Item B: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

In response to a question from Mr. Duncan regarding vvhether a person testifying on th.e sampling had to have a certain level of certification fron1 the State, Ms. Schulz said she believed that to be tnle. She said aU of the experts in the record had provided credentials as part of their testi1110ny ~ Ms. Colbath reiterated that she \vould like to see a second opinion regarding the Inatter of sampling. Ms. Schulz said the commission could not place a condition on approval. She said tIle commissions needed to make either a yes or no vote on the facts in the record. 1-1r. La,vless expressed a hope that the bodies nlaking final decisions would ask a state agency to judge \vhich of the opinions on sampling should be taken. Mr. Dignam said it would be interesting to have a third opinion but remarked tl1at bringing in other experts could go on and 011. I~Ie stressed that the comn1issions needed to make decisions based on the infomlation already in the . record. Ms. Arkin said she would be voting no on step t\VO because she felt that tIle record ,vas incon1plete. She said tllat anyone could make en~ors.and stressed that she did not believe the errors \vere 111ade on purpose. She remarked that there had been a sinlilar case previously that had hinged 011 a 'few feet' ,vhich ,vas determined not to be present. Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Lawless, luovedto accept the staffrecomulendation that the applicant had demonstrated tIle existence of significant material resource on the site. The motion passed 3:2 with Mr. Belcher and Ms. Colbath. voting in opposition~ Mr.. Dignanl, seconded by Mr.. CarmicIlael, tTIoved for appro,ral of step t\vo.. The tTIotion failed 4:2 \vith Mr. Dignanl and Mr. Carmichael voting in favor. Step 3. Minimize Conflicts Ms. Schulz said the first part of step three was detenl1ining the impact area. She said the Oregon Administrative Rule stated that the inlpact area shall he large enough to include uses listed and shall be linlited to 1,500 feet from the 111ining area except vvhere factual infonl1ation indicates that additional conflicts existed beyond that distance. She said issues \vith dust, noise, groun.d\vater, \Vetlallds alld 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 ,:vent beyond 1,500 feet. She said she did not COllcur with that opinion and the 1,500 foot limit\vas appropriate in her view. She said the County El1gineer had revie\ved the testinlony from the applicant and had SUbl11itted a notice into the record stating that tIle requirements for triggering a traffic.impact analysis had not been 111et. She noted that there was an exhibit in conflict with that opinion in the record.. Regarding conflicts \\'''ith other Goal 5 resource sites vvitIlin the impact area, Ms. Schulz said the case included wetlallds in the area. She noted that there\vas an oxbow remnant of the East Santa Clara Waterway on the Eugene Wetlands Inventory. She said timitlg ,vas important in that adoption Eugene's Goal 5 inventory had not been completed. She said the oxbo,v wetland could not be considered because the Goal 5 Inventory protection lueasures have 110t yet been approved by the City and the County. She said there was a pond on the. site MINUTES-Lane COUllty Plamling Commission July 25, 2006 Page 6