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

Home Browse Search

Ms. Colbath said there was.another expert that said the sampling was not done properly. She said if there was a second opinion available which favored one side or the other she would be sure about her vote. In response to a question from Mr. Duncan regarding whether a person testifying on the sampling had to have a certain level of certification from the State, Ms. Schulz said she believed that to be true. She said all of the experts in the record had provided credentials as part of their testimony. Ms. Colbath reiterated that she would like to see a second opinion regarding the matter of sampling. Ms. Schulz said the commission could not place a condition on approval. She said the commissions needed to make either a yes or no vote on the facts in the record. Mr. Lawless expressed a hope that the lJodies making final decisions would ask a state agency to judge which of the opinions on sampling should be taken. Mr. Dignam said it would be interesting to have a third opinion but remarked that bringing in other experts could go on and on.. He stressed that the commissions needed to make decisions based on the information already in the record. Ms. Arkin said she would be voting no on step two because she felt that the record was incomplete. She said that anyone could make errors and stressed that. she did not believe the errors were made on purpose. She re~arked that there had been a similar case previously that had hinged on a 'few feet' which was determined not to be present~ Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to . accept the staff recommendation that the applicant had demonstrated the existence of significant material resource on the site. The motion passed 3:2 with Mr. Belcher and Ms. Colbath voting in opposition~ Mr. Dignam, seconded by Mr. Carmichael, moved for approval of step two. The motion failed 4:2 with Mr. Dignam and Mr. Carmichael voting in favor. Steo 3. Minimize Conflicts Ms. Schulz said the frrst part of step three was determining the impact area. She said the Oregon Administrative Rule stated that the impact area shall be large enough to include uses listed and shall be limited to 1,500 feet from the mining area except where factual information indicates that additional conflicts existed beyond that distance. She said issues with dust, noise, groundwater, wetlands and sensitive habitat, traffic, flooding, and agriculture had all been identified in the public hearing. She said there had also been a concern raised in the record regarding the elementary school that was beyond the 1,500 foot impact area to the north. She added that there was also testimony that impacts went beyond 1,500 feet. She said she did not concur with ~hat opinion and the 1,500 foot limit was appropriate in her view. She said the County Engineer had reviewed the testimony from the applicant and had submitted a notice into the record stating that the requirements for triggering a traffic impact analysis had not been met. She noted that there was an exhibit in conflict with that opinion in the record. Regardmg conflicts with other Goal 5 resource sites within the impact area, Ms. Schulz said the case included wetlands in the area. She noted that there was an oxbow remnant of the East Santa Clara Waterway on the Eugene Wetlands MINUTES~Lane County .Planning Commission . . .;.' July. 25, 2006 . Page: 6