Item B: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

COlnnnssion l1lember Nanc.y Nichols said if visual inspection indicated that there was considerable variation thel1individual samples should be taken from each well defined stratulll. Sh.e said the quantity was there but questioned \vhether the quality \vas adequate. l\1.r. Zdzienicki said river deposits varied fronl year to year. He said testing of the stratification \vas very inlportant since there could be long periods \vithout gravel being deposited. He said the quality issue had not been addressed adequately enough for hinl to vote in favor. .Mr. Carmichael said the task of the commission ,vas to evaluate the testilnony and consider which \vas the most credible. He said Step T\vo \vas to deternline:::whether there ,vas significant reSOllrce. Resaid there was clearly a substantial resource present on the site and added that anoth.er piece of evidence \vas that the applicant had grown up on th.e property and '\vas 'willitlg to make a substantial investtuent to nline the resource. He said the applicant 'Vvould not be present if the resource available \vould not allo\v the company to operate itl the future. He said. he would vote in favor of StepT\vo. ~lr. Dignam agreed and. added that'Ms. Schulz llad solicited state comlnent on the matter but the State chose not to respond. He said the lack of response did 'not signify agreenlent with one party or another. He stressed that the conl1nissions needed to make a decision based on the evidence ill the record. Mr. Lawless said lle hated to be in a situation to make a decision \vhich he felt he wa~ unqualified to make. He said he llad no concerns about the quantity of aggregate present on the site. He said the applicant had stated that both of the lovver sanlples had nlet tIle standard without the prime rock being sanlpled. He said there was no reason to not support both the quantity and quality standards provided by the applicant. Ms. Arkin acknowledged that quantity of resource \vas present on the site because of the large acreage but noted that familand ,,,ras also a significant resource. She said quality of rock also had to be present. She said testitnollY by Dr. Reed had stated that processing saluples could al1o\v the applicant to discard \vhat was not acceptable and get a high quality sample. She surmised that pre test processing violated Oregon Administrative Rules. ' Mr. Belcher said tllere \vas not sufficient infolmation for hiIn to vote to support Step t\VO. Ms. Colbath said the reason for sampling ",ras to have a methodology that supported cOl1fidence in the result. She said she did see the informatioll in the record to inspire her confidence in the sanlplillg process. She said she did not feel that the \vay the sampling was done follo\'ved a strict standard and added the record did i11clude all independent analysis fronl an objective party. She said she \vould vote against step tvvo. Mr. Duncan said tllere were comments made that tIle sanlpling done was not an independent analysis. He stressed t11at E,GR and Associates lvere all independent organization of\vllich Delta Sand and Gravel ,vas only a single client. He said the compallY was licensed by the State and stressed that he had a hard time questioning the methods us~d for sampling since the company did that sort of work for a living. Ms. Colbatll saidthere was another expert that said the sanlpling was not dOlle properly. She said iftllere was a second opinion available '\vhich favored one side or the other she would be sure about her vote. MINUTES-Lane County Plam1ing COlumission July 25, 2006 Page 5