Item B: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

Mr.. Belcher expressed frustration by his lack ofkno\vledge and being forced to. vote o.n an issue 11e did nat clearly understand. He was ch.allenged to. ul1derstand hQW an aquaclude that prevented lo.SS of groundwater in summer did not increase the chance of flooding in the \'(tinter.. The E.ugenePlanning Comnlission took a straw vote o.n: If the conflict due to groundlvater could be minimized through the conditions proposed by' the applicant to a level that lJ'let applicable the state or.federal standards, or ifno government standard applied, could the conflict be l11ini111ize(1. The result of the stra\vvote was 4; 1 vvith COilllllissioner Belcher voting in opposition. Mr. Belcher reconsidered his vote to be in favor of the stra\v poll later in the meeting. The revised result of the stra\v vote \vas unaninlous, 5 :0. . The Lane County Planning Con1n11ssion took a stra.w vote the result afvvhich \vas 2:4, with Conlmissioners Becker, Kirkhan1~Arkin and Siekiel-Zdzienicki vo.ting in opposition. o JVetlands and Sensitive Habitat: · Is tit ere a cOllflict due to wetlaltds anti sensitive habitat? Mr. Carron asked if the variance requested for non-residential lands included a reduced set-back on adjacent properties on the northwest conler of the proposed site. Ms. Schulz responded it \vould be outside of the 150 fQot setback. She COI1C1UTed \\lith Mr. Carroll's query that since the setback under Goal 5 for gravel fell at least 150 feet from the lueander se,ar \vetlands, no conflict existed. Referring to a July 17, 2006 staff report, Ms. Arkin 110ted C01llInents that indicated a no fil1 and remo,re pennit \vas necessary to minimize conflict. However~ she saw the issue as having potential fo.r a differellt impact, from either flaoding or dewatering, that \\'ould create an impact on the ,wetlands. She said the issue \VaS nQt 0Il1y about construction or fillin.g, but there could be itnpacts due to. the presence or absence of \vater. She encouraged comll1issions to keep this in n1ind during their deliberations. The Eugene Planning Conunission took a straw~ vote on: Is there a cot!flict due to }vetlands and sensitive habitat? The result of the stra\v vote \vas 3:2\vith (~onunissioners Duncan and Ca.rroll voting in opposition. The Lane County Planning COl1]mission took a stra\v vote the result of\vhich \vas 4:2, \vith Comnlissioners Cannichael and Sullivan vo.ting in oPPo.sition. In respol1se to a question fro.m Mr. C arn1ichae I,. Mr.. Howe said tile intent of the question ("Is there a standard that a]Jplies ?") \vas to serve. as a renlinder for comnlissioners to detenl1ine if there was a standard, and had the applicant met that stalldard. He reiterated that Goal 5 ,vas a standard that applied to. all the questions.. · Do we believe tlte 'U-'etlands cOliflict call be ,ninimized through the applicant's proposed conditiolls? Ms. Arkin opined the applicant.wo.uld need to. file an Environt11ental Impact Statelnent (ElS) before the question could be al1swered, and she did not see an EIS in the file. Mr. Siekiel...Zdzienicki said the Santa Clara Waterway extended beyond the 1,500 footitnpact area, al1d an impact in one place would impact all.the \vay along the 1,500 foot length to the river. MINUTES- August 30, 2006 Joint Lane County an.d Eugene Planning Commission Page. 4