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

Home Browse Search

would look at the plan to ensure that it was adequate, and ensured that. no off site impacts would affect either the floodplain or groundwater. The letter had been entered into the record. · Other conflicts would be minimized by the applicant and those conflicts would be monitored and authorized ~yDEQ through LRAP A and LCDC. For those reasons, Mr. Sullivan was strongly in support of forwarding this to the elected officials who would approve or disapprove, and if they disapproved, would get the ESEE underway. Mr. ,Belcher, although conflicted, was encouraged by the fact that issues had been raised forconsideration by the elected officials. . Ms. Arkin said aggregate and fann land is GoalS resources. There was not convincing evidence in the record that the resource site was significant. She was concerned about health impacts such as dust leading to asthma and lung disease on school children and the children who lived in the nearby residences. The applicant had. not provided sufficient modeling to demonstrate noise could be mitigated. She felt strongly that the neighbors' fear of flooding was a real fear. Ms. 'Arkin said that none of the agencies' responsible for providing oversight had the funding and staffmg to do so. She asserted the application did not meet the criteria to allow mining. Ms. Kirkham said it was her responsibility as a Planning Commissioner to decide if the application convinced her 100 percent that they had met the criteria. Although there were many places where this. application did convince her, she had concerns about dust and water. She wanted the county commissioners to look at dust, groundwater, wetlands and flooding. Mr. Lawless said the Planning Commissions were in the position of pretending to know about things they lmew nothing about. He expressed conflicted feelings due to the social, economic and civic nature of our land use, and goals and rules that required compact growth and reduction of travel. He agreed this was a matter of balance. He hoped that the responsible monitoring agencies would be able to fulfill their responsibilities. He was convinced the applicant would comply with applicable regulations. He said he would support moving this forward to the elected officials. Concluding the discussion, Mr. Carmichael thanked the applicant for their patience; the citizens it;1volved in the opposition who offered .articulate, polite, and compelling comments; the Lane County and Eugene Planning Commissions for "hanging in there" for a long period of time, and doing their homework to reach reasonable conclusions to forward to the elected officials. He stated Mr. Sullivan articulated his feelings, while Ms. Arkin offered thoughtful opposing points. Mr. Carmichael opined there was a satisfactory solution to be found. He hoped the mining operation could continue, because it was a long term, good citizen of our community that was willing to participate in whatever mitigating formS to ensure the safety and well being of the people who moved close to that mining operation. He expressed optimism that as the elected officials proceeded they would take the commissioners' comments and thoughts to heart. Ms. Colbath pointed out that on page 2 of the August 8, 2006 agenda packet, the vote recorded for the Eugene Planning Commission on the question Do we believe the dust conflict can be minimized to a level that meets DEQ and LRAPA standards through. the conditions shown in attachment 2? was shown as 3 yes. 2 no, while.the infonnatio.n.in the packet fo~ today's meeting was corrected ~o 2 yes 3 no. . Ms. Colbath called for the motion. Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to. recommend to the Eugene City Council that the PI~ng Commission felt the PAP A infonn~tion was adequate and that the resource was significant. All conflicts were able to be minimized by the applicant 'except the dust conflict, .which the Planning