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

Home Browse Search

Ms. Colbath questioned whether any state offices had been contacted to get information regarding mixing of samples. Ms. Schulz said she had not communicated with anyone in a state office. She said she was basing her conclusion on the pages in the official hand book that had been submitted into the record. (Exhibit 33a) Ms. Colbath expressed her concern that there was no independent opinion on mixing samples from a State office. In response to a question' from Mr. Belcher regarding a previous application with Eugene Sand and Gravel and whether there was anyinformation on sample analysis in that case that could shed light on the matter, Associate Planner Thorn Lanfear said there were similar issues raised in that applicatIon. He said the . commissions were faced with the dilemma of competing reports from qualified experts and would have to weigh the evidence in the record and make a decision. He added that information from that previous application was not part of the record for the current matter. 'Mr. Zdzienicki said it would have been prudent to involve the state to clarify the matter. Ms. Schulz replied that referrals had been sent out to state agencies but there had been no replies. Ms. Arkin said the report from EGR and Associates stated that 75 percent of the expansion site was class 2 soils. She stressed the importance of the measurements because there was a trade off between prime farmland and aggregate resource. She stressed the importance of establishing the accuracy of the sampling that had been done. She said she seriously considered the testimony of Dr. Mark Reed who had said the material was mixed when it should not have been and had stated that there-was only 25 feet of aggregate on the site in question. She noted that the documents quoted by Ms. Schulz said,that samples should be mixed from each stratum of deposits. She said she felt that the applicant had not convinced her that appropriate sampling had been done. She added that there were questions about bore hole three and the accuracy of the data provided. She commented that the applicant could have 'cherry picked' spots for bore holes and remarked that the proof provided was not strong. Eugene Planning Commissioner Rick Duncan said he understood the sampling process was a way to make an estimate of the total amount of resource that was available. He sa~d to be judged significant, it needed to be equal to or greater than 2 million cubic tons. He stressed that the applicant's sample showed 8 million cubic tollS. He questioned whether a poorly taken sample could make up for a 6 million cubic ton difference. Mr. Dignam acknowledged that there were conflicting expert testimonies in the record. He said it was not a leap of faith that there was a significant aggregate resource in that area since gravel companies had been mining gravel there for decades. He said it was not a hard assumption to determine that there was significant resource on the site and said he intended to vote for step two. Mr. Duncan said he would suppo~ step two ':is well since it was hard to belieye that a sample could be wrong by 6 ffiillion cubic tons. Mr. Belcher said he had no questions about quantity but questioned whether the quality was sufficient. MINUTES~Lane County Planning Commission . ' ,.Jtily'2S,.2006. Page 4.