Item B: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

The City and County Planning Commissions held a joint hearing, left the record open to allow ample opportunity for testimony, and met together several times to consider the evidence. Each commission made a recommendation to its respective elected body. Neither commission found that the applicant had adequately mitigated all potential significant conflicts. A summary of the commissions’ recommendations is attached as Attachment E. The Eugene City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners held joint public hearings on November 1 and December 12, 2006. The elected bodies voted to accept new evidence and, after the hearings, left the record open to allow opportunity for written testimony. There was a period for new testimony that lasted until January 8, 2007; then a period until January 22, 2007, to allow responses to the new testimony; and a final period until January 29, 2007, to allow the applicant’s rebuttal as allowed by state law. The record is now closed. A memorandum dated January 22, 2007, forwarded new materials received up to that date to the City Council. Subsequent testimony by the opposition and the applicant’s final rebuttal are attached to this staff report. A complete record is maintained in the City Council Office. To become final, the decisions of both the City of Eugene and Lane County must be identical. If the decisions are not the same, the Metro Plan amendment will be referred to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) for dispute resolution. Staff recommends that the City Council end its deliberations with a nonbinding straw vote until the Lane County Board of County Commissioners has deliberated. Then the City Council can return to deliberations and make a final decision. A proposed ordinance, accompanied by findings and conditions of approval, was prepared to set the matter before the County Board for adoption, modification, or denial. This proposed ordinance is again provided to the City Council for consideration during deliberation of the Metro Plan Amendment. The proposed ordinance provides possible affirmative findings and conditions that may be considered in determining whether conflicts have been minimized between the proposed use and surrounding uses or other Goal 5 resources. The Decision Process The City and County are asked to amend the state-acknowledged mineral and aggregate inventory in response to this application for a Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment (PAPA). Mineral and aggregate resources are a possible Goal 5 resource, and state law provides fairly concise criteria that local decision makers must use to balance this resource against other competing uses. The state evaluation criteria for a PAPA are separated into seven analytical steps for this project: Step 1. Determine if the PAPA information is adequate. Step 2. Determine if the resource site is significant. Step 3. Determine if conflicts from mining can be minimized. Step 4. Weigh the Economic, Social, Environmental and energy (ESEE) consequences of un- minimized conflicts and determine whether to allow mining. Step 5. Determine the ESEE consequences of potential new conflicting uses within the impact area. Step 6. Determine if the rezoning requirements of LC 16.252 are met, and if the variance setback request should be granted under LC 16.271(7). Only the County Board will consider and make the decision on the rezoning and variance because it is a Lane Code Chapter 16 amendment and decision implementing the Metro Plan amendment. Step 7. Develop a program to allow mining. NOTE: No ESEE analysis was prepared for this application. L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070221\S070221B.doc