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

Home Browse Search

Mr. Zdzienicki commented that he did not believe the applicant had adequately addressed conflicts in Step 3 and therefore he could not approve step one. Regarding adequacy of the record, Commission member Lisa Arkin commented that the applicant's record was inadequate in terms of information on noise, air pollution and impacts to ground water. Mr. Belcher commented that the planning commissions were the frrst body to review the record. He noted that commission staff felt that the information was sufficient to meet the requirements of the application. He said if the commissions felt that the information was insufficient then it could vote to deny and the record would be opened again and both parties would have a chance to respond before the elected officials. He said he would vote that the information in the record was sufficient. Commission member Steve Dignam said there was no reason to disagree with the staff recommendation. He maintained that there was sufficient information in the record that m~t the requirements of the process. Mr. Carmichael called for a vote from the commissions on step -I. Commission member Steve Dignam, seconded by, Commission member- Ed Becker, moved to approve the provided information in Step One. The motion passed 5: 1 with Ms. Arkin voting in opposition. Eugene Planning Commissioner John Lawless, seconded by Eugene Planning Commissioner Rick Duncan, moved to recommend that the Eugene Planning Commission approve the staff recommendation that Step One information was adequate. The motion passed unanimously. Step 2. Si2nificance of the Resource. Ms. Schulz said this item came under the heading of Oregon Administrative Rule, (OAR), 660-023-180(3). She noted that. there had been a lot of input on the topic from the applicant and the opposition. She said determination was based on quantity and quality. She said the testimony from Shane Hughes had adequately explained at the public hearing how gravel was deposited in a river. She added that there was some question raised as to whether samples could be mixed or not. She said sta(fhad reviewed the State Highway Safety Standards Appendix D75 Section X2.3.2, entered into .the record by both the applicant and the opponents, which discussed sampling of bank run sand and gravel deposits which stated that samples should be thoroughly mixed and quartered if necessary. She said staffhad determined that mixing of samples waS appropriate. She added that the site in question was not on the inventory of significant aggregate sites in the Metro Plan. She said that in higher quality soils the thickness of the aggregate layer must exceed 60 feet in Lane County. She said the applicant had shown that the thickness was 70.5 feet and therefore had met the quan~ity threshold requirement and they have also shown that the quality was at a high enough level of significance to meet that part of the standard for step two, therefore, the significance threshold is met. Mr. Zdzienicki said he was conflicted on the two different versions on how the samples should be taken. ,He said he was not convinced by the applicant's argument. MINUT.ES';'-Lane-County Planning Commission' July. 25,.2006- ' Page 3