Planning Commission

MINUTES Lane County Planning Commission Eugene Planning Commission Harris Hall - Lane County Courthouse July 25, 2006 5:30 p.m. Lane County Planning Commission: James Carmichael, Chair; Ed Becker, Vice Chair; Lisa Arkin, Stephen Dignam, Todd Johnston, (recused from the proceeding), Nancy Nichols, Jozef Zdzienicki, Commissioners; Juanita Kirkham and John Sullivan; Absent Thom Lanfear, Stephanie Schulz Matt Laird, Staff Eugene Planning Commission: Marlene Colbath, Chair; John Belcher, Rick Duncan, Phillip Carroll, John Lawless, Commissioners; Randy Hledik (recused from the proceeding), Phillip Hudspeth, Absent Kurt Yeiter, Staff I. WORKSESSION Deliberations: PA05-6151/ In the matter of amending the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan to redesignate 72.31 acres from Agriculture to Sand and Gravel, amended the Goal 5 Significant Aggregate Site Inventory to include the 72.31 acres, rezone the subject property from Exclusive Farm Use zone to Sand, Gravel and Rock Products zone. The proposal includes a request for two administrative variances to decrease the setback provisions of LC 16.217(4)(b)(v) pursuant to LC 16.217(4)(b)(v)(aa)in order to construct a low permeability barrier within the setback area pursuant to LC 16.217(4)(b)(v)(dd). Lane County Planning Commission Chair James Carmichael called the meeting of the Lane County Planning Commission to order. Eugene Planning Commission Chair Marlene Colbath convened the meeting for Eugene Planning Commission. Mr. Carmichael called for public comment on items not related to items on the agenda that evening. There were no members of the public wishing to speak. Mr. Carmichael called for a staff update. Lane County Planning staff Stephanie Schulz provided an outline for the work session deliberation. She outlined the steps for discussion 1. Determine if the PAPA information is adequate 2. Determine if the resource site is significant 3. Determine if conflicts from mining can be minimized  4. Weigh ESEE consequences and determine whether to allow mining 5. Determine ESEE Consequences of potential new conflicting uses within the impact area 6. Determine if the application meets the Lane Code rezoning requirements of LC 16.252 and if the variance to the mining setback should be granted under LC 16.217(7); Note: The rezoning and setback variance determination recommendation is a single jurisdiction decision for the Lane County Planning Commission. 7. Developing a program to allow mining. (Step Six of the Goal Five Rule) Ms. Schulz said staff would like recommendations for each step even if it was a recommendation to deny. She said recommendations needed to be based on the information in the record so elected officials could know the entire scope of the process used by the planning commissions in order to proceed. Mr. Carmichael recommended taking each step one at a time with individual votes. Lane County Planning Commissioner Jozef Zdzienicki questioned which steps would be combined decisions for the two commissions. Ms. Schulz said there would be joint deliberations until step six. She said the item for the variance request was for Lane County only. Step 1. Adequacy of the Information City of Eugene Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter stated for the record that Eugene Planning Staff concurred with the County staff report. Ms. Schulz said the applicant needed to provide information regarding quantity, quality and location sufficient to determine whether the standards and conditions were satisfied. She said County staff felt that conditions had been satisfied. She said the conceptual site reclamation plan was listed as Exhibit 49 in the record. She said the full reclamation plan had been provided during the written record process. Regarding the Traffic Impact Analysis, Ms. Schulz said Lane County Planning had waived the traffic impact analysis. She said staff had reviewed the information provided by the applicant and had determined that the increase in traffic was not sufficient to require further analysis. She noted that road improvements were scheduled for the next 20 years in that area. Regarding minimizing conflicts with existing uses, Ms. Schulz noted that information was included with the staff report as Attachment Two. She added that a site plan was also required to determine if the application had the basic information provided. She said the applicant had provided enough information to meet the application threshold basis for the application. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath regarding hours of operation and whether 8 am. to 10 pm. was a standard time frame for hours of operation for businesses in the County, Ms. Schulz said the times were in response to noise limitations established by the State. She said noise requirements changed at 10 pm. Mr. Yeiter added that the hours proposed were also consistent with the City’s noise ordinance. Mr. Zdzienicki commented that he did not believe the applicant had adequately addressed conflicts in Step 3 and therefore he could not approve step one. MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission July 25, 2006 Page 2 Regarding adequacy of the record, Commission member Lisa Arkin commented that the applicant’s record was inadequate in terms of information on noise, air pollution and impacts to ground water. Mr. Belcher commented that the planning commissions were the first body to review the record. He noted that commission staff felt that the information was sufficient to meet the requirements of the application. He said if the commissions felt that the information was insufficient then it could vote to deny and the record would be opened again and both parties would have a chance to respond before the elected officials. He said he would vote that the information in the record was sufficient. Commission member Steve Dignam said there was no reason to disagree with the staff recommendation. He maintained that there was sufficient information in the record that met the requirements of the process. Mr. Carmichael called for a vote from the commissions on step 1. Commission member Steve Dignam, seconded by, Commission member Ed Becker, moved to approve the provided information in Step One. The motion passed 5:1 with Ms. Arkin voting in opposition. Eugene Planning Commissioner John Lawless, seconded by Eugene Planning Commissioner Rick Duncan, moved to recommend that the Eugene Planning Commission approve the staff recommendation that Step One information was adequate. The motion passed unanimously. Step 2. Significance of the Resource Ms. Schulz said this item came under the heading of Oregon Administrative Rule, (OAR), 660-023-180(3). She noted that there had been a lot of input on the topic from the applicant and the opposition. She said determination was based on quantity and quality. She said the testimony from Shane Hughes had adequately explained at the public hearing how gravel was deposited in a river. She added that there was some question raised as to whether samples could be mixed or not. She said staff had reviewed the State Highway Safety Standards Appendix D75 Section X2.3.2, entered into the record by both the applicant and the opponents, which discussed sampling of bank run sand and gravel deposits which stated that samples should be thoroughly mixed and quartered if necessary. She said staff had determined that mixing of samples was appropriate. She added that the site in question was not on the inventory of significant aggregate sites in the Metro Plan. She said that in higher quality soils the thickness of the aggregate layer must exceed 60 feet in Lane County. She said the applicant had shown that the thickness was 70.5 feet and therefore had met the quantity threshold requirement and they have also shown that the quality was at a high enough level of significance to meet that part of the standard for step two, therefore, the significance threshold is met. Mr. Zdzienicki said he was conflicted on the two different versions on how the samples should be taken. He said he was not convinced by the applicant’s argument. Ms. Colbath questioned whether any state offices had been contacted to get information regarding mixing of samples. MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission July 25, 2006 Page 3 Ms. Schulz said she had not communicated with anyone in a state office. She said she was basing her conclusion on the pages in the official hand book that had been submitted into the record. (Exhibit 33a) Ms. Colbath expressed her concern that there was no independent opinion on mixing samples from a State office. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher regarding a previous application with Eugene Sand and Gravel and whether there was any information on sample analysis in that case that could shed light on the matter, Associate Planner Thom Lanfear said there were similar issues raised in that application. He said the commissions were faced with the dilemma of competing reports from qualified experts and would have to weigh the evidence in the record and make a decision. He added that information from that previous application was not part of the record for the current matter. Mr. Zdzienicki said it would have been prudent to involve the state to clarify the matter. Ms. Schulz replied that referrals had been sent out to state agencies but there had been no replies. Ms. Arkin said the report from EGR and Associates stated that 75 percent of the expansion site was class 2 soils. She stressed the importance of the measurements because there was a trade off between prime farmland and aggregate resource. She stressed the importance of establishing the accuracy of the sampling that had been done. She said she seriously considered the testimony of Dr. Mark Reed who had said the material was mixed when it should not have been and had stated that there was only 25 feet of aggregate on the site in question. She noted that the documents quoted by Ms. Schulz said that samples should be mixed from each stratum of deposits. She said she felt that the applicant had not convinced her that appropriate sampling had been done. She added that there were questions about bore hole three and the accuracy of the data provided. She commented that the applicant could have ‘cherry picked’ spots for bore holes and remarked that the proof provided was not strong. Eugene Planning Commissioner Rick Duncan said he understood the sampling process was a way to make an estimate of the total amount of resource that was available. He said to be judged significant, it needed to be equal to or greater than 2 million cubic tons. He stressed that the applicant’s sample showed 8 million cubic tons. He questioned whether a poorly taken sample could make up for a 6 million cubic ton difference. Mr. Dignam acknowledged that there were conflicting expert testimonies in the record. He said it was not a leap of faith that there was a significant aggregate resource in that area since gravel companies had been mining gravel there for decades. He said it was not a hard assumption to determine that there was significant resource on the site and said he intended to vote for step two. Mr. Duncan said he would support step two as well since it was hard to believe that a sample could be wrong by 6 million cubic tons. Mr. Belcher said he had no questions about quantity but questioned whether the quality was sufficient. Ms. Colbath agreed and said sampling done from different strata would have answered those questions. She said she believed there was adequate supply but said the problem was that quality was difficult to determine. MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission July 25, 2006 Page 4 Commission member Nancy Nichols said if visual inspection indicated that there was considerable variation then individual samples should be taken from each well defined stratum. She said the quantity was there but questioned whether the quality was adequate. Mr. Zdzienicki said river deposits varied from year to year. He said testing of the stratification was very important since there could be long periods without gravel being deposited. He said the quality issue had not been addressed adequately enough for him to vote in favor. Mr. Carmichael said the task of the commission was to evaluate the testimony and consider which was the most credible. He said Step Two was to determine whether there was significant resource. He said there was clearly a substantial resource present on the site and added that another piece of evidence was that the applicant had grown up on the property and was willing to make a substantial investment to mine the resource. He said the applicant would not be present if the resource available would not allow the company to operate in the future. He said he would vote in favor of Step Two. Mr. Dignam agreed and added that Ms. Schulz had solicited state comment on the matter but the State chose not to respond. He said the lack of response did not signify agreement with one party or another. He stressed that the commissions needed to make a decision based on the evidence in the record. Mr. Lawless said he hated to be in a situation to make a decision which he felt he was unqualified to make. He said he had no concerns about the quantity of aggregate present on the site. He said the applicant had stated that both of the lower samples had met the standard without the prime rock being sampled. He said there was no reason to not support both the quantity and quality standards provided by the applicant. Ms. Arkin acknowledged that quantity of resource was present on the site because of the large acreage but noted that farmland was also a significant resource. She said quality of rock also had to be present. She said testimony by Dr. Reed had stated that processing samples could allow the applicant to discard what was not acceptable and get a high quality sample. She surmised that pre test processing violated Oregon Administrative Rules. Mr. Belcher said there was not sufficient information for him to vote to support Step two. Ms. Colbath said the reason for sampling was to have a methodology that supported confidence in the result. She said she did see the information in the record to inspire her confidence in the sampling process. She said she did not feel that the way the sampling was done followed a strict standard and added the record did include an independent analysis from an objective party. She said she would vote against step two. Mr. Duncan said there were comments made that the sampling done was not an independent analysis. He stressed that EGR and Associates were an independent organization of which Delta Sand and Gravel was only a single client. He said the company was licensed by the State and stressed that he had a hard time questioning the methods used for sampling since the company did that sort of work for a living. Ms. Colbath said there was another expert that said the sampling was not done properly. She said if there was a second opinion available which favored one side or the other she would be sure about her vote. MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission July 25, 2006 Page 5 In response to a question from Mr. Duncan regarding whether a person testifying on the sampling had to have a certain level of certification from the State, Ms. Schulz said she believed that to be true. She said all of the experts in the record had provided credentials as part of their testimony. Ms. Colbath reiterated that she would like to see a second opinion regarding the matter of sampling. Ms. Schulz said the commission could not place a condition on approval. She said the commissions needed to make either a yes or no vote on the facts in the record. Mr. Lawless expressed a hope that the bodies making final decisions would ask a state agency to judge which of the opinions on sampling should be taken. Mr. Dignam said it would be interesting to have a third opinion but remarked that bringing in other experts could go on and on. He stressed that the commissions needed to make decisions based on the information already in the record. Ms. Arkin said she would be voting no on step two because she felt that the record was incomplete. She said that anyone could make errors and stressed that she did not believe the errors were made on purpose. She remarked that there had been a similar case previously that had hinged on a ‘few feet’ which was determined not to be present. Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to accept the staff recommendation that the applicant had demonstrated the existence of significant material resource on the site. The motion passed 3:2 with Mr. Belcher and Ms. Colbath voting in opposition. Mr. Dignam, seconded by Mr. Carmichael, moved for approval of step two. The motion failed 4:2 with Mr. Dignam and Mr. Carmichael voting in favor. Step 3. Minimize Conflicts Ms. Schulz said the first part of step three was determining the impact area. She said the Oregon Administrative Rule stated that the impact area shall be large enough to include uses listed and shall be limited to 1,500 feet from the mining area except where factual information indicates that additional conflicts existed beyond that distance. She said issues with dust, noise, groundwater, wetlands and sensitive habitat, traffic, flooding, and agriculture had all been identified in the public hearing. She said there had also been a concern raised in the record regarding the elementary school that was beyond the 1,500 foot impact area to the north. She added that there was also testimony that impacts went beyond 1,500 feet. She said she did not concur with that opinion and the 1,500 foot limit was appropriate in her view. She said the County Engineer had reviewed the testimony from the applicant and had submitted a notice into the record stating that the requirements for triggering a traffic impact analysis had not been met. She noted that there was an exhibit in conflict with that opinion in the record. Regarding conflicts with other Goal 5 resource sites within the impact area, Ms. Schulz said the case included wetlands in the area. She noted that there was an oxbow remnant of the East Santa Clara Waterway on the Eugene Wetlands Inventory. She said timing was important in that adoption Eugene’s Goal 5 inventory had not been completed. She said the oxbow wetland could not be considered because the Goal 5 Inventory protection measures have not yet been approved by the City and the County. She said there was a pond on the site MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission July 25, 2006 Page 6 that was in the County’s Goal 5 resource inventory but noted that it was not considered a jurisdictional wetland under Division of State Lands rules. She said there was also a section about agricultural practices which did not have a specific agency that provided specific thresholds to meet. She noted that there was testimony from a community farm owner in the record who had raised concern over groundwater impacts. Regarding minimizing conflicts, Ms. Schulz called attention to Attachment Two of the staff report which contained the mitigation conditions proposed by the applicant to address the required criteria. • Dust Staff Recommendation: The commissions should find that there is a conflict due to dust that can be minimized to a level that meets DEQ emission standards as applied by LRAPA. Mr. Duncan said sand and gravel operations were allowed to produce a specific amount of material per year. He remarked that if the amount of material produced per year did not increase then there should not be more dust created than the operation was currently generating. Ms. Schulz said the issue was not about how much material was mined but how much particulate was put in the air. She said there was not a strict correlation with volume of material produced. Mr. Duncan reiterated that there would not be more mining than what was currently being done so if Delta was meeting dust standards currently then there was no conflict. Ms. Schulz said the expansion area would be included in the current LRAPA permit. She said the possible conflict had more to do with whether dust was being generated at once or over a longer period of time. Mr. Duncan stressed that the operation would not change significantly from what was currently being done. Mr. Lawless said there was also an issue of proximity of dust to the impact area. Mr. Carroll noted that the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA) permit enforced DEQ standards. He said as long as the applicant met that standard then there was no conflict. He acknowledged that dust conflicted quality of life but it was measured by how much was produced by the facility. He stressed that the issue was how much dust the facility produced. He said if the standard for dust emanation criterion was met then Delta was meeting the standard for dust emission. Mr. Dignam confirmed that LRAPA regulated dust emissions. He said he was not prepared to second guess LRAPA. He said he was comfortable with the dust issue as long as the LRAPA standards were met. Ms. Colbath said her concern was whether the particulate emission met the approval threshold. Ms. Arkin said the reason LRAPA enforced DEQ standards was for impacts on human health. She stressed that dust had an impact and that was what the regulation was all about. She said there was an expert in the record who had stated that many neighborhoods would be impacted by dust emissions from the site. She added that there was also a physician on record talking about pulmonary diseases and other health impacts to nearby residential areas. She noted that the applicant did not do an air dispersion model MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission July 25, 2006 Page 7 for the west end of the site and said this was a serious oversight and an inadequacy in the record. She said the expansion area was in closer proximity to neighbors and would therefore produce 50 to 60 percent more particulate matter. She said increased exposure to particulate matter would actually decrease longevity. She said she would like to hear from the applicant as to whether it could do better mitigation measures on dust emissions. Ms. Nichols commented that the dust mitigation portion of the applicant’s report mentioned less than normal setbacks and remarked that this did not seem like mitigation of impacts. Mr. Zdzienicki said the LRAPA permit had not yet been given. He raised concern over making a blanket decision that the expansion area would be included in the same permit that was currently in use. Mr. Becker said there had been no quantitative analysis of dust impacts as part of the record. He questioned how it was assumed that the applicant would comply with dust emission standards when there had been no analysis. Mr. Carmichael stressed that there was currently mining going on and there was currently an LRAPA permit. He said dust emissions were being examined according to LRAPA standards. He said if mining continued at its current level in a different area then a logical person would assume that whatever was currently going on now would be going on in the future. He said the issue was whether there would be more or less dust emissions. He acknowledged that there was some concern from commissioners that dust could be a conflict but expressed his opinion that dust emissions would not be a greater concern than it currently was. Mr. Becker said his issue was the closer proximity of mining operations to nearby residential areas. He noted that the opposition had claimed that there would be 50 percent more dust particulate in the air. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher regarding whether LRAPA changed its standards according to proximity to residential areas, Mr. Lanfear said the LRAPA standard was a maximum contaminate level based on proximity to the source of the emissions. Mr. Duncan said analysis of dust emissions was an ongoing process. He stressed that analysis was going on all the time. He said LRAPA would make the determination as to what was acceptable dust emission. Mr. Carroll said it was difficult to arrive at an objective resolution to the issue. He said if the applicant met the applicable standard then the commissions would have to find that standards had been met. He said the issue was a matter of the total production of dust by the facility and whether that production met the established standard. In response to a question from Mr. Dignam regarding whether other communities in Oregon had an organization similar to LRAPA, Mr. Lanfear said he did not know of any other area that had an organization similar to LRAPA Mr. Dignam stressed that Lane County was fortunate in that there was an expert organization that did nothing but monitor pollution levels. He said he did not feel that he needed to second guess LRAPA when it came to dust emission standards. MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission July 25, 2006 Page 8 Ms. Arkin said LRAPA did not have the staff or the funding to do fence line testing of dust emissions. She said LRAPA was sampling the quality of the air for a large area and could not pin point problem areas. She said if the neighbors complained about dust emissions LRAPA had no means to address the issue. She added that there was a DEQ standard for emissions that was enforced but referred to another application where the applicants had gone beyond the enforced standard for emissions. Ms. Arkin noted that the record contained a letter from School District 4J stating that the expansion site was close to a planned school site and expressed concern over health to the children due to particulate matter generated by Delta. Mr. Becker said the emission standard would the same as it was currently and would not change regardless of proximity to residential areas and as long as the facility met the standard then proximity would not matter. Mr. Zdzienicki said LRAPA was a complaint driven agency that did no analysis unless someone made a complaint. Ms. Colbath said LRAPA would be the body to enforce stricter standards for dust emissions. She acknowledged that it would be hard to enforce those standards and expressed a desire to look at other mitigation measures that might be taken. She said she would assume that all mitigations measures would be included in the application but raised concern that staff was trusting that an LRAPA permit would be issued and questioned whether there was any evidence that the permit would be confirmed. Ms. Schulz said the expansion area would be added to the existing permit. She added that LRAPA had said that it had completed the review of the proposal and the current permit remained valid. She noted that this was documented in the record. Ms. Colbath questioned whether there was sufficient evidence about emissions to the west side of the site and questioned whether there was any detail in the record about an air dispersion model to the west of the site. Ms. Schulz said east winds happened so infrequently that there was no concern among staff about dust mitigation to that side. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath regarding how far the planned elementary school was from the site in question, Ms. Schulz said it was beyond the identified 1,500 foot impact area. Mr. Lawless noted that there was a conflict due to dust that could be minimized to a level that met DEQ standards. He said the permit issued by LRAPA was a separate process. He said the issue was whether there were some mitigation methods that could meet LRAPA and DEQ standards. He said it was a separate matter whether LRAPA traveled around the boundaries of the property and took dust emission readings. Mr. Belcher said LRAPA standards did not take into account the proximity to residents. The only option was some sort of setback to deal with that issue. MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission July 25, 2006 Page 9 Mr. Zdzienicki added that the trucks used by the applicant would be driving a longer distance and creating a higher particulate count in the air. He said the wetness of the roads would be a factor in mitigating dust emissions. A straw poll was taken which showed consensus among both of the commissions that there was a conflict with dust. Mr. Duncan said the staff recommendation was to find that dust emissions could be minimized to DEQ standards as applied by LRAPA. Mr. Dignam suggested asking staff’s opinion as to whether the applicant’s suggested mitigation measures were sufficient. Mr. Lanfear said the commissions should use the conditions as proposed by the applicant, and determine whether those conditions are adequate to minimize the conflict to a level that it is no longer significant. No longer significant means do they meet the DEQ / LRAPA standards? Mr. Duncan said LRAPA set the requirements for emissions. He said LRAPA was the agency to make the decision about emission standards. He said he would go along with a LRAPA decision about mitigation methods. Mr. Lanfear said dust standards had to be met at every point where conflict in the impact area occurred. Mr. Carmichael called for a straw vote regarding whether the applicant’s suggestion for mitigation were adequate. Mr. Becker said mitigation measures could not be proposed before an analysis was done. Mr. Carroll commented that a straw vote was straying from the framework of the staff report. He maintained that it had not yet been decided whether dust conflicts could be mitigated. He said he would vote no in the straw poll because the commissions were missing the substance of the process. The Eugene Planning Commission voted 4:1 that dust conflicts could be minimized. Colbath voted no. Ms. Colbath called for a straw vote on whether the minimization could occur with the conditions # 15-25 as listed on Attachment 2, the conditions, in the record. Mr. Belcher suggested removing condition #22 which called for a reduction in minimum setbacks. He commented that reducing minimum setbacks in an area near residential housing was the last thing that should be done. He reiterated that LRAPA standards were identical without considering proximity to residential areas. Mr. Lawless said impacts could be minimized by measures other than moving the line. There will be impacts at the edge of the neighborhood whether the setback was 50 feet or 150 feet. He said distance was only one way of minimizing impacts. He said the goal of minimization of impacts could be achieved without limiting setbacks. MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission July 25, 2006 Page 10 Mr Duncan acknowledged that there was a conflict with dust but stressed that an extra 50 feet of setback would not make any difference what-so-ever. Mr. Carmichael commented that the discussion was going beyond the information in the record. He said the record would be clear for the elected officials that there was concern over setback issues. Ms. Arkin said all that needed to be said is that the conflict could be solved by requesting an ESEE analysis. Mr. Lanfear noted that to request an ESEE analysis the commissions would have to find that there was a conflict that was not minimized. He stressed that the commissions would have to make that finding first. Mr. Carmichael stressed that there was plenty of discussion in the record and requested that a straw vote be taken as to whether to exclude condition # 22. Mr. Carroll said conditions were important to deliberations. He stressed that the commission was entitled to address the impacts of the proposed mining expansion. He said conditions could be called out for the elected officials to examine later in the process. He listed the conditions for which he had concern; 1. Number 15, regarding minimization measures, said watering roads might need to be looked at more often than every two hours depending on the presence of vehicles. 2. Number 18 regarding trucks hauling dry fine material being wetted or covered when transporting off the site, Mr. Carroll commented that if clay was being transported onto the site then that would contribute to dust emissions. 3. Mr. Carroll noted that part of the LRAPA permit required that no party could knowingly allow fugitive dust emissions. He said, given the proximity to residential areas, more stringent mitigations measures were justified. Mr. Duncan seconded Mr. Carroll’s comments. He reiterated Mr. Carmichael that the record and staff notes would point out the concerns of the commissions to elected officials making a decision later in the process. Ms. Colbath stated that the comments of the commissioners stood by themselves and a straw vote was not required. She also had concern about Condition #22, as did Mr. Belcher. The Lane County Planning Commission straw vote indicated 4:1:1 that dust could be mitigated. 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. MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission July 25, 2006 Page 11 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 dust emissions, then the minimum standard setbacks should 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 proper 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 suggested that the Lane County Planning Commission schedule further deliberations 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. Mr. Duncan said there are a number of items that could be deliberated independently with the possibility of meeting jointly at a later time to discuss larger issues. He said it would be easier to meet separately in terms of scheduling. MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission July 25, 2006 Page 12 Mr. Belcher disagreed. He reiterated Mr. Becker that the commissions were learning from one another. He said deliberations would not go quickly because of the nature of the proposal. Mr. Dignam, seconded by Ms. Arkin, moved that the Lane County Planning Commission continue past its three hour deadline. The motion resulted in a tie vote. There was general consensus to continue the meeting until 10 pm. • Noise Staff Recommendation: The commissions should find that there is a conflict due to noise and the proposed mitigation measures are sufficient to minimize the noise impacts to a level that meets the State DEQ standard. Ms. Schulz noted that there had been a lot of testimony regarding noise during the public hearings. She said there had been a new development after the first public hearing in that the applicant reexamined the noise zone map and had determined that “. . .without mitigation, DEQ noise standards would be exceeded at the residences on the site owned by the applicant and approved uses within the noise limit boundary would also be affected.” Mr. Yeiter said the definitions in the administrative rules for minimization said that minimization meant to reduce an identified conflict to a level that was no longer significant. He said when there was an adopted standard, as was the case with noise, the commission should target that standard when considering mitigation measures. In response to a question from Ms. Nichols regarding whether the City’s noise limitation standards matched those of the State, Ms. Schulz said noise standards were established at the state level. Mr. Yeiter said the noise would not be coming from the city limits. He confirmed that City duration of noise standards were the same as those being proposed by the applicant. Mr. Duncan said he would support the staff recommendation since the state standards were already established. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher regarding how noise standards were enforced, Mr. Lanfear said there was no longer any state agency that enforced noise standards. Mr. Zdzienicki said noise enforcement was a complaint driven process and stressed that proximity to residential areas was a conflicting issue. Ms. Colbath said she agreed with staff that there was a conflict due to noise. In response to a question from Mr. Duncan regarding complaints about noise and whether DEQ standards would be used to measure noise, Mr. Lanfear suggested a condition of approval that the operation maintain the correct noise standards laid out by the Department of Environmental Quality. He said Lane County would then have the authority to enforce noise regulations. MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission July 25, 2006 Page 13 In response to a question from Ms. Nichols regarding whether the commission had the authority to change the hours that noise was allowed, Mr. Yeiter said he did not know what the state standard was for lateness of noise but the applicant had agreed to use the City of Eugene noise standards. Mr. Lanfear added that there was a certain level of noise allowed until 10 pm. and the applicant was not trying to operate until the established time limit. Ms. Arkin said the suggested noise standards were hard to enforce. She said 10 pm. was late for families in the area to hear operations going on. She said she was saddened that the applicant could not take families and working class people into account. She said for the record that 10 pm. was a burden on neighbors and she felt sad for the people who would have to listen to it. In response to a question from Mr. Carroll regarding whether excavation of the low permeability water barrier was a construction activity and therefore exempt from DEQ noise standards, Ms. Schulz said she did not agree with that conclusion. Mr. Carroll said the issue had been raised by the opposition that excavation for the low permeability barrier should be included under DEQ noise standards. He said the applicant had stated that the excavation was a construction activity and therefore had a different noise standard. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath regarding whether a construction permit would be issued, Ms. Schulz said it would be part of Delta’s operating plan and not a separate permit. In response to a question from Mr. Carroll regarding whether the applicant analyzed potential noise from the construction of the low permeability barrier, Ms. Schulz said the applicant had not. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath regarding whether the construction of the barrier would be included in the time limits established in noise ordinances, Ms. Schulz said yes if the activity was included in the plan to allow mining. Mr. Belcher said the equipment for constructing the low permeability barrier would not be below ground level like the mining equipment. He added that the construction would also be closer to residential areas. Mr. Lawless said he agreed that there was a noise conflict issue. He said he was in favor of considering allowed hours of operation. He said if the mitigation measures proposed met DEQ standards then he saw no reason not to support the idea that the conflict could be minimized. Ms. Arkin said the applicant failed to address the DEQ regulations for noise because they left out analysis of Impulse noise, blasting noise, and tonal noise. She stressed that the applicant had not really addressed compliance with DEQ standards. Mr. Becker said noise was a major issue for residents. He said the 10 pm. allowance seemed extreme to him and added that 7 am operation on a Saturday also felt unreasonable to him. He suggested that the allowable hours of operation should be re-examined. Mr. Carmichael said it appeared that staff and commissioner comments indicated that there was a noise issue. He stated for the record his hope that the elected bodies would take a close look at the noise issue. MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission July 25, 2006 Page 14 Mr. Belcher commented that holding to the 150 foot setback would have a positive impact on noise mitigation. Mr. Dignam said he believed there was a conflict due to noise but the mitigations suggested by the applicant were adequate. He said he would support the mitigation measures as proposed. He stressed the importance of looking at the big picture of all the mitigation measures being proposed. The Eugene Planning Commission took a straw vote and established general agreement that there was a conflict due to noise. Ms. Colbath called for a straw vote that the proposed mitigation measures were sufficient Mr. Lawless reiterated that mitigation measures would comply with DEQ standards. Mr. Belcher questioned whether the DEQ standards were sufficient for the neighbors. He added that construction of the low permeability barrier would have its own impacts and raised concern that there was not sufficient mitigation. Mr. Lanfear said the conflict was minimized if the noise met DEQ standards. The result of the straw vote was 3:2 with Commissioners Colbath and Carroll voting in opposition. The Lane County Planning Commission took a straw vote and unanimously decided that there was a conflict due to noise The Lane County Planning Commission took a straw vote on whether the conflict could be minimized by the proposed mitigation measures. The resulting vote was Commissioners Carmichael, Dignam, and Nichols voting yes, Commissioners Arkin and Zdzienicki voting no and Commissioner Becker abstaining. • Flooding Staff Recommendation: The Planning Commission should find that there was no conflict due to flooding. There was consensus to review the record and address the flooding conflicts at a future meeting. • Groundwater Staff recommended that the Planning Commission find that there was a conflict due to groundwater that could be minimized by constructing the low permeability barrier. The applicant should be directed to address the location of the low permeability barrier and map its specific location in the Operations Plan MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission July 25, 2006 Page 15 Ms. Schulz said there had been a lot of groundwater testimony submitted into the record. She expressed her belief that the conflict could be minimized by the construction of the low permeability barrier. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath regarding whether there had been other instances of similar barriers being used, Ms. Schulz said there had not. She said the applicant had made his case in the record regarding how the barrier would function. Mr. Dignam clarified that a low permeability barrier had not been seen in Lane County. He said it was his recollection that the technique had been used successfully elsewhere. He stressed that this was a relevant fact and asked staff if there are other places this technology is used. There was general consensus to table the item until a future meeting so staff could review the record for specific examples of the technology being used in other areas of the country and address the issues raised by the commission. • Traffic Ms. Schulz said staff had accepted and waived the applicant’s requirement to conduct a traffic impact analysis because the level of change of traffic on the roads would not rise to a level of significance. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher regarding concerns raised by the City Traffic Engineer, Mr. Yeiter said gravel permits had a life expectancy and truck traffic was worked in to that expectancy. He said the streets used were scheduled for improvements. He acknowledged that in the future the area would be more developed and there could be an issue in 20-30 years. Ms. Colbath commented that the City was not sure what the long term plan was going to be for the roads/intersections and there was some movement to the idea of incremental impact and development paying its share for road improvements in the area. Mr. Yeiter said the concern was that there would be more difficulty in the future when traffic levels increased due to future development if Delta was still operating at that time. Ms. Schulz said the level of change in traffic did not rise to the threshold where the applicant was required to do further analysis. She noted that road improvements would be done in the future to increase traffic capacity in the area. Mr. Zdzienicki said the projected growth in traffic was 1 percent. He said the current operating permit allowed 2 million tons per year and Delta was currently close to that limit so there would not be significant truck traffic added. Mr. Belcher commented that it would be unfair to penalize Delta for any future growth and development in the area. He remarked that the City concern was not valid. Mr. Duncan said he supported the staff conclusion. Mr. Dignam said he accepted the staff conclusion. He stressed that there was no conflict with transportation in the application. MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission July 25, 2006 Page 16 Ms. Colbath noted that the record showed that the applicant had stated that trips would not increase so there was no conflict. Eugene Planning Commission took a straw vote with the result of unanimous consensus that there was no conflict due to traffic impacts. Lane County Planning Commission took a straw vote with unanimous consensus that there was no conflict due to traffic impacts. Next Steps Ms. Schulz suggested meeting every Tuesday until the deliberations were completed. There was general consensus to tentatively schedule further deliberations for August 8 and August 15. The meeting adjourned at 10 pm. (Recorded by Joe Sams) MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission July 25, 2006 Page 17