Item B: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

Mr. Zdzienicki added that tIle trucks used by tIle applicant ,\tould be driving a longer distance and creating a h~g~er particulate count in the air. He said the \vetness of the. roads \"QuId be a factor itl mitigating dust emISSions. A straw poll was taken \vhich showed consensus among both of tIle commissions tllat there \vas a conflict \vith dust. Mr. Duncan said the staff recommendation \vas to find that dust enlissions could be nlinimized to DEQ standards as applied by LRAP A. Mr. Dignam suggested asking staffs opinion as to \vhether tile applicant's suggested mitigation ll1easures were sufficient Mr. Lanfear said the comnlisslons should use the conditions as proposed by the applicant, and detefllline \vhether those conditions are adequate to mininlize the conflict to a level that it is no longer significant. No longer significant tn.eans do they nleet the DEQ I I~RAPA standards? Mr. Duncan said LRAPA set the requirements for elnissions. He said LRAPA \vas the agency to make the decision about emission standards. He said he would go along \vith a LRAP A decision about ll1itigation methods. Mr. Lanfear said dust standards had to be met at every point wllere conflict in the inlpact area occurred. Mr. Carmichael called for a straw vote regarding 'whether the applicant's suggestion for l11itigation \vere adequate. Mr. Becker said lnitigationmeasurescould not be proposed before all analysis \vas done. Mr. C:arroll 'conl111ented that a straw vote\vas straying from the framework of the staff report. He mailltained that it had not yet been decided whether dust c,onflicts could benlitigated. I-Ie said he \vould vote no in the straw poll because the comnlissions were missing the substance of tlle process. The Eugene Plaruling Coml1lission voted 4: 1 that dust conflicts could be mltlimized. Colbath voted no. Ms. Colbath called for a stra\v vote on whether the minimization could occur \vith the conditions # 15-25 as listed on Attachnlent 2, the conditions, in the record. Mr. Belcher suggested removing condition #22 vvhichcalledfor a reduction in 111inill1Ull1 setbacks. He comnlented that reducing minimum setbacks in an area near residential housing "vas the last thing that should be done. He reiterated that LRAP A standards were identical without considering proximity to residential areas. Mr. La\vless said impacts could be ll1ininlized by measures other than moving the line. There will be inlpacts at the edge of the neighborhood \vhether the setbac,k was 50 feet or 150 feet. He said distance was only one way of mini.nl1zing impacts. I-Ie said tIle goal of minimization of impacts could be achieved \vithout limiting setbacks. MINUTES-Lane County Planning Comn1ission July 25,2006 Page 10