Item B: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

Ms. Schulz said she had not communicated \villi anyone in a state office. She said she \-vas basing her conclusion on th.e pages in the official hand book that had been submitted into the record. (Exhibit 33a) Ms. Colbath expressed her concern that there \vas no independent opinion on 111ixing samples fron1 a State office. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher regarding a previous applicatiol1 \vith Eugene Sand and Gravel and \vhether there was any information on sample analysis in that case that could shed light on the matter, Associate Plalll1er Thon1 Lanfear said there were sinlilar issues raised in that application. He said the commissions\vere faced \vlth the dilemn1a of competing reports from qualified experts and \vould have to \veigh the evidence in the record and n1ake a decisioll. He added that infornlation fro111 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 111atter. Ms. Schulz replied that referrals had been sent out to state age11cies but tllere had been no replies. Ms. Arkin said the report from EGR and Associates stated that 75 percent of the expansion site \vas class 2 soils. She stressed the inlportance of the measurenlents because there ",ras a trade offbetween prinle farmland and aggregate resource. She stressed the importance of establishing the aCCtlracy of the sampling that h.ad been done. She said slle seriously considered tlle testimony ofDr<111aterial was mixed \vhen it should not have been and had stated that there \vas 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 stratunl of deposits. She said she felt that the applicallt had not convil1ced her that appropriatesan1pling had bee11 done. She added that there \verequestions about bore hole three a11d the accuracy of the data provided. She con1ffiented that the applicant could have 'cherry picked' spots for bore holes and remarked that the proof provided was not strong. Eugene Planl1ing C0rIU11issioner Rick Duncan said he understood the sampling process \vas a w~y to make an estinlate of tIle total amount of resource that was available<< He said to be judged significant, it needed to be equal to or greater than 2 111i11ion cubic tons. He stressed that the applicant's satuple sho\ved 8 nlillion cubic tons<< He questioned \-vhether a poorly takel1 sample could make up for a 6 million cubic ton difference. Mr. Dignam ackno\vle.dged that there were conflicting expe.rt testimonies in tIle record. He said it was 110t a leap of faith that there was a significant aggregate resource in tllat area since gravel companies had been n1ining gravel there for decades. He said it was not a hard assumption to determine that there \vas significal1t resource on the site and said he intended to vote for step two. Mr. Duncan said he ""QuId support step two as\vell since it was hard to believe that a sample could be \vrong by 6 million cubic tOllS. Mr. Belcher said he had no questions about quantity but.questiol1ed \vhether the quality was sufficient. Ms. Colbath agreed and said sampling done from different strata \vould have answered those questions. She said she believed there was adequate supply but said the problelTI \vas that quality "vas difflcult to determine. MINUTES-Lane County Planning Commission July 25, 2006 Page 4