Item 1: PH on Ordinance Amending Metro Plan (Delta Sand and Gravel)

Home Browse Search

The Eugene Planning Commission took a straw vote on: If the conjlictdue to groundwater : could be mininiized 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 reslilt of the straw vote was unanimous, 5:0. The Lan~ 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: · 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 comer 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 dewateritig, 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 conjlict 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. · Do we believe the wetl~nds 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..