Item 1: PH on Ordinance Amending Metro Plan (Delta Sand and Gravel)

Home Browse Search

Mr. Dignam stressed that Lane County was fortunate in that there was an expert organization that did nothing but monitor pollution levels. He said he did not feel that he needed to second guess LRAP A when it came to dust emission standards. Ms.' Arkin said LRAP A did not have the staff or the funding to do fence line testing of dust emissions. She said LRAP A was sampling the quality of the air for a large area and could not pin point problem areas. She said if the neighbors complained about dust emissions LRAP A had no means to address the issue. She added that there was a DEQ standard for emissions that was enforced but referred to another application where the applicants had gone beyond the enforced standard for emissions. Ms. Arkin noted that the record contained a letter from School District 4J stating that the expansion site was close to a planned school site and expressed concern over health to the children due to particulate matter generated by Delta. Mr. Becker said the emission standard would the same as it was currently and would not change regardless of proximity to residential areas and as long as the facility met the standard then proximity would not matter. Mr. Zdzienicki said LRAP A was a complaint driven agency that did no analysis unless someone made a complaint. Ms. Colbath sai,d LRAP A would be the body to enforce stricter standards for dust emissions. She acknowledged that it would be hard to enforce those standards and expressed a desire to look at other mitigation measures that might be taken. She said she would assume that all mitigations measures would be included in the application but raised concern that staff was trusting that an LRAP A permit would be issued and questioned whether there was any evidence that the permit would be confrrmed. Ms. Schulz said the expansion area would be added to the existing permit. She added that LRAP A had said that it had completed the review of the proposal and the current permit remained valid. She noted that this was documented in the record. Ms. Colbath questione4 whether there was sufficient evidence about emissions to the west side of the site and questioned whether there was any detail in the record about an air dispersion model to the west of the site. , , Ms. Schulz said east winds happened so infrequently that there was no concern among staff about dust mitigation to that side. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath regarding how far the planned elementary school was from the site in question, Ms. Schulz said it was beyond the identified 1,500 foot impact area. Mr. Lawless noted that there was a conflict due to dust that could be minimized to a level that met DEQ standards. He said the permit issued by LRAP A was a separate process. He said the issue was whether there were some mitigation methods that could meet LRAP A and DEQ standards. He said it was a .' separate matter whether LRAP A traveled around the boundaries of the property and took dust emission readings. MINUTES~Lane County Planning Commission ' , July,25, 2006 Page 9