Item B: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

'Mr. Lanfear said the commissions had essentially decided that the conflict had not been luinimized. He said the commissions could not say 'yes' to one P0i11t and ".no' to the second. He said the question \vas \Vhetller the conflict llad been minimiz.ed by the applicant's proposed standards. Mr. Lawless said he would support the idea that the applicant's mitigation measures minin1ized the dust con.fiiet. Mr. Belcher stated if there \vas real concern over Ininimizing dust emissions, then the, minin1U111 standard setbacks should not be reduced by applicant request He said he \vould not support the idea that the proposed mitigation nleasures could Ininimize dust enlissions. Mr. Carroll said the record was inconclusive as to wllether minimization \vould address the issue of dust. The stra\v poll result was that the proposed minilnization ll1easures \vould not address the dust conflict issue. The result ,vas 3:2 \vith Commissioners Belcher, Carroll, and Colbath voting that the conflict could 110t be n1inimized \'lith the conditions proposed by the applicant. Regarding the issue of \vliether the applicant had provided the proper mitigation measures to minimize dust impacts, The Lane County Planning C 0ffil11is sian took a stra\v poll "vith the result 2:3: 1. Commissioners Dignam and Carmichael voting that the proposed measures were adequate, COl11missioners ...f\rkin, Zdzienicki and Nichols voting that the proposed measures "rere not adequate. and ComnlissionerBecker abstaining. Mr. Carmichael 110ted that the Lane County Planning Commission \vas appro"aching its time lin1it established in its by-laws. He called for staff comment as to \vhen deliberations could be reconvened. Ms. Schulz said the connnissions should meet for further deliberations as s~on as possible. She said nothing would be served by delaying the process. There \-vas general discussion on\vhether to continue deliberations separately or jointly. Ms. Colbath said it was imperative to COl1tinue jointly so comnlissioners could be aware of each other's deliberations and opInIons. Mr. Zdzienicki agreed \vith Ms. Colbath. Mr. I)ignam recoulmended that the conlmissions 111eet separately. He raised concern that tIle process \vas not going smoothly and said.there vvas nothing to be lost by meeting separately and \vork their way through the listed issues. He suggested that the Lalle County Plalming Connnission schedule further deliberations for the foUo\\ring \veek. Mr. Becker disagreed. He said he wa~ learning a lot from Eugene Planning Con1illission and the sun1 total of the people at tIle table was very beneficiaL He expressed his desire to continue to meet jointly. Mr. Duncan said there are a nUlnber of iteu1s that could be deliberated independently with the .possibility of meeting jointly at a later time to discuss larger issues. . He said it \vould be easier to tn.eet separately in temlS of scheduling.. MINUTES-Lane County Planning COlnmission July 25, 2006 Page 12