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

Home Browse Search

Ms. Colbath agreed and said sampling done from different strata would have answered those questions. She said she believed there was adequate supply but said the problem was that quality was difficult to determine. Commission member Nancy Nichols said if visual inspection indicated that there was considerable variation then individual samples should be taken from each well defined stratum. She said the quantity was there but questioned whether the quality was adequate. '. Mr. Zdzienicki said river deposits varied from year to year. He said testing of the stratification was very important .since there could be long periods without gravel being deposited. He said the quality issue had not been addressed adequately enough for him to vote in favor. Mr. Carmichael said the task of the commission was to evaluate the testimony and consider which was the most credible. He said Step Two was to determine whether there was significant resource. He said there was clearly a substantial resource present on the site and added that'another piece of evidence was that the applicant had grown up on the property and was willing to make a substantial investment to mine the resource. He said the applicant would not be present if the resource available would not allow the company to operate in the future. He said he would vote in favor of Step Two. . Mr. Dignam agreed and added that Ms. Schulz had solicited state comment on the matter but the State chose not to respond. He said the ,lack of response did not signify agreement with one party or another. He stressed that the commissions needed to make a decision based on the evidence in the record. Mr. Lawless said he hated to be in a situation to make a decision which he felt he was unqualified to make. He said,hehad.no concerns about the quantity of aggregate present on the site. He said the applicant had stated that both of the lower samples had met the standard without the prime rock being sampled. He sai4 there was no reason to not support both the quantity and quality standards provided by the applicant. Ms. Arkin acknowledged that quantity of resource was present on the site because of the large acreage but noted that farmland was also a significant resource. She said quality of rock also had to be present. She said testimony by Dr. Reed had stated that processing samples could aliow the applicant to discard what was not acceptable and get a high quality sample. She surmised. that pre test processing violated Oregon Administrative Rules. Mr. Belcher said there was not sufficient information for him to vote to support Step two. Ms. Colbath said the reason for sampling was to have a methodology that supported confidence in the result. She said she did see the information in the record to inspire her confidence in the sampling process. She said she did not feel that the way the sampling was done followed a strict standard and added the record did include an independent analysis from an objective party. She said she would vote against step two. Mr. Duncan said there were comments made thatthe sampling done was no.t an independent analysis. He stressed that EGR and Associates were an independent organization of which Delta Sand and Gravel was only a single client. He said the company was licensed by the State and stressed that he had a hard time questioning the methods used for sampling since the company did that sort of work for a living. MINUTES~Lane County Planning Commission- July 25,.2006 .. . .. . Page' 5