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

Home Browse Search

Mr. Belcher said LRAP A standards did not take into account the proximity to residents. The only option was some sort of setback to deal with that issue. Mr. Zdzienjcki added that the trucks used by the applicant would be driving a longer distance and creating a higher particulate count in the air. He said the wetness of the roads would be a factor in mitigating dust emissions. A straw poll was taken which showed consensus among both of the commissions that there was a conflict with dust. Mr. Duncan said the staff recommendation was to find that dust emissions could be minimized to DEQ standards as applied by LRAP A. Mr. Dignam suggested asking staffs opinion as to whether the applicant's suggested mitigation measures were sufficient. Mr. Lanfear said the commissions should use the conditions as proposed by the applicant, and determine whether those conditions are adequate to minimize the conflict to a level that it is no longer significant. No longer significant means do they meet theDEQ / LRAP A standards? ' Mr. Duncan said LRAP A set the requirements for emissions. He said LRAP A was the agency to make the decision about emission standards. He said he would go along with a LRAP A decision about mitigation methods. Mr. Lanfear said dust standards had to be met at every point where conflict in the impact area occurred. ' ,Mr. Carmichael called for a straw vote regarding whether the applicant's suggestion for mitigation were adequate. Mr. Becker said mitigation measures could not be proposed befora an analysis was done. Mr. Carroll comment~ that a straw vote was straying from the framework of the st.affreport. He maintained that it had not yet been decided whether dust conflicts could be mitigated. He said he would vote no in the straw poll because the commissions were missing the substance of the process. The Eugene Planning Commission voted 4: 1 that dust conflicts could be rmnimized. Colbath voted no. Ms. Colbath called for a straw vote' on whether the minimization could occur with the conditions # 15-25 as listed on Attachment 2, the conditions, in the record. Mr. Belcher suggested. removing condition #22 which called for a reduction in minimum setbacks~ He commented that reducing minimum setbacks in an area near re'sidenti~l housing was the last thing that. should be done. He reiterated that LRAP A standards were identical without considering proximity to residential areas. MINUTES~Lan~ County Plamring Commission July 25, 2006:' " Page 10..