Item B: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

ATTACHMENT E Summary of Planning Commission Recommendations Step 1. Determine if the PAPA information is adequate. The Eugene Planning Commission found unanimously that there was adequate information submitted in the PAPA application. The Lane County Planning Commission voted 4-2 that there was adequate information submitted in the PAPA application. Step 2. Determine if the resource site is significant. The Eugene Planning Commission voted 3-2 that the applicant has demonstrated there exists a “significant” Mineral & Aggregate Resource at the site and the analysis of potential conflicts under Step 3 with conditions to minimize those conflicts proposed by the applicant is warranted. The Lane County Planning Commission voted 4-2 that the sampling method for the quality analysis of the aggregate was inadequate to determine significance of the resource. This vote is the initial basis for the Lane County Planning Commission recommendation to deny the application. The Planning Commissions proceeded jointly to develop a recommendation for their elected officials under Step 3. Step 3. Determine if conflicts from mining can be minimized. Area of Impact The Joint Planning Commissions deliberated and considered whether or not the impact area extended beyond the 1500’ minimum as they considered each conflict ‘type’. Both Planning Commissions found that none of the conflicts extend beyond the 1500 ft. minimum impact area as measured from the perimeter of the expansion site. Areas of Conflict That Are Not Minimized Both Planning Commissions found there were conflicts with dust, noise, groundwater, wetlands and sensitive habitat, and agriculture. The Lane County Planning Commission additionally identified a conflict with flooding. The analysis of the impact area and proposed minimization conditions were considered in joint deliberations and votes taken for each conflict. Both Planning Commissions considered the traffic conflict analysis waiver and public works response, and both voted unanimously that there is no conflict due to traffic under the Goal 5 Rule. Conflicts with other Goal 5 resource sites Wetlands t At the time the application was made, he Eugene Goal 5 inventory had been adopted by the Board of Commissioners, however, the resource protection measures for City of Eugene sites within the UGB had not yet been co-adopted by the Board. No action was taken by the Planning Commissions.