Item B: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

• When development is allowed to occur in the floodway or floodway fringe, local regulations shall control such development in order to minimize the potential danger to life and property. Within the UGB, development should result in in-filling of partially developed land. Outside the UGB, areas affected by the floodway and floodway fringe shall be protected for their agricultural and sand and gravel resource values, their open space and recreational potential, and their value to water resources. (Metro Plan page III-C-16) COUNCIL OPTIONS The City Council has the following options: 1. Deny the Metro Plan amendments because the conflicts caused by dust have not been adequately minimized (this was the Planning Commission recommendation before new evidence was submitted into the record); 2. Deny the Metro Plan amendments for other reasons consistent with the state’s Goal 5 rules; 3. Approve the Metro Plan amendments by adopting the draft ordinance and findings, or with modified findings; 4. Open the record to allow more testimony (which must also be permitted by Lane County); or 5. Ask Lane County for joint deliberations or for Lane County to deliberate first. Since the final decisions of both the City and County must be identical, staff recommends ending with a straw vote until such time as the council’s final decision can be informed by the county’s decision. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that deliberations begin according to the decision tree provided by Lane County. Additional time will be scheduled as necessary to complete deliberations. The City Manager supports the Planning Commission recommendation that the dust conflict is not minimized. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to forward the City Council’s preliminary decisions to the Board of County Commissioners, and direct the City Manager to begin preparing findings in support of the council’s decision. [The County’s decision will be brought back to the City Council before final action is requested.] ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Maps B. PAPA Review and Decision Process (decision tree) C. Metro Plan criteria for amendments D. Definitions E. Summary of Planning Commission recommendations F. Planning Commission minutes of deliberation (July 25 and August 30, 2006) G. Letter from Douglas DuPriest (representing the organized opposition), January 22, 2007 H. Final rebuttal arguments by the applicant’s representative, Steve Cornacchia, January 29, 2007 I. File Record Content J. Draft ordinance with findings (prepared by county staff but formatted for Eugene); Exhibit C includes conditions of approval L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070221\S070221B.doc