BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSí
February 3, 2004
Commissioners' Conference Room
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
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 Boardís 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 didnít 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
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 LCARAís 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 LCARAís 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 LCARAís 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 donít 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 Countyís 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 Suchartís concerns were.
Suchart responded changing the name of LCARA.† He said they are animal regulation and that is their basic premise.† He didnít 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 donít 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 didnít 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 didnít 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 didnít 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 Suchartís 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 managementís 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 Boardís 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 wouldnít 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 Countyís money is being spent on, and if the money is related to objectives that the Board has about animal control.† He thought if it didnít 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 didnít 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 doesnít 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 Wellingtonís.† He thought they would have the dog licensing in place for this yearís 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 Countyís 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 didnít require any code changes and it is not a land use decision.
Wilson didnít know what the land use code specifically stated.† She said they have to review it.
Dwyer wanted to see things happen but he didnít want to force things beyond staffís ability to make them happen.† He didnít 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 didnít want any new taxes and he didnít 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
Van Vactor recalled pursuant to the Boardís direction last week, he and Steve Vorhes, Assistant County Counsel, worked on a response to the Willakenzie Rural Fire Protection Districtís 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 donít believe the action is consistent with.† He said even though they donít 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 didnít 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 ďSignificant Mineral and Aggregate Resources InventoryĒ, Redesignate from ďForestĒ to ďNatural Resource: MineralĒ, Rezone from ďF-1/Non-Impacted Forest LandsĒ to ďQM/Quarry and Mine OperationsĒ 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 staffís 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 Boardís 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 shouldnít 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 wasnít 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 Commissionís decision.† He said the proponent stated the application was filed September 24, 1998 and the Planning Commissionís 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 didnít 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 Boardís 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 wasnít 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 donít do due diligence, then the government couldnít deny it.† He said it works in the applicantís 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 Boardís 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 didnít 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:† ďLane County shall assure the availability of planning information in a timely manner for County residents.Ē
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 hadnít 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 hadnít 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 canít 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 didnít 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 isnít 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 doesnít 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 applicantís engineer had addressed the concerns raised by the opponents in their submittals.† He said the applicantís 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 ďon the ground informationĒ is the most reliable.† He noted the opponents are raising process issues on how the methodology was conducted and the applicantís 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 donít 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 donít have any good information in the record that suggests that the dust from the site would travel the mile to a house.† He didnít 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.
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.
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 someoneís property as it is a hard rock quarry.
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 werenít 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.