Item B: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

The Lane COUl1.ty Planning Com111ission took a stra\v vote on: Do rve believe theflooding conflict can be minin1ized to nleet the FEMA standard? . The result of the straw vote was 2:4, with Commissioners ~ecker, Kirkhanl,.Arkin ~ndSiekiel....Zdzienicki voting in oppositio11>> The Eugene Planning Conlnlission took a straw vote the result of\vhich \\Tas 3:2, with Comnlissioners Belcher and Colbatll voting in opposition. o Atlricultural IntPacts · Is there a conflict due to agricultural inlpacts? TIle Eugene PlanningCornmission took a stra-vv vote on: Is there a cOl~flict due to agricultural irnpacts? The result of \vhieh \vas 3 :2,\vith Comnlissioners Duncan and La\vless voting in opposition. The L.ane County Planning Comnlission took a stra\v vote the result of\vhich was 4:2,\vith COll11uissioners Carmichael and Sullivan voting in opposition. . Is tl1ere factual infoYl1tation in the record tllat indicates conflict with agricultural practices extends bej'olld 1,500feetfrolU the boundar}' oftlte expal1sion area? Mr. Sullivan expressedconcem 011 ho,v to appropriately apply the requirements. He noted the Full Circle Farm owner had testified he would be itl1pacted by the proposed action, and asked how far beyond 1,500 feet should the cOnltuissions use, as a guideline. Mr. Howe said the only guidance available was that included in the rule, which stated the impact area was inside 1,500 feet He added if there \\las convincing evidel1.ce in the record that the conflicts extended beyond 1,500 feet, the Planning Conlmission could tllenmake arecomnlendation that the inlpact area should go. beyond 1,500 feet. Mr. Sullivan stated his vote would i11clude tllat the applicant would 11ave to be directed to address the issues, opining tllere must be otller property o,vners within a mile of the proposed action that \vould also be impacted. Mr. SuUivall u.nderstood the Full Circle Farm concern was related to subsurface water>> He had asked staff why a ,veIl was being use for residential purposes when public \V"ater was available, and been advised that the action was permitted but 110t recoffinlended. Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki stated. that the Eugene Tree Nursery had a \vell failure that had been attributed to both aggregate excavation a.nd the well had simply filled up. Ms. Arkin stated testimony in the record from Oregon State University Extension Service staff cited COl1cems for dust raised by the nuning operation that vvould settle. on crops raising the cost of farming practices for dust renloval, as \vell as some products from \vhich the dust could not effectively be removed. Mr. Howe clarified tlle.stateme,nt under discussion: Is there convincinfl.factual inforn-tation in the record that indicates conflict with agricultural practices extends beyond 1,500 feet from the boundary of the expansion area? He asked if the C011Ul1issioners were convinced by the infonnation that \vas in the record that indicated conflict with agricultural practices extends beyond 1,500 feet. He added this was a discretionary issue for the commissioners. The Eugene PlanningComrn.ission took a stra\\T vote on: Is there convincing factual information in the record that indicates conflict lvith agricultural practices extends beyond 1,500 feet Iroln the boundary of the expansion area? The result wa.s unanimous, 0:5. MINUTES- August 30, 2006 Joint Lane County and Eugene Plann111g Comnlission Page 7