Item B: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

Regardi1lg adequacy of the record, Comll1ission luember Lisa Arkin cOffilnented that the applicant's record was inadequate in terms of information on noise, air pollution and impacts to groun.d \vater. Mr. Belcher cOl11ffiented that the planning COffill1issions were the first body to revie\\' the record. He noted that COffill1ission staff felt that the infonnation was sufficient to Ineet tIle requirements of the application~. He ~said if the cOlnmissions felt tllat the information was insufficient then it could vote to deny and the record \vould be opened again and both parties \vould have a challce to respond before the elected officials. He said he\vould vote that the infonllation in the record \vas sufficient. COl11nllSsion menlber Steve DignalTI said there \vas no reason to disagree with tIle staff recomnlendation. lIe maintained tllat there \vas sufficient infonl1ation in the record that met the requirenlents of the process. Mr. Carmichael called for a vote' fronl the COlllffiissions on step 1. Comlllission menlber Steve Dignanl, seconded by, COll1illission member Ed 'Becker, llloved to approve the provided inforniation in Step One. The Illotion passed 5: 1 \vith Ms. Arkin voting in opposition. Eugene Planning Con1ffiissioner John La\vless, secondyd by Eugene Planning Comnlissioner Rick Duncan, 11loved to recommend that the Eugene Planning Commission approve the staff recommendation that Step One information \vas adequate. The l1lotion passed unanimously. Step 2. Significa..nce of the Resource Ms. Schulz said tl1is item canle llnder the lleading of Oregon Adnlinistrative Rule, (OAR), 660-023-180(3). She noted that there Ilad been a lot of input on the topic from the applicant and the opposition. She. said determination was based on quantity and quality.Slle said the testimony from Shane Hughes had adequately explained at the public hearing how gravel \vas deposited in a river. She added tllat there was sonle question raised as to \\thether samples could be mixed or not. She said staff had reviewed the State High\vay Safety Standards Appendix D75 Section X2.3..2, entered into the record by both the applicant and the opponents, \vhieh discussed sampling of bank run sand and gravel deposits \vhich stated that samples sllould be thorougll1y mixed and quartered if-necessary. She said staff had determined that ul1xing of samples was appropriate. She added that the' site, in question \vas not on the inventory of significant aggregate sites in the Metro Plan. She.said that in higher quality soils the thiclaless of the aggregate layer nlust exceed 60 feet in Lane County. She said the applicant had ShOW1l that the thickness \vas70.5 feet and therefore llad met the quantity threshold requirement and they have also ShOWll that the quality \vas at a high enough level of significance to meet t11at part of tIle standard for step two, therefore, the significance threshold is Inet. Mr. Zdzienicki said he \vas conflicted on the t\VO different versions onho\v the samples should be taken. He said he was not convinced by the applicant's argument. Ms.. Colbath questioned whether any state offices had been contacted.to get information regarding mixing of samples.. MINtJTES~Lane County Planning Comnlission July 25, 2006 Page 3