Planning Commission

Joint Meeting Lane County and Eugene Planning Commissions Harris Hall—125 East 8th Avenue August 30, 2006 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Lane County Planning Commission: Jim Carmichael, Chair; Ed Becker, Vice-Chair; Juanita Kirkham, Lisa Arkin, Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki; John Sullivan; Staff: Stephanie Schulz, Kent Howe, Planning Department. ABSENT: Lane County Planning Commission: Steve Dignam, Nancy Nichols, Todd Johnson. PRESENT: Eugene Planning Commission: Mitzi Colbath, President; Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, John Lawless members; Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department. ABSENT: City of Eugene Planning Commission: Randy Hledik (recused from the proceeding), Phillip Hudspeth. Mr. Carmichael convened the meeting of the Lane County Planning Commission at 5:30 p.m. Ms. Colbath convened the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission at 5:30 p.m. Those present introduced themselves. Mr. Carmichael noted there were no members of the public who wished to make Public Comment. Ms. Schulz distributed a memorandum dated August 30, 2006; subject PA05-6151 Delta Sand and Gravel Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment. Mr. Howe offered the staff report and explained the information on the handout, noting I. Recommendations from July 25, 2006 described the work completed by the commissions, II. Continued Deliberations identified issues yet to be discussed. Mr. Howe noted the role of the Planning Commissions was to determine if conflicts existed, and if so, had the applicant submitted mitigating proposals that would reduce and minimize those conflicts. Mr. Howe said with most of the issues, with the exception of the agricultural impacts, state standards needed to be met, adding if there was not a conflict under Goal 5, state standards were met. He said it was not necessary for the commissions to word smith conditions. Ms. Arkin asked how resource site significance issues should be addressed when the Lane County and Eugene Planning Commissions held different views. Mr. Howe replied that each of the commissions would make recommendations to their respective elected officials who would make the final decision. Mr. Howe opined different recommendations were not problematic. Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki said he had voted yes on item I. Step 1 of the straw poll, and wished to change his vote. Mr. Carmichael noted no objections to Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki’s request, and asked that the record reflect his MINUTES— August 30, 2006 Page 1 Joint Lane County and Eugene Planning Commission request. He said the July 25, 2006 poll was only a straw poll. In response to a procedural question raised at the August 29, 2006 Lane County Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Howe, upon consulting with the County Counsel, said it was not legally required for commissioners to listen to recorded tapes of prior deliberations they had missed. Mr. Sullivan said he had listened to the tapes of the deliberations meeting in question. In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Howe said if the impact area needed to be greater than 1,500 feet; it should be raised individually with each issue discussed. He added that Goal 5 established an automatic 1,500 foot impact area around the perimeter of the subject property in a PAPA plan amendment. Furthermore, he stated that because the variance process was a separate one, the commissioners should assume a request for a related variance was approved. Mr. Howe concurred with Mr. Sullivan’s assertion that that the applicant would not request a variance in the residential zoned area, but would ask for a variance in the agricultural area. In response to Mr. Carmichael, Mr. Howe iterated that the variance issue had been adequately addressed, in that the assumption that the variance was approved. In response to Ms. Arkin, Ms. Schulz said there was no map of the variance location in the record. However, a written legal description of the subject property, Exhibit 50, shows the site. Responding to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Howe stated that the Planning Commissions could make a recommendation to the elected officials to address minimizing the impact of fencing at the site. Mr. Carmichael opened the discussion, commencing with: • Determine if mining conflicts can be minimized: o Groundwater: ƒ Is there a conflict due to groundwater? Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki sought clarification of the location of the low-permeability barrier within the 150 foot setback. Mr. Howe stated that the aquaclude had been well presented in the record around the perimeter of the expansion area. Ms. Schulz said the aquaclude had never been removed from the proposal, explaining that it would be constructed to provide the mitigation for reduction of groundwater in the area. She concurred with Ms. Arkin’s statement that EGR’s February 16, 2006 Exhibit 55 contained a diagram that illustrated the groundwater barrier. The question, Mr. Howe stated, was there conflict due to groundwater? Ms. Colbath called for a Eugene Planning Commission straw vote that asked: Was there a conflict due to groundwater without the aquaclude. The result of the straw vote was 5:0 that there was a conflict due to groundwater. The Lane County Planning Commission took a straw vote, 6:0 that there was a conflict due to groundwater. MINUTES— August 30, 2006 Page 2 Joint Lane County and Eugene Planning Commission Moving to the next issue, Mr. Carmichael asked, ƒ Do you believe the groundwater conflict can be minimized through the applicant’s proposed conditions? In response to Ms. Colbath, Ms. Schulz concurred that the maps illustrated that the aquaclude was outside of the 150 foot boundary of the adjacent uses. Ms. Arkin stated that the EGR report stated that the groundwater would rise on the west side of the barrier, claiming that the level would not impact anyone. She added that both groundwater and surface water responded to influx of precipitation, which would cause a rise in the water table, and subsequent movement of groundwater. Mr. Sullivan referred to a November 8, 2006 staff report, in which staff expressed concerns. He stated the report indicated there were no local, state or federal standards effecting groundwater, and responsible state agencies did not have the resources to conduct due diligence regarding groundwater concerns, although the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) did have enforcement authority through Goal 5. He asked how the staff concern had changed since November 8, and expressed concern that the responsibility for monitoring would fall directly on the elected officials. Ms. Schulz responded that additional materials had been submitted in the record describing professional publications and discussions that described the technology as being useful and capable of providing the required protection for the groundwater. Mr. Sullivan asserted that was one of the few places in the application that placed the onus on the elected officials was the governing agency of what was and what was not good groundwater. Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki said a proposal stipulated that mitigation measures, i.e, the aquaclude, would be installed according to an approved plan by DOGAMI, the responsible state agency. Mr. Sullivan this would fall on the operating plan for enforcement, which was a long way off. He said the Planning Commission could recommend to the elected officials that they require a barrier map. Ms. Colbath asked if there was an oversight agency to review, as well as provide follow-up to ensure continued compliance. Ms. Schulz was unaware of such an agency. Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki opined the follow-up was complaint driven. He commented that in the expansion area for the quarry, the applicant would dig 60 feet to extract aggregate, while pumping water constantly. He said that the aggregate did not end at the expansion area, but continued to the residential area. He stated the aquaclude was planned for 30 feet because of an impermeable barrier of concrete and aggregate. He expressed concern that groundwater would be effected. Mr. Carroll said the applicant’s proposal indicated it would minimize groundwater conflict. He understood the impermeable barrier would not impound water, but rather would divert the water. He added the testimony offered at the public hearing did not convincingly argue against that diversion concept. He concluded this was a logical way to minimize the groundwater effect. MINUTES— August 30, 2006 Page 3 Joint Lane County and Eugene Planning Commission Mr. Belcher expressed frustration by his lack of knowledge and being forced to vote on an issue he did not clearly understand. He was challenged to understand how an aquaclude that prevented loss of groundwater in summer did not increase the chance of flooding in the winter. The Eugene Planning Commission took a straw vote on: If the conflict due to groundwater could be minimized through the conditions proposed by the applicant to a level that met applicable the state or federal standards, or if no government standard applied, could the conflict be minimized. The result of the straw vote was 4:1 with Commissioner Belcher voting in opposition. Mr. Belcher reconsidered his vote to be in favor of the straw poll later in the meeting. The revised result of the straw vote was unanimous, 5:0. The Lane County Planning Commission took a straw vote the result of which was 2:4, with Commissioners Becker, Kirkham, Arkin and Siekiel-Zdzienicki voting in opposition. o Wetlands and Sensitive Habitat: ƒ Is there a conflict due to wetlands and sensitive habitat? Mr. Carroll asked if the variance requested for non-residential lands included a reduced set-back on adjacent properties on the northwest corner of the proposed site. Ms. Schulz responded it would be outside of the 150 foot setback. She concurred with Mr. Carroll’s query that since the setback under Goal 5 for gravel fell at least 150 feet from the meander scar wetlands, no conflict existed. Referring to a July 17, 2006 staff report, Ms. Arkin noted comments that indicated a no fill and remove permit was necessary to minimize conflict. However, she saw the issue as having potential for a different impact, from either flooding or dewatering, that would create an impact on the wetlands. She said the issue was not only about construction or filling, but there could be impacts due to the presence or absence of water. She encouraged commissions to keep this in mind during their deliberations. The Eugene Planning Commission took a straw vote on: Is there a conflict due to wetlands and sensitive habitat? The result of the straw vote was 3:2 with Commissioners Duncan and Carroll voting in opposition. The Lane County Planning Commission took a straw vote the result of which was 4:2, with Commissioners Carmichael and Sullivan voting in opposition. In response to a question from Mr. Carmichael, Mr. Howe said the intent of the question (“Is there a standard that applies?”) was to serve as a reminder for commissioners to determine if there was a standard, and had the applicant met that standard. He reiterated that Goal 5 was a standard that applied to all the questions. ƒ Do we believe the wetlands conflict can be minimized through the applicant’s proposed conditions? Ms. Arkin opined the applicant would need to file an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before the question could be answered, and she did not see an EIS in the file. Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki said the Santa Clara Waterway extended beyond the 1,500 foot impact area, and an impact in one place would impact all the way along the 1,500 foot length to the river. MINUTES— August 30, 2006 Page 4 Joint Lane County and Eugene Planning Commission  The Eugene Planning Commission took a straw vote on: Do we believe the wetlands conflict can be minimized through the applicant’s proposed conditions? The result of the straw vote was unanimous 5:0. The Lane County Planning Commission took a straw vote the result of which was 2:4, with Commissioners Becker, Kirkham, Arkin and Siekiel-Zdzienicki voting in opposition. o Flooding: ƒ Is there a conflict due to flooding? The Eugene Planning Commission took a straw vote on: Is there a conflict due to flooding? The result of the straw vote was 2:3, with Commissioners Duncan, Lawless, and Carroll voting in opposition. The Lane County Planning Commission took a straw vote the result of which was 5:1, with Commissioner Siekiel-Zdzienicki voting in opposition. ƒ Do we believe the flooding conflict can be minimized to meet the FEMA standard? Mr. Duncan asserted that adherence to FEMA standards would result in minimization of conflicts. Mr. Carmichael concurred with Mr. Duncan. Mr. Howe stated that FEMA had drawn the line, and the subject property was not in the floodway but was in the floodplain. He added that proposal would not raise the floodplain by adding material. Rather, material would be extracted, and would not impact the floodplain. Mr. Belcher stated material would be added by construction of the aquaclude, and could raise the water table. Mr. Howe said the aquaclude would be below groundwater. From the standpoint of this development contributing to the 100 year floodplain, the concept behind the floodway and floodplain was that all of the floodplain could be completely built and it would not increase the elevation in the floodway by more than one foot. He added the applicant was not proposing any development in the floodway. He said the entire floodplain could be filled, and it would not cause more than one foot of rise in the floodway. These conditions adhered to the FEMA modeling, and would not increase the likelihood of flooding. Mr. Belcher said the issue was the ability of the subsurface to absorb water and prevent flooding. Mr. Becker said the question asked if there was a conflict due to flooding, and did not discuss floodplain designations. Mr. Duncan looked at groundwater or flood potential as something that occurred over a large geographic area, with the aquaclude being relatively small in comparison to where the groundwater and flood water would disperse. Any water that backed up would do so over several miles rather than in a small area, and would not have much impact. Mr. Belcher again expressed his frustration over being asked to take action on an issue in which he was not an expert. He felt the local effect of placing a dam near housing could be significant if the water was not able to disperse over a much longer distance. Ms. Arkin stated the groundwater and surface water effects could not be separated. She felt strongly the MINUTES— August 30, 2006 Page 5 Joint Lane County and Eugene Planning Commission aquaclude could contribute to flooding in residential areas. Additionally, the applicant had stated they had assumed that the Santa Clara Waterway would remove the ground and surface waters. Mr. Lawless saw the aquaclude, not as a dam, but more as a storm water retention and infiltration pond, with the capacity to handle a rapid influx of water, as a best practice, providing a safety valve. This served as an overflow that would go into secondary stormwater management system. He saw the design as being practical and reasonable. Ms. Colbath expressed concern that the aquaclude would cause flooding problems. In response to Ms. Colbath, Ms. Schulz said topographic maps were included in the record. Mr. Howe iterated that the FEMA regulations were the applicable standard. He asked if the proposal would meet FEMA regulations, that being in a 100 year flood it would not raise the water level to one foot above the 100 year floodplain elevation. This was not in the floodway, and in a floodplain, the entire floodplain could be filled and it would not increase the floodway in violation of the FEMA requirement. Mr. Howe said in this situation, the standard for the proposed extraction from the pit would be if it violated the FEMA 100 year floodplain requirements. Ms. Arkin said stated the issue was not only about the applicant’s site, but also adjacent areas, the impact area, and beyond the impact area. She added that applicant had stated that water would not only move horizontally but would also rise. She said that the EGR drawings did not show where the water table was located, or where the excavated dirt would be placed. She stated she did not believe the applicant had shown they could mitigate impacts to the neighborhoods to the west. Ms. Schulz asked if the water would rise to one foot above the ground, which was the standard for the flood regulations. She added that digging gravel went downward, not upward. Mr. Becker expressed concern about how the subterranean dam would impact adjacent neighborhoods. Mr. Howe said the standard was within the impact area, and whether the FEMA 100 year floodplain standard could be met. Mr. Sullivan accepted the statements by the area residents that they currently experienced flooding problems that existed before the excavation request. He said there was nothing in the record that indicated that the existing permit would exacerbate a flooding problem in that area. If the applicant met the FEMA requirement; the aquaclude could possibly diminish flooding possibilities in the area because it could become a reservoir for the water runoff the residents experienced. He emphasized this assertion was his opinion, and had not been scientifically proven. Mr. Belcher expressed concern that the aquaclude could cause the land around the aquaclude to be more heavily saturated. He said he would vote that the flooding could be mitigated in hope that the value of deliberation would give both sides further opportunity to provide evidence before a final decision was made. Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki stated the dam would work both ways, and it was unknown how it would function, making it difficult to determine if the flooding conflict could be minimized. Ms. Colbath asked what recourse was available to FEMA if the aquaclude did not meet FEMA’s standards. Mr. Howe reiterated the Planning Commissions criteria: was there a standard and does the applicant meet that standard? MINUTES— August 30, 2006 Page 6 Joint Lane County and Eugene Planning Commission  The Lane County Planning Commission took a straw vote on: Do we believe the flooding conflict can be minimized to meet the FEMA standard? The result of the straw vote was 2:4, with Commissioners Becker, Kirkham, Arkin and Siekiel-Zdzienicki voting in opposition. The Eugene Planning Commission took a straw vote the result of which was 3:2, with Commissioners Belcher and Colbath voting in opposition. o Agricultural Impacts ƒ Is there a conflict due to agricultural impacts? The Eugene Planning Commission took a straw vote on: Is there a conflict due to agricultural impacts? The result of which was 3:2, with Commissioners Duncan and Lawless voting in opposition. The Lane County Planning Commission took a straw vote the result of which was 4:2, with Commissioners Carmichael and Sullivan voting in opposition. ƒ Is there factual information in the record that indicates conflict with agricultural practices extends beyond 1,500 feet from the boundary of the expansion area? Mr. Sullivan expressed concern on how to appropriately apply the requirements. He noted the Full Circle Farm owner had testified he would be impacted by the proposed action, and asked how far beyond 1,500 feet should the commissions use as a guideline. Mr. Howe said the only guidance available was that included in the rule, which stated the impact area was inside 1,500 feet. He added if there was convincing evidence in the record that the conflicts extended beyond 1,500 feet, the Planning Commission could then make a recommendation that the impact area should go beyond 1,500 feet. Mr. Sullivan stated his vote would include that the applicant would have to be directed to address the issues, opining there must be other property owners within a mile of the proposed action that would also be impacted. Mr. Sullivan understood the Full Circle Farm concern was related to subsurface water. He had asked staff why a well was being use for residential purposes when public water was available, and been advised that the action was permitted but not recommended. Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki stated that the Eugene Tree Nursery had a well failure that had been attributed to both aggregate excavation and the well had simply filled up. Ms. Arkin stated testimony in the record from Oregon State University Extension Service staff cited concerns for dust raised by the mining operation that would settle on crops raising the cost of farming practices for dust removal, as well as some products from which the dust could not effectively be removed. Mr. Howe clarified the statement under discussion: Is there convincing factual information in the record that indicates conflict with agricultural practices extends beyond 1,500 feet from the boundary of the expansion area? He asked if the commissioners were convinced by the information that was in the record that indicated conflict with agricultural practices extends beyond 1,500 feet. He added this was a discretionary issue for the commissioners. The Eugene Planning Commission took a straw vote on: Is there convincing factual information in the record that indicates conflict with agricultural practices extends beyond 1,500 feet from the boundary of the expansion area? The result was unanimous, 0:5. MINUTES— August 30, 2006 Page 7 Joint Lane County and Eugene Planning Commission  The Lane County Planning Commission took a straw vote the result of which was 2:4, with Commissioners Becker, Kirkham, Carmichael, and Sullivan voting in opposition. ƒ Can the conflict due to agricultural practices be minimized through the applicant’s proposed conditions to a level that will not force a significant change in accepted farm us nor increase the cost to conduct farming significantly? The agricultural practices standard is found under the provisions of ORS 215.296. Ms. Colbath commented the person testified against the proposal and who lived within the 1,500 foot expansion area was leasing the property. She asserted a lessee, as a third party, did not have the same level of independence or authority to comment on the request. Mr. Belcher said there would be no way to mitigate the conflict on a farm that would not exist if the request was approved. Mr. Sullivan stated the owner had a right to farm or not to farm the property. If he chooses not to farm the property and chose to use Goal 5, Goal 5 took precedence over farm land if the owner could meet the requirements. He added whether it was a farm or not a farm was moot if the owner met the PAPA requirements since Goal 5 clearly superceded a farm. Mr. Sullivan stated that the person who testified from OSU Extension Services was a good friend. He said it was important to look at the broader picture, asserting that farm land was extremely important and very valuable. He said the issue was not farm land versus Goal 5, but rather does the PAPA meet the requirements necessary for that owner to be allowed to use that property the way s/he chooses to. The Eugene Planning Commission took a straw vote on: Can the conflict due to agricultural practices be minimized through the applicant’s proposed conditions to a level that will not force a significant change in accepted farm use nor increase the cost to conduct farming significantly? The agricultural practices standard is found under the provisions of ORS 215.296. The result was unanimous, 0:5. The Lane County Planning Commission took a straw vote the result of which was 2:4, with Commissioners Becker, Kirkham, Carmichael, and Sullivan voting in opposition. The Planning Commissions took at recess from 7:19 p.m. to 7:31 p.m. Mr. Carmichael reconvened the commissions. He stated the goal was to conclude the Step 3 discussion and proceed to Step 4. Mr. Howe stated the commissioners had successfully completed Step 3, and each knew where their respective commissions stood on making recommendations to the elected officials on the various areas of potential conflict. Referring to the Goal 5 process flow chart previously distributed, Step 3 called for determining if the mining conflict could be minimized. Mr. Howe recalled on the issue of dust, both Planning Commissions were recommending to the elected officials that the dust conflict was not minimized to the level that would meet DEQ and LRAPA standards through the conditions proposed by the applicant. Mr. Howe said this was the time for each Planning Commission to make final recommendations to the elected officials. He explained that if the commissions felt an impact had not been minimized, the applicant MINUTES— August 30, 2006 Page 8 Joint Lane County and Eugene Planning Commission would need to go to Step 4. It would be appropriate at this time if the Planning Commissions chose to recommend whether or not this application met the requirements for a Metro Plan amendment. In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Howe said if the elected officials felt the conflict had been minimized there was no need to go through the ESEE analysis. Otherwise, the applicant has the burden of going through the ESEE analysis. Mr. Sullivan said he felt compelled to explain to the Board of Commissioners why he was in the minority on every vote. It might be appropriate for each commissioner be given an opportunity to explain clearly why there were in majority support or majority opposition. Ms. Colbath said under their process, if there are any commissioners who were in the minority, a minority report could be forwarded to the Eugene City Council along with it’s the Planning Commission’s recommendations. Mr. Carmichael noted consensus to follow Mr. Sullivan’s suggestion. Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki said the City of Eugene made a major mistake by not annexing but by allowing residential land along the future extraction area, rather than creating a heavy industrial to a light industrial to a commercial to a multi family 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 would deny the application because he did not think the issues could be mitigated. Mr. Becker said it was difficult to support action that would move a mining operation within 150 feet of residential properties, and he would vote to deny the approval of the application. Mr. Carroll had nothing further to add. Mr. Duncan would wait until the minority report was published. Ms. Colbath passed. Mr. Sullivan said this was a difficult deliberation. This was a larger issue than an aquifer or a question of whether flood waters could be present, and cited several points supporting his position: • The applicant clearly qualified as a PAPA as provided by LCDC. The property was contiguous to an existing, approved sand and gravel operations. Goal 5 resources would be protected and future approval would be subject to DOGAMI regulations in accordance with the Metro Plan. • Many of the minimizations proposed would be measured only after construction began. He said he would support verification on conditions of approval by authorized authorities. • State Goal 9, economic development, relied on this critical component for environmental and economic development. • The applicant listened to the opponents, and had made some of the requested changes. • This was an issue of balance, but the balance had to do with Goal 5, that stated when there was a conflict that could be minimized then Goal 5 superseded agricultural land. • The Lane County comprehensive plan stated that the county was required to protect aggregate deposits from encroachment. The applicant did not encroach upon the residential area; rather, the residential area, through no fault of the residents, had encroached upon a very valuable Goal 5 resource that was needed in this area for both environmental and agricultural purposes. • Randy Moore, from the responsible enforcement agency, had assured the commission in writing that if the application was approved by the Board of Commissioners and the Eugene City Council, he MINUTES— August 30, 2006 Page 9 Joint Lane County and Eugene Planning Commission  would look at the plan to ensure that it was adequate, and ensured that no off site impacts would affect either the floodplain or groundwater. The letter had been entered into the record. • Other conflicts would be minimized by the applicant and those conflicts would be monitored and authorized by DEQ through LRAPA and LCDC. For those reasons, Mr. Sullivan was strongly in support of forwarding this to the elected officials who would approve or disapprove, and if they disapproved, would get the ESEE underway. Mr. Belcher, although conflicted, was encouraged by the fact that issues had been raised for consideration by the elected officials. Ms. Arkin said aggregate and farm land is Goal 5 resources. There was not convincing evidence in the record that the resource site was significant. She was concerned about health impacts such as dust leading to asthma and lung disease on school children and the children who lived in the nearby residences. The applicant had not provided sufficient modeling to demonstrate noise could be mitigated. She felt strongly that the neighbors’ fear of flooding was a real fear. Ms. Arkin said that none of the agencies responsible for providing oversight had the funding and staffing to do so. She asserted the application did not meet the criteria to allow mining. Ms. Kirkham said it was her responsibility as a Planning Commissioner to decide if the application convinced her 100 percent that they had met the criteria. Although there were many places where this application did convince her, she had concerns about dust and water. She wanted the county commissioners to look at dust, groundwater, wetlands and flooding. Mr. Lawless said the Planning Commissions were in the position of pretending to know about things they knew nothing about. He expressed conflicted feelings due to the social, economic and civic nature of our land use, and goals and rules that required compact growth and reduction of travel. He agreed this was a matter of balance. He hoped that the responsible monitoring agencies would be able to fulfill their responsibilities. He was convinced the applicant would comply with applicable regulations. He said he would support moving this forward to the elected officials. Concluding the discussion, Mr. Carmichael thanked the applicant for their patience; the citizens involved in the opposition who offered articulate, polite, and compelling comments; the Lane County and Eugene Planning Commissions for “hanging in there” for a long period of time, and doing their homework to reach reasonable conclusions to forward to the elected officials. He stated Mr. Sullivan articulated his feelings, while Ms. Arkin offered thoughtful opposing points. Mr. Carmichael opined there was a satisfactory solution to be found. He hoped the mining operation could continue, because it was a long term, good citizen of our community that was willing to participate in whatever mitigating forms to ensure the safety and well being of the people who moved close to that mining operation. He expressed optimism that as the elected officials proceeded they would take the commissioners’ comments and thoughts to heart. Ms. Colbath pointed out that on page 2 of the August 8, 2006 agenda packet, the vote recorded for the Eugene Planning Commission on the question Do we believe the dust conflict can be minimized to a level that meets DEQ and LRAPA standards through the conditions shown in attachment 2? was shown as 3 yes 2 no, while the information in the packet for today’s meeting was corrected to 2 yes 3 no. Ms. Colbath called for the motion. Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to recommend to the Eugene City Council that the Planning Commission felt the PAPA information was adequate and that the resource was significant. All conflicts were able to be minimized by the applicant except the dust conflict, which the Planning MINUTES— August 30, 2006 Page 10 Joint Lane County and Eugene Planning Commission  Commission majority did not believe could be minimized to an acceptable level. The motion passed unanimously, 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 Commissioners 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 Mr. 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 find 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 straightforward 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 brought 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 commissioners for their work on the issue. MINUTES— August 30, 2006 Page 11 Joint Lane County and Eugene Planning Commission Ms. Colbath explained that the Eugene Planning Commission denied approval based on non-mitigating factors and based its approval on the 150 foot variance being approved. Ms. Colbath adjourned the Eugene Planning Commission meeting at 8:15 p.m. The Lane County Planning Commission took a brief one minute recess. Mr. Carmichael said two issues needed to be addressed, that of a zone change request and the 1,500 foot setback. Mr. Howe explained that because of where the Planning Commission ended up on the post acknowledgement plan amendment, PAPA, the Planning Commission was recommending that the applicant had not met the requirements for that, therefore, the Planning Commission could not proceed with the zone change and the variance. Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki said the setback was like sacred land that served as a buffer zone—“don’t mess with.” The proposal to put the aquaclude in the setback was classified as construction by County Counsel, and construction should not be in the setback. He disagreed with the applicant that the aquaclude could be and should be in the setback. He said the UGB would gradually expand and it would be a mistake to minimize the setback where it adjoined the tree nursery. He opposed a variance from the setback. In response to Ms. Arkin, Mr. Becker said the Planning Commission had made a recommendation in opposition to the zone change, thus the variance was a moot point. Mr. Howe suggested that the Planning Commission determined that as a result of the recommendation of the PAPA not meeting the Metro Plan requirements, the application for the zone change and the setback variance were not appropriate to be dealt with at this time. Mr. Carmichael asked if the Planning Commission was willing to accept Mr. Howe’s statement as a motion. Mr. Dignam proposed accepting Mr. Howe’s statement as a motion. Mr. Becker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Carmichael said the next meeting would take place on at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 5, 2006. Mr. Carmichael adjourned the Lane County Planning Commission at 8:23 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2006\lane county\land management division\planning commission\lcpc060830.doc MINUTES— August 30, 2006 Page 12 Joint Lane County and Eugene Planning Commission