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

Home Browse Search

Ms. Schulz clarified that there was consensus among the commissions that there was a conflict due to dust and the majority believed that the conflict could be minimized but not with the standards indicated in the staff report. Mr. Lanfear said the commissions had essentially decided that the conflict had not been minimized. He said the commissions could not say 'yes' to one point and 'no' to the second. He said the question was whether the conflict had been minimized by the applicant's proposed standards. Mr. Lawless said he would support the idea that the applicant's mitigation measures minimized the dust conflict. Mr. Belcher stated if there was real concern over minimizing dpst emissions, then the minimum standard setbacks would not be reduced by applicant request. He said he would not support the idea that the proposed mitigation measures could minimize dust emissions. Mr. Carroll said the record was inconclusive as to whether minimization would address the issue of dust. The straw poll result was that the proposed minimization measures would not address the dust conflict issue. The result was 3:2 with Commissioners Belcher, Carroll, and Colbath voting that the conflict could not be minimized with the conditions proposed by the applicant. Regarding the issue of whether the applicant had provided the pr9per mitigation measures to minimize dust impacts, The Lane County Planning Commission took a straw .poll with the result 2:3: 1. Commissioners Dignam and Carmichael.voting that the proposed measures were adequate, Commissioners Arkin, Zdzienicki and Nichols voting that the proposed measures were not adequate and Commissioner Becker abstaining. . Mr. Carmichael noted that the Lane County Planning Commission was approaching its time limit established in its by-laws. He called for staff comment as to when deliberations could be reconvened. Ms. Schulz said the commissions should .meet for further deliberations as soon as possible. She said nothing would be served by delaying the process. There was general discussion on whether to continue deliberations separately or jointly. Ms. Colbath said it was imperative to continue Jointly so commissioners could be aware of each other's deliberations and opinions. Mr. Zdzienicki agreed with Ms. Colbath. Mr. Dignam recommended that the commissions meet separately. He raised concern that the process was not going smoothly and said there was nothing to be lost by meeting separately and work their way through the listed issues. He'sugg~st.ed that the Lane County PI~g Commission schedule furth~r deiiberations for the following week. Mr. Becker disagreed. He said he was learning a lot from Eugene Planning Commission and the sum total of the people at the table was very beneficial. He expressed his desire to continue to meet jointly. MftfUTES~Lane County Planning Commission July 25, 2006. ..' . .Page 12