked'the Lane County Planning Commission for their efforts throughout this difficult process. , Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki said it was good to have a different perspective bro,ught forth by the Eugene Planning Commission on the issue. He added that the variance issue still needed to be discussed prior to the LCBCC meeting. ' Mr. Howe said staff heard the frustration expressed by'the lay members of the Planning Commission regarding their lack of experience and expertise. He added it was not expected that the commissioners would be experts on these issues, but rather it was the responsibility ,of the applicant and the opposition to provide convincing information. He added the LCBCC were not technical experts either, but relied upon the lay body to make recommendations that would help them as they worked their way through the process. .He commended, the commi,ssioners for their work on the issue.