BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS’
WORK SESSION
February 3, 2004
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners'
Conference Room
APPROVED
2/18/04
Commissioner Bobby
Green, Sr. presided with Commissioner Bill Dwyer, Don Hampton, Anna Morrison
and Peter Sorenson present. County
Administrator Bill Van Vactor, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording
Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
None.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Peter Roberts, 2366 Washington St., Eugene, wanted to
change the name of Lane County from Joseph Lane to Harry Lane by
referendum. He said no maps or
letterhead would have to change, everything would stay the same. He added if
the referendum could be added to a scheduled election there would be no cost.
Lorraine Still, 83076 Bradford Rd., stated the Board that
LCARA met with routine disregard to the public meetings law. She noted the task force met at the Board’s
direction. She asked the Board what
action they planned to take. She said
the answer must be that the recommendation of the task force be totally
disregarded. She added to do otherwise
is to break the trust of the citizens of Lane County.
Carol Titus, 29936 Kelso, Eugene, stated her group was a
great asset in the dog community. She
asked the task force that they be included.
She said they were given the opportunity to speak but she didn’t think
they were heard. She noted they have a
wealth of information they were willing to share with the group. She asked the Board to accept what they have
to offer.
Flo Brewer, P. O. Box 186, Junction City, recalled that
during the LCARA task force presentation, Sheriff Clements spoke out against
some of the ordinances that were in violation.
She said there are ways she could help LCARA raise funds. She asked the Board to ask for their help.
3. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE
Sorenson stated that
President Bush released the annual federal proposed budget and it contains over
half a trillion dollars in budget deficit.
He said the impact on local governments and school districts will be significant. He urged the Board of Commissioners to get
involved with NACo or other appropriate agencies to alert their federal
delegates to congress of the seriousness of a proposal, which shows such a huge
budget deficit, and the impact it would have on programs Lane County
administers.
4. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
None.
5. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
Animal Regulation
Authority
a. REPORT BACK/LCARA Taskforce Report.
David Suchart,
Management Services, discussed his matrix. (Copy in file). He said he has been working on relationships
with other agencies and community groups.
He commented that Mike Wellington, Animal Regulation, as the manager of
the facility, had gone a long way in working with those relationships. He said they have developed a partial plan
for license fees and increases. He
noted they have a draft agenda of that item and plan to present it to Finance
and Audit. He said he and Wellington
are currently preparing LCARA’s budget for next year and because of the
reductions that are being put in the budget (nine percent reduction in general
fund support) the City of Eugene will keep LCARA’s funding at the same
level. He added they would have
benefits and PERS costs that will go up.
He hoped the license fees would be approved in time so they could be put
into the budget, but he noted at this point there would be reductions in
LCARA’s budget. He said his objective
is to maintain the efficient basic operation of LCARA. He added if there are budget reductions and
if some things don’t come to play, it will make some of the recommendations
more difficult than they might be otherwise.
Suchart noted when
he met with the task force originally, he asked for recommendations about how
they wanted the code to look. He said
they chose to re-write the code. He
said he has to meet with legal counsel to go through all of the code to make
sure which things are legal. With regard to facilities and staffing, he said he
would place the items that were referred to in the report into the Capital Improvement
Plan that will come before the facilities committee and then the Budget
Committee and the Board. He said issues
with limit laws are out of Lane County’s jurisdiction, as they are land use
issues. He said that Hector Rios,
Management Services, would work with Wellington on Spanish language materials
to redo the forms.
Dwyer asked what
Suchart’s concerns were.
Suchart responded
changing the name of LCARA. He said
they are animal regulation and that is their basic premise. He didn’t think changing the name was an
effective use of resources as it is their basic mission.
Dwyer opposed the
limit laws and proposed they raise the limit from two to four dogs. He was concerned about raising license fees
for law abiding pet owners to try to raise more revenue because they might get
to the point of diminishing returns and instead of bringing more people in,
they put more people out. He wanted a
period of amnesty whereby anyone with unlicensed dogs can pay for licenses
without any penalties for complying with the law. He wanted to raise the penalties after an amnesty period on
non-compliance with the laws. He said
it should be a complaint driven process but if there is a complaint, they need
to have the resources to be able to investigate it and have the penalties
severe enough so they don’t foster non-compliance. He wanted to see the penalties increased substantially for
non-compliance. He wanted Suchart to
move forward with his recommendation and to think about amnesty and how to make
it work.
Suchart noted on the
licensing that they have had a two-pronged approach. He said the project is getting the veterinarians to work with
them. He said they have showed an increase
in the amount of licenses they sell over previous history. He didn’t want to create non-compliance with
trying to get people to license their animals.
He said it was not just a funding mechanism but an insurance policy for
the dogs or any of the animals that are licensed to be brought back to its
home. He said the philosophy they have
been working on is one of education instead of hard enforcement.
Dwyer requested that
the amnesty would also be used for people having four dogs in coordination with
the cities.
Morrison noted the
fees came to Finance and Audit three months ago and they decided to send them
back. She said when it comes forward
this time with regard to the budget decreases they are seeing, she hoped they
could see what the fee increase will do against the nine percent
reduction. She agreed with the amnesty
piece. She didn’t want to work on the
rabies vaccine. She wanted to use a
slower approach. She wanted an
explanation on the microchip clinic about costs and who does it.
Suchart suggested
that Wellington e-mail the Board about what he is doing with Petfinder and the
vets with regard to the microchip clinics.
Morrison didn’t want
to control the number of animals. She
thought if people had large properties they should be able to have the pets
they want according to the number of acres they have. She said whatever they decide to do, they have to have a public
hearing with those components and must be allowed to hear from the public. She said when they had the task force
presentation done in December, she specifically asked for an interpretation
regarding whether or not the open meetings law was violated.
Sorenson indicated
the initial meetings of the task force were not in compliance with the Open
Meetings Law. He added as it was
brought to Suchart’s attention, more formal action took place and there were
notices for the meetings and compliance with the Open Meetings Law.
Suchart admitted he
made a mistake previously and since then they have opened the meetings up. He added no decisions were made prior to
that time
Sorenson asked if
there was no compliance previously at meetings if it invalidated the Board of
Commissioners consideration and discussion of the management’s response to the
task force.
Wilson responded her
opinion was that it does not invalidate it.
She said the fact that the recommendation did not get on or written
until after public meetings started, that those public meetings cured whatever
legal error resulted as a result of the meetings taking place without the
proper notice. She added that the task
force only makes a recommendation, the task force can take no action and it was
never empowered other than to make recommendations. She noted the Board of Commissioners has the power to take action
and the Board’s meeting has consistently been held in public with public
notice. She stated it was a technical
violation but there has been a cure of the violation and whatever action the
Board ends up taking would be appropriate.
Dwyer was concerned
about elderly people having companion animals.
He said they have to have a way to formulate a fee that wouldn’t impact
their ability to have those animals. He
wanted to have 25% of the license fees dedicated to low cost spay and
neutering.
Hampton commented
that they have to focus on whatever they are considering would improve the care
and control of animals in Lane County.
He concurred on having amnesty for the licensing. He asked if LCARA was really doing what the
Board asked them to do. It was
suggested to him that they audit what Lane County’s money is being spent on,
and if the money is related to objectives that the Board has about animal
control. He thought if it didn’t
promote one of the goals, they would need to refocus and direct staff to do
something else. He suggested working
with Greenhill so that Greenhill becomes the holding area for all of the
animals in the County. He thought more
people could make private contributions to Greenhill to support that activity
than any of the tax increases or other revenue increases for LCARA. He thought there would be more support for a
pet food tax if it were earmarked for a low cost spay and neuter clinic. He favored the pet food tax going toward the
spay and neuter clinic.
Suchart commented if
he knew the service level that both the Board of Commissioners and the City of
Eugene had with regard to what the mission of LCARA is and if it was funded
properly, then he didn’t mind the diversion of partial revenues. He noted that most of the complaints he
received about service have to do with basic service and the number of hours of
operation. He stated if he doesn’t have
enough officers to respond to the basic service then it would be his highest priority for an alternative
funding mechanism. He noted when he
brings the license fees back to the Board, he will show in the budget what the
impact would be.
Green supported the
concept of amnesty on licensing. He
asked what the fiscal impact would be if they provide amnesty on an annual
basis. He said there would be some
budget implications. He added the Board
had taken the position that there would be no new taxes that would be promoted
by the Board. He assumed that also
included a pet food tax. He thought the
issue of increasing companion animals was a land use issue. He thought the staff resource issue was what
could be done within a window of time.
He wanted know what the level of resources would be with the work plan
and who is doing what.
Suchart indicated
that 80% of the work is Wellington’s.
He thought they would have the dog licensing in place for this year’s
budget.
Sorenson wanted to
involve the public in testifying and to provide for a timeline where the Board
of Commissioners would create a series of ordinance changes that would involve
public hearings. He wanted the Board to
provide direction to Management Services on getting this work plan to move
forward. He said there is a need for
the timeline to prepare a rabies vaccination reporting ordinance that the Board
could work on at a work session.
Dwyer noted the
recommendation from Suchart was that June 3 would be the timeline to create the
final draft for counsel to present to the Board. He wanted to give direction to go ahead with that.
Suchart commented
the primary thing the Board wanted done was licensing and some of the other
things on the code requirement on the rabies vaccination.
Sorenson wanted to
see faster work on the limit law issue.
He wanted to move forward on the rabies vaccination. He wanted to see the Board ask Land
Management to change the County’s ordinance regarding the limit law in the
County. He noted the clear indication
from the task force recommendation and animal owners in the County is that
limit laws do not necessary promote animal welfare. He also wanted to pursue revenue options. He supported graduated implementation of licensing. He also liked the amnesty aspect. He wanted to see staff work done on
accelerating the kennel capacity.
Hampton agreed they
had to work on the limit laws. He
thought they could come up with workable definitions of companion animals
versus kennels. He wanted more
emphasis on people who are abusive with animals instead of a limit on the
number of animals.
Dwyer commented the
amnesty has to be in conjunction with expanding the limit laws from 2 to 4 for
companion animals. He said it didn’t
require any code changes and it is not a land use decision.
Wilson didn’t know
what the land use code specifically stated.
She said they have to review it.
Dwyer wanted to see
things happen but he didn’t want to force things beyond staff’s ability to make
them happen. He didn’t see anything in
the report that he disagreed with. He
thought the contract issue of utilizing volunteers needed to be worked out.
Suchart reiterated
the number one thing he would work on is licensing and adding the blend of the
percentages that might go to spay and neuter, the amnesty program being tied in
the limit law. He said the second part
is the code change with regard to rabies vaccination. At the same time they will be working with staffing and fiscal
issues through the budget. He added
they would work on relationships with other agencies, have documents in Spanish
and have Wellington work with Melinda Kletzok for public relations and also
using volunteers. He indicated that the
Board didn’t want any new taxes and he didn’t want to work on a pet food tax.
Hampton commented
that the pet food tax was not something that he wanted Suchart to work on
first. He suggested doing the limit law
first.
With regard to no
new taxes, Dwyer stated he was talking about the impact on Lane County
residents with property taxes. He was
willing to have a tax to benefit a spay and neuter clinic. He said it has to be workable.
6. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
a. Announcements
Van Vactor recalled
pursuant to the Board’s direction last week, he and Steve Vorhes, Assistant
County Counsel, worked on a response to the Willakenzie Rural Fire Protection
District’s application for annexation of the area inside the City of
Springfield. He said they submitted a
report to the Boundary Commission and that hearing is Thursday evening. He asked if the Board wanted Lane County to
make an appearance. He noted he
received back two responses from commissioners stating yes. He said the purpose of the appearance would
be to point out the policies in the Metro Plan that they don’t believe the
action is consistent with. He said even
though they don’t think this application complies with the Metro Plan, they
still want to work with Springfield to work jointly on an amendment to the
Metro Plan as soon as possible.
Dwyer suggested that
they request that the Boundary Commission remand this back to the cities and
the signers of the Metro Plan for revision.
He didn’t think they had the authority to amend the plan.
7. PUBLIC WORKS
a. THIRD READING AND DELIBERATION/Ordinance
PA 1188/In the Matter of Amending the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan
to Revise the “Significant Mineral and Aggregate Resources Inventory”,
Redesignate from “Forest” to “Natural Resource: Mineral”, Rezone from
“F-1/Non-Impacted Forest Lands” to “QM/Quarry and Mine Operations” and Allow
Mining for 40 Acres of Land Pursuant to Lane Code 16.400 and 16.252 and the
Goal 5 Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR 660-023), and Adopting Savings and
Severability Clauses (File PA 98-5144; B.J. Equipment Company). (NBA & PM
3/19/03 & 4/30/03)
Thom Lanfear, Land
Management, recalled the Board had a public hearing on April 30. He added they left the record open for
submittal of additional materials at that time. He stated the record is closed and staff has prepared a
supplemental cover memo. He said the
Board received the first volume of the file record that was developed at the
Planning Commission level they had before the hearing. He noted there was a supplemental cover memo
that was given to the Board at the hearing for materials that came in before
the hearing took place. He said the
Board received a set of materials during the hearing and those were placed in
the Volume 2 file record. He stated he
gave the Board a supplemental cover memo.
Lanfear indicated
the original ordinance proposed is the first agenda check list they received at
the hearing. He noted most of the
detailed analysis by staff on the issues is contained in that document and the
supplemental cover memo is staff’s review of the additional materials that came
in after the hearing.
Lanfear noted he
retrieved videos and a computer version of the hearing for Hampton who was not
at the original hearing. He added Hampton had received all of the materials and
has been brought up to date.
Lanfear explained
the procedure the Board could choose to follow is in the supplemental cover
memo. (Copy in file). He said the Board
was ready to conduct deliberations on the application.
Green noted the
testimony and the purpose of the meeting is for the Board’s deliberation. He asked the Board for any ex parte
contacts.
Hampton stated he
received a letter from Tom Lininger yesterday.
Dwyer said he
received the same letter.
Morrison said she
received it but threw it out before reading it.
Sorenson spoke with
Lininger yesterday and he was asked if he received the letter. He said he received the letter but it would
be included as part of the record.
Sorenson, Green and
Dwyer read the letter.
Lanfear indicated he
took Hampton to the site to so he could view the surroundings. He noted there was no one else present at
that time.
Dwyer recalled the
letter from Lininger reiterated what he thought the Board saw at the site. He thought it was to refresh their memory.
Lanfear asked if
anyone wanted to object to anything about the letter.
Vorhes said if the
Board was interested in re-opening the record and considering the letter, then
that would be the way to consider it. He said in the context of ex parte
contacts, to the extent the letter is an ex parte, having disclosed it; it was
an appropriate time to provide any opportunity for anyone to respond to that
disclosure if there was an interest in disclosing that. He said in terms of the substance of the
letter, unless the Board takes action to re-open the record and allow that
letter in and if they were to do that, he urged the Board to allow other people
to respond to that letter. He
recommended excluding the letter from the record and from the consideration of
the matter.
Sorenson concurred
with Vorhes.
Dwyer commented if
the letter is not part of the record then there shouldn’t be any response.
Vorhes noted that
this letter came to the Board from an ex-commissioner. He noted it is not a contact from someone
who is not a party to the proceeding.
He noted outside of the context of anyone else, this would be the
opportunity for others to speak. He
added the Board would not consider this and would exclude the letter from the
record. He said then the substance of the
ex parte contact goes away. He said
there wasn’t much to object to but from a procedural standpoint, they should
ask if anyone wanted to respond to the fact of the letter coming to the Board
of Commissioners.
Dwyer commented he
was disappointed that he received the letter and it had muddled the hearing to
this extent.
Green asked if
anyone wanted to respond to the disclosure of the letter being submitted to the
Board that they are not considering as part of the record.
Jim Spickerman, 975 Oak St., Eugene, stated he is the attorney for the
applicant. He said they were concerned
when they found out about the letter.
He said he was satisfied with the discussion that took place with the
understanding that this item is not part of the record and it cannot be
considered.
Step 1. Determine if
the PAPA Information is Adequate.
Dwyer asked if there
was any material required in the PAPA that he thought was inadequate and if so,
what that was.
Lanfear responded
that the Planning Commission found there was enough information submitted to
meet that requirement of the rule.
Sorenson noted there
was an objection raised since the Planning Commission’s decision. He said the proponent stated the application
was filed September 24, 1998 and the Planning Commission’s decision was made on
April 6, 1999. He asked because of the
length of time, if the Board could deliberate on this or if it was an issue
where the passage of time invalidates the application.
Lanfear stated it
was something the Board could deliberate on.
He believed that the information submitted--required under this portion
of the rule--is the geotechnical investigation. He didn’t believe any changes happened in the rock that is at the
site. He said the operating plan
proposed by the applicant has not changed.
With regard to the
traffic impact analysis, Lanfear said there could be an issue over whether they
should be reviewing 20 years out from today or from when they submitted the
application. He said they could discuss
that under review of the road conflicts.
Sorenson asked if
the four-year delay to the Board’s deliberation fails because of the length of
time it has taken. He noted that the
LCDC requires matters to be handled in an expeditious way.
Dwyer stated the
180-day rule and the expeditious delay favored the application, not the
opponents. He said if someone makes an
application and the government stalls beyond a reasonable period of time, the
application would be granted, not deprived.
He said the intent of the laws wasn’t to keep someone from doing
something, it was to say that if someone applied, then the government has to
get it done within a period of time and if they don’t do due diligence, then
the government couldn’t deny it. He
said it works in the applicant’s favor with the intent of the law.
Sorenson stated the
opponents had raised non-compliance issues with Oregon Land Use Law because of
a failure to process this application in a timely fashion.
Vorhes explained
this is an application for a plan amendment so it is not covered under
provisions of ORS 215 for a mandamus action. He noted there were provisions in
the Goal 5 Rule that discuss timelines but there is not a basis for denial of
this only because of the time it has taken.
He added in the context of citizen involvement in the Goal 1 issues that
are being raised, there was opportunity for everyone to speak to the
information that started in the application that had been going through the
Planning Commission consideration and is currently in front of the Board. He said everyone was given an opportunity to
speak at the Board’s hearing at that time.
He noted if there were timeliness issues or issues related to the
passage of time and how it affected the information, that opportunities were
presented. He didn’t think there was a
basis for denial of this.
Sorenson stated the
opponents submitted a document to the Board that stated unreasonable delays
(such as the one encountered here) make it difficult if not impossible for
citizens to participate in the process in a meaningful way. He added they quoted the Lane County Rural
Comprehensive Plan that says: “Lane
County shall assure the availability of planning information in a timely manner
for County residents.”
Vorhes stated the
information had always been available and it is part of the public record. He added if the Board is concerned that
there hadn’t been adequate time, more time could be provided for people to
participate but that was not a basis for denial of the application.
Morrison concurred
with Vorhes. She noted on page 3 of the
agenda packet, there was a response that the Board gave people ample time, the
record was available and that to deny it because of the excess processing time
was not appropriate.
Step 2 Determine if
the Resource Site is Significant
Lanfear indicated
there hadn’t been much evidence submitted in the record objecting to the
significance of the resource. He said
there is a large quantity of rock that meets the ODOT specifications. He said there is a provision in the rule
that states you can’t find the site as significant if it has a certain amount
of Class 1 and Class 2 soils. He added
the rule specifies that the determination of those soil classifications come
from the National Resource Conservation Study for Lane County. He noted a citizen has turned in information
that quotes a Department of Forestry classification for the soil type. He said while the Department of Forestry
might consider it to be a Class 2 soil, it is not the rating that is given to
it in the NRCS study. He didn’t believe
they could mix and match the classifications.
He said they have to stick to the NRCS study classification. He said it shows there is no Class 1 or
Class 2 soils on the subject property.
He said the Board has a significant resource in front of them.
Dwyer agreed with
the NRCS study for Lane County that there was a significant resource on the
property.
Step 3 Determine if Conflicts from Mining Can Be Minimized
Lanfear said the
review of conflicts in the Goal 5 Rule limit specifically what conflicts they
could review. He said they needed to
have a discussion about the impact area.
He noted this is one of the main parts of this application that is in
dispute. He said the rule states the
Board reviews this at 1,500 feet from the mining area. He added they have to review conflicts with
existing and approved uses in the area.
He said if they get factual information that shows the conflict extends
further out than that, then they extend the impact area further. He noted in this application it isn’t clear
in the rule where the impact area starts.
He said the rule seems to limit the impact area to begin at the mining
area itself. He said they defined that as the area of the site within which
mining is permitted or proposed, excluding undisturbed buffer areas or areas on
a parcel where mining is not authorized.
He added that mining is defined as the removal of overburdened and the
extraction of natural mineral deposits.
He said it also includes any areas that are used to process the
aggregate or rock material to be
considered part of the mining area. He
noted the processing is crushing, washing, milling, screening, batching, and
blending into asphalt or cement. He
said for this application they are limited to the review of conflicts to
impacts that come from the site down to the road. He added the problem that is being identified by the citizens of
the area is that when the trucks get down on the haul road and they enter the private
road, they are feeling the impacts of dust and noise from the trucks traveling
on the public road and on the haul road.
Dwyer asked if they
could allow mining and lessen the future impacts on the people who might be
impacted by the activity.
Lanfear said they
have to find that identified conflicts have been minimized, meaning brought to
a level that they are no longer significant and the rule defines how they do
it. He said in order to find out if the noise had been minimized, they have to
find that the noise had been brought into compliance with a state regulation
and that determines if it had been minimized.
He noted that dust is not quite as specific. He said if it is not a conflict that has a state or local
regulation that applies to it, it is more subjective and they have to find that
it has been reduced to a level that is no longer significant. He said the impact area they are starting
from appears to be the mining area itself and they are looking at impacts from
that mining. He said what is causing a
problem for the opponents is that it would seem to preclude a review of the
noise and dust impacts that are happening on the road.
Sorenson asked if
the mining stops at the point that the trucks have been loaded.
Lanfear responded
there is a letter in the record from DOGAMI that discussed transportation of
the material. He said at the point it
is put into some truck or vehicle for transport it is no longer processing.
Sorenson asked if
the existence of the private haul road changes the issue of the impact area as
opposed to a public road.
Lanfear noted in
terms of noise and dust it does not, because the way the conflict review is set
up in the rule they look at discharges under one provision and when they get to
conflicts with local roads it identifies the specific features of roads that
they look at. He said they look at site
distance and cross-sectional area, road capacity, horizontal and vertical
alignment so it specifically discusses the facility itself and it doesn’t open
it up to review of noise and dust from that public road. He said the haul road does not fall within
the conflicts of local roads.
Conflicts with
Discharges of Noise and Dust from the Mining Itself
Lanfear said the
applicant had turned in several studies by Art Knoxen, noise engineer, and the
opponents had turned in other documents from Daley Stanley and Associates. He said at each step of the process, the applicant has presented material and the
opponent had responded. He noted the
Bear Creek Neighbors represented by Eban Fodor had responded and the applicant
had responded back. He noted the
applicant’s engineer had addressed the concerns raised by the opponents in
their submittals. He said the
applicant’s engineer was on-site doing testing with a drill occurring at the
site and taking noise measurements at the nearest residence. He said that the “on the ground information”
is the most reliable. He noted the
opponents are raising process issues on how the methodology was conducted and
the applicant’s engineer had responded.
He said the Board has to weigh the competing experts to determine which
one carries the evidence for the Board in its decision. He said what the applicant is saying about
the noise levels at each noise center receiver (a house) is brought below the
level of noise in the DEQ provision. He
said the noise had been minimized to a level that had been considered to be the
limit and that, by definition, minimizes the conflict. He added the noise study shows that it takes
2100 feet for the noise to be reduced to a level where it reaches the DEQ
standard. He said the impact area
should be expanded out to 2100 feet.
With regard to the
haul road, noise and dust, Lanfear explained the Board had to determine whether
they could consider the noise from the haul road. He said it appears that they are limited on that. He said that any noise generated is subject
to DEQ provisions. He added there are
standards for noise production by vehicles on private and public property, but
it is not part of the Goal 5 land use. He said unless the Board finds the haul
road is part of the mining area, they don’t get to address the conflict with
noise in the houses at the end of the road.
Lanfear noted there
was a condition of approval that was placed on this by the Planning
Commission. He said they set operating
time limitations on the application, not in concern with the noise issue, but
in conflict with school buses. He said
their concern is the traffic on the road.
He said it had to do with coordination of Goal 2 with local governments
as part of the statewide goals. He
noted the Creswell School District had turned in letters.
Green asked what the
operating hours would be.
Lanfear responded
the applicant wanted to run six days a week with an option for occasional
Sundays. He said they would operate
during daylight hours. He added the proposed condition is from 7:30 a.m to 5:00
Monday through Friday during the school year and 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 during the
summer months. He noted the applicant
had raised the issue of being able to get the rock to a job site in time for a
job site to open. He added there was
not a limited time frame.
Lanfear said with
noise that it has to be reduced at a noise sensitive receiver. He noted at the house they have to find it
is reduced below the DEQ limit. He said
the noise study that was prepared did not take into account the beneficial
affect of the berms.
Dwyer asked if they
could require that a buffer existed between the exposed neighbors and the mine
at all times.
Lanfear explained
they could place any reasonable condition to minimize a conflict. He said if they think the record shows to be
certain that the noise would be minimized at the nearest houses, that they need
to keep the berm in place.
Haul Road Dust
Lanfear indicated
this issue is similar to the noise on the haul road issue. He noted as part of the review from the
Planning Commission, the applicant had offered to control dust on the haul road
by the application of a dust abatement substance. He added it was written in as a condition of approval that they
keep the dust down at the entrance to Cedar Croft Road. He noted that the citizens raised concern
and the applicant had agreed to do that.
He said there does need to be control of the dust under the LRAPA permit
that the applicant would be receiving to do the mining and dust control is
under their jurisdiction. He said that
was a necessary part to meet the LRAPA requirements, not necessarily the Goal 5
Rule.
Mining Area Dust
Lanfear noted this
would be the dust created by the crushing of the rock at the mining site and
loading it into the truck. He said they
don’t have any good information in the record that suggests that the dust from
the site would travel the mile to a house.
He didn’t believe there was a dust issue at the mining site itself.
Discharges onto the
Public Roads
Lanfear stated there
was an issue raised that there would be rock and debris discharged from the
gravel trucks as they travel down Bear Creek Road and Cedar Croft Roads. He said in terms of an impact to the public
roads, it is not a part of the roads component conflict, as it had nothing to
do with site distance or road capacity.
He said it fits under the discharge section and it is not a discharge
from the mining area. He added if it
does occur, it is a discharge from a truck on the road and it is not part of
the impact area.
Fire Hazards
Lanfear noted there
was concern that a fire would break out at the mining area. He said there was no information in the
record as to what would be causing it.
He said it is bare rock where they are doing the mining and as part of
the DOGAMI requirements they have to have some kind of spill containment
program in place. He said the concern
might have been about the trucks on the haul road, traveling down dry dusty
roads. He added there was concern there
was only one access to the mining site.
He noted there is a secondary access to the mining site that the
applicant is not proposing to use for the hauling of rock and there is a
condition placed in the findings that they be limited to access to Cedar Croft
and not use the road.
Mudslides
Lanfear indicated
the mudslides issue was raised by the property owner off of Bradford Road. He said they were claiming that when some
fire timber harvesting activities occurred, they witnessed some erosion and
mudslides toward their property. He
said it was not mining related and there was no evidence in the record to
suggest that mining the rock would cause mudslides on someone’s property as it
is a hard rock quarry.
Property Values
Lanfear explained
the issue of decreased property values goes to the same issue about the impacts
coming from the haul road. He said
letters that were turned in with a decrease in property values discussed the
noise and dust from the trucks and it is hard to see that that is a conflict
caused from the mining area itself.
Dwyer asked if there
was any evidence to indicate that a value of a house down the hill would be any
different than it would be if the mine weren’t there. He asked if there was any data in the previous mining that it
actually occurred.
Lanfear noted there
were letters and a petition document that people submitted indicating they
would not have bought their properties in that location if they had known that
a mine would occur nearby.
Green indicated the
Board would start on another day on the conflict to local roads on page 7 of
the supplemental agenda cover memo.
There being no further business, Commissioner Sorenson adjourned the meeting at 11:55 a.m.
Melissa Zimmer
Recording Secretary