Item B: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

\vould need to go to Step 4. It \vould be appropriate at this t1nle if the Planlling Conlnussions chose to reCOffilllend whether or not tIlis application met the requiren1ents for a Metro Plan a~endment In response to ~1s. Colbath, Mr. Ho\ve said if the elected oftlcials felt the conflict 11ad been minimized there was no need to go through the E,SEE analysis. Othef\vise, the applicant has the burden of going through the ESEE analysis. Mr. Sullivan said he felt compelled to explain to the Board of Comnlissioners \vh,y he was in the nunority on every vote. It tnightbe appropriate for eac.h commissioner be given an opportunity to explain clearly \vhy there \vere in nlajority support or majority opposition. Ms. Colbath said under their process, if there are any con1illissioners ,vho \vere in the n1inority, a mitlority report could be fonvarded to the Eugene City Council along with it's the Planning COll11llission's reconunendati ons. Mr. Carn1ichael noted consensus to follo\v Mr. Sullivan's suggestion. Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki said the City of Eugene nlade a 111ajor mistake by not arulexillg but by al1o\ving residential land along the future extraction area, rather than creating a 11eavy illdustrial to a light industrial to a commercial to a multi fal11ily to a buffer zone these problems would not exist if a buffer zone had been created. He said dust and water issues had not been adequately addressed, and he \vould deny the application because he did not think the issues could be nlitigated. Mr. Becker said it \vas difficult to support action that \vould move a mining operation v~lithin 150 feet of residential properties, and he would vote to deny the approval of the application. Mr. CaIToIl had nothing further to add. Mr. Duncan \vould vvait until the minority report \vas published. Ms. Colbath passed. Mr. Sullivan said this was a difficult deliberation. 1"h1s \vas a larger issue than an aquifer or a question of "rhetherflood waters could be present, and cited several points supporting his position: . The applicant clearly qualified as a PAP A as provided by L.CDC. The property \vas contiguous to an existing, approved sand and gravel operations. Goal 5 resources \vould be protected and future approval \vould be subject to DOGAMI regulations in accordance with the Metro Plan. . Many of the mi1limizations proposed would be measured only after construction began. lIe said he would support verification on conditions of approval by authorized authorities. . State Goal 9, economic development, relied on this critical component for environn1ental and economic developnlellt. . The applicant listened to the opponents, and had nlade SOHle of the requested changes. . This \vas 'an issue of balance, but the balance had to do with Goal 5, that stated when there \vas a conflict that could be nlinimized then Goal 5 superseded agricultural land. . The L,ane C~oullty cOInprehellsive plan stated that the county was required to protec.t aggregate deposits from encroachment The applicaIlt did not encroach upon the residential area; rather, the residential area, through no fault of the residents, had encroached upon a very valuable GoalS resource that \vas needed in this area for both environmental and agricultural purposes. . Randy Moore, fro111 the responsible enforcenlent agency, had assured the COI1ll11ission in \vriting that if the application \vas approved by the Board of COl11ffiissioners and the Eugene City Council, he MINUTES- August 30, 2006 Joint Lane County and Eugene Planning C01l1mission Page 9