CC Minutes - 02/21/07 Work Session

Home Browse Search

mitigated and then forward its input to the board. He underscored that the process was well-regulated by State law. He cited the proposed gravel extraction versus housing as an example of a potential conflict. He said the councilors then needed to decide if the conflicts were minimized. He related that State law required that where there were existing regulations that dealt with impacts or conflicts, those regulations would serve as the threshold for minimization; and, if the application and proposed use would meet those thresholds, they were by definition minimized. Mr. Yeiter welcomed Kent Howe, Lane County Planning Director, and Stephanie Schulz, Project Manager for Lane County Public Works. He also noted that City Attorney Emily Jerome was present to provide legal counsel. Mr. Zelenka asked Mr. Yeiter to review the Lane County Planning Commission’s conflicts and the Eugene Planning Commission’s conflicts that commissioners felt were not mitigated. Mr. Yeiter noted he had prepared a summary, Attachment E in the packet. He stated that both commissions felt the information was adequate, but the Eugene commission felt the site qualified as a significant aggregate resource and the County commission found that the sampling method was inadequate. He reported that both commissions found that there were potential conflicts having to do with dust, noise, groundwater, wetlands and sensitive habitat, and agriculture. He summarized the Eugene Planning Commission’s findings, which were that the impact that was not minimized was dust. He related that the County found there would be no impact to traffic and this was not challenged through the planning commission process. Ms. Bettman noted that the materials indicated that if the County and the City could not agree on the impacts and minimization efforts, the issue would go to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) for dispute resolution. She considered this to be a “very undesirable” outcome of the process. She was uncertain how the MPC would address such an issue, given that the consortium included the City of Coburg, Lane Transit District (LTD), and the City of Springfield and those members had not been at the hearings nor had they reviewed all of the materials. Mr. Yeiter responded that both the City and the County code indicated that the decisions, in order to become effective, must be the same, but the codes did not define ‘same.’ He said legal counsel for both entities extrapolated from the codes that the two should be unified in whether the amendment was approved or denied, but the findings could be different. He explained that staff recommended a straw vote at this time because it would allow the City and the County to “go back and forth.” He conveyed staff’s desire for as much detail as possible. Ms. Jerome clarified the staff recommendation. She said one of the ways the County proposed that certain impacts be minimized was through the imposition of conditions that only the County could impose. She said that she would not want to see the council take specific action until the council had specific assurances or could see that the County was heading in a direction that would accommodate the minimization conditions the councilors desired to be imposed. She believed the PA05-6151: Delta Sand & Gravel Deliberation Votes – Metro Plan Amendment and Rezone worksheet County staff had prepared presented the issues in a reasonable logical order. She wanted, to the extent the councilors could provide real direction, to ensure that whatever decision the council made was most defensible and addressed all of the criteria and rules. She indicated her preference to gain direction from council, to work with staff, and then draft a decision for the council to review in order to make sure it reflected the council’s direction. In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Yeiter indicated that if the council was unable to come to a conclusion on an issue, staff would take that as a question to bring before the County. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 21, 2007 Page 5 Work Session