Item B: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

Mr Duncan ackno\vledged that there was a conflict \vith dust but stressed that an extra 50 feet of setback would not make any difference \\That-so-ever. Mr. Cam1ichael COl11ll1ented that the discussion \vas going beyond the infonnatiol1 in the record. He said the. record would be clear for the elected officials that there "vas concern over setback issues. Ms. Arkin said all that needed to be said is that the contlict could be solved by requesting an ESEE al1alysis. M'r. Lal1fear noted that to request an ESEE allalysis the conmlissions \vouldhave to find that there \vas a conflict that was not tnininlized.He stressed tllat the cOl11missions \votlld have to 11lake that finding first. Mr. Cannichael stressed that there \vas plenty of discussion in the record and requested that a straw vote be take.n as to \vheth.er to exclude C011dition # 22. Mr. Carroll said conditions \vere in1portant to deliberations. He stressed that the cormnission \vas entitled to address the impacts of the proposed n1ining expansion. He said conditions could.be called out for the elected officials to exan1.ine later in the process. He listed the conditions for \vhich he had concern; 1. Number 15, regarding minimization measures, said watering roads l1light need to be looked at nlore ofte1l than every t\VO hours depending on the presellce of vehicles. 2. Nunlber 18 regarding. trucks 11auling dry fine material being \vetted or coveredwh.en transporting off the site, Mr. Carroll cOffilnented that if clay \vas being transported onto the site then that would contribute to dust enlissions. 3. Mr. Carroll noted that part of tIle LRAPA permit required tllat no party could knOVl111gly allow fugitive dust enussions. He said, given the proximity to residential areas, nIore stringent 111itigations 111easures ,vere justified. Mr. Duncan seconded Mr. Carroll's e01nments. He reiterated Mr. Carmichael that the record and staff notes would point out.the concerns of the cOl11mi~sions to elected officials Inaking a.decision later in the process. Ms. Colbath stated that the comnlents of tIle comn1issioners stood by themselves and a straw vote was not required. She also had coneenl about COl1dition #22, as did Mr. Belcher. The Lane County Planning C0111misSlon straw vote indicated 4: 1: 1 that dust could be mitigated. Ms. Schulz clarified that there \vas consensus alnol1g the cOlnmissions that there was a conflict due to dust and the majority believed that the conflict could be nlin1111ize.d but not with the standards 111dicated in the staff report. MINUTES-Lane County PlalU1ing Commission July 25, 2006 Page 11