CC Minutes - 04/18/07 Work Session

Home Browse Search

the findings. She asked what the outcome would be if the City and County did not agree on whether there was a significant resource and, if they did agree, whether the applicant would refine the testing and sampling procedures and resubmit them. Ms. Jerome said that code provisions regarding the Metro Plan process did not clearly answer that type of question. She said those scenarios had been discussed with County staff and legal counsel and the interpretation of the code provision that the decisions had to be identical was that the decisions had to agree but the reasons for them as expressed in findings did not need to match. She said the Metropolitan Policy Committee would step in if the City and County decisions were not in agreement. Ms. Bettman asked if making a determination on the basis of significant resource precluded deliberation on other items. Ms. Jerome said that on direction from the council, staff would prepare an ordinance that did not become effective until identical decisions were reached. She believed that until the ordinances were finally in effect, the council did have the opportunity to continue to deliberate. She said the process would end when both the City and County decisions were in agreement. City Manager Taylor said staff was recommending for the council’s consideration what was believed to be the most efficient way, based on the straw polls, to put the measure before the County. Mr. Pryor commented that the council would not need to deliberate the criteria if it knew that the application would be denied. Mr. Yeiter said staff was not recommending that the council continue with deliberation of the criteria. He said the County might continue to deliberate. Mr. Pryor said it did not make sense to spend time deliberating on something for which the outcome had already been determined. He said the County’s deliberations should be with the knowledge that from the City’s standpoint the application was denied. Ms. Jerome pointed out that in some cases the council was advised to conduct the thorough process because from a legal perspective, defending a denial was less difficult if each basis for denial had been addressed. She said the effort that would be involved in analyzing all of the criteria in this instance might not be worth the benefit and it was possible the County could proceed through the criteria and provide the analysis. She said waiting to see what the County’s outcome would be was a sound policy decision for the council. Mr. Clark asked if an appeal was possible if the City denied on sufficiency of resource and the County denied on a different basis and how would the appellate body deal with that contradiction. Ms. Jerome said City and County staff would work together to ensure that the actions, which would be in the form of ordinances, were the same. She said the respective findings would likely look different. Mr. Clark asked if denial on the basis of sufficiency of resource had been upheld in the past. Ms. Jerome said there was no precedent in the courts, but she felt there was a basis to justify the finding. Ms. Solomon said she was disturbed by the reluctance to move forward on the application in a forthright and honest manner and give the applicant all of the process that was due. Regarding the issue of resource, she believed the applicant followed all of the protocol established in State statutes and passed all of the tests. She reminded the council that it could approve with conditions and that could include strategies to ensure there was no increase in production. She believed that Delta Sand and Gravel would be willing to adhere to those conditions as it had been willing to respond to all questions during the process. She reminded the council that Delta Sand and Gravel was a local business that provided good jobs for the community and the MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2007 Page 8 Work Session