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

Home Browse Search

Mr. Lawless said impacts could be minimized by m~asures other than moving the line. There will be impacts at the edge of the neighborhood whether the setback was 50 feet or 150 feet. He said distance was only one way of minimizing impacts. He said the goal of minimization of impacts could be achieved without limiting setbacks. Mr Duncan acknowledged that there was a conflict with dust but stressed that an extra 50 feet of setback would not make any difference what-so-ever. Mr. Carmichael commented that the discussion was going beyond the information in the record. He said the record would be clear for the elected officials that there was concern over setback issues. Ms. Arkin said all that needed to be said is that the conflict could be solved by requesting an ESEE analysis. Mr. Lanfear noted that to request an ESEE analysis the commissions would have to find that there was a conflict that was not minimized. He stressed that the commissions would have to make that finding frrst. Mr. Carmichael stressed that there was plenty of discussion in the record and requested that a straw vote be taken as to whether to exclude condition # 22. Mr. Carroll said conditions were important to deliberations. He s~ressed that the commission was entitled to address the impacts of the proposed mining expansion. He said conditions could be called out for the elected officials to examine later in the process. He listed the conditions for which he had concern; 1. Number 15, regarding minimization measures, said watering roads might need to be looked at more often than every two hours depending on the presence of vehicles. 2. Number 18 regarding trucks hauling dry fme material being wetted or covered when transporting off the site, Mr. Carroll ,commented that if clay was being transported onto the site then that would contribute to dust emissions. 3. Mr. Carroll noted that part of the LRAPA permit required that no party could knowingly allow fugitive dust emissions. He said, given the proximity to residential areas, more stringent mitigations measures were justified. ' Mr. Duncan seconded Mr. Carroll's comments. He reiterated Mr. Carmichael that the record and staff notes would point out the concerns of the commissions to elected officials making a decision later in the process. Ms. Colbath stated that the comments of the commissioners stood by themselves and a straw ,vote was not required. She also had concern about Condition #22, as did Mr. Belcher. The Lane County Planning Commission straw vote i~dicated 4: 1: 1 that dust could b~ mitigated. ' MINUTES~Lane County Planning 'Commission , '. July"25,2006 . Pa'ge 11