Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />Period: 1- Record'. open for submittal of. additional written infonnation .by any party . <br />. (including applicant) for _ weeks; <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. . <br /> <br />Period 2 - Record open for any party to respond to items submitted during the. previous ~pen <br />record period (including the.public hearing) for ~ weeks; <br /> <br />Period 3 - Record 'open for final written argument from ~pplican~ for ~ weeks. <br /> <br />Written reco~d closed'.----1----1 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />2. Adopt the Ordinance as presented. <br />3. Adopt the Ordinance with revised findings. <br /> <br />4. Do not adopt the ~ce and take t~tative action to deny the applicatjon. <br /> <br />v. RECOMMENDATION <br /> <br />Under the Goal S Gravel Mining Post 'Aclaiowledgemetit Plan' Amendment evaluation process, there <br />are seven analytical step: . The joint. PJanning ConuidssioDS evaluat.ed the proposal and t~ny <br />.submitted throUgh the public hearing process. the minutes. of these meetings 'are attached, and this Staff <br />. .memo _. the' specific .recontinendatioDS from: the planning commissions to the. elected <br />. officia1s~ 'Neither Planning Commissio~ conducted -further BSEE analysis because the ipplicant did not <br />~t one. Without an ESEE anal)'lJis, the planning commissions w~ not able to.weighthe conflicts '. <br />a'conduct further~ana1Y8is to provide recommendations .for Steps 4-6. The Planoing Commissions <br />'recomm~dationfor denial is baS~. on. failuie to ~inimi7,C conflicts with dust (for b9th) and dust, <br />floocUng, wetlands, groundwater and agricultural pra~ces (for Lane County).. and tJte lack of an BSEE <br />md~w. . <br /> <br />The Lane County'.plA1)ning Commission felt that ~c -,APA information was adequate and that the <br />. resource was not significant. In addition, the Lane County pJanning Commission did Dot fiD.d that .the <br />conflicts with dust, 'groundwat~, wetlands, and flooding ~d be~minimi7,ed to an acceptabl~ level and . <br />therefore cannot recouimend approval of the application. . . . <br /> <br />The Eugene Planning. Commission felt the PAPA '~ormatiQn was adequate and that the resource wai <br />signiticant.1hey co~cluded that all conflicts were mini.m.7,ed by the applicant ~cept the dust conflict, <br />which the Eugene Planning Co_ssian majority did 'not believe could be 1!'inimized to in acceptable <br />lev~l. . . . <br /> <br />VI. IMPLEl\fENTATIONIFOLLOW-UP <br /> <br />. . <br /> <br />The 'Or~ce does. not contain an 'emergency clause. If the' record is.held open, 'additional readings will be <br />scheduled and staffrtports pro videA is necessary. ' <br /> <br />~pon final, closure of the record, ~ff:will prepare a final report,and brfug this i~em b~ck to the Board and <br />. . Council. for deliberatio~ and "action. . . <br /> <br />BoanIICoUDCiiHeirin&~.~eNo..PA 1238'. <br />Agenda Cover Memo <br /> <br />. Ddta Saud & Gravel BxpaDsion <br />