Laserfiche WebLink
existing office building, wind generator, and some equipment on site. Liliana Lane fronting the <br />quarry entrance, so you can see the, the condition of the roadway in this particular area. <br /> <br />This is at the intersection of Liliana and Mahimahi Drive where previous quarrying activities in <br />the area had brought Mahimahi Drive to an unsafe condition. Therefore, it’s been closed off. <br />So, this is the subject property—the existing permit on the right side there. <br /> <br />This is a little closer on Mahimahi showing the condition of Mahimahi and the area that we’re <br />looking at. You can see that there’s some setback area there along the boundary fence. This is <br />Mahimahi at Lurline, so we’re on the other side of the map now looking towards the existing 5- <br />acre, and the existing area for the amendment. So, again, seeing the condition of Mahimahi. <br />This area is open to where Mark Jernigan’s property is in this general area, but right over here— <br />the, Mahimahi has been closed—that’s where we were looking at here. This is further on <br />Mahimahi. So, it’s been closed, again, the condition of the roadway. This is the general area for <br />Arrow of Oregon’s existing and amended area. <br /> <br />This is looking off Mahimahi towards a portion of the area requested in the amendment. This is, <br />again, the additional eight acres. <br /> <br />This is an area on the property as we looked on the map, the aerial before, there was a deep hole <br />along Mahimahi. This had occurred some time ago which had brought the stability of Mahimahi <br />to an unsafe condition. It appears that material has been being added into this particular whole <br />area, but it also, this area is included in the amendment. <br /> <br />This is Lurlane [sic] Lane, Lurline Lane, and this is from the intersection of Mahimahi and <br />Lurline looking towards the area where just two acres abut Lurline. You can see these areas <br />haven’t been touched, and the roadway is in pretty decent condition. <br /> <br />Planning Director’s Recommendation, which has been submitted to the Planning Commission, <br />previously is for approval with conditions. <br /> <br />I’d like to take a minute here because we have received a number of correspondence from the <br />applicant as well as a petitioner for standing in a contested case. First and foremost, we have <br />received a petition for standing in a contested case which was received on time and with the <br />nd <br />proper filing fee. Our letter dated June 2 in response to that letter also includes a copy of that <br />petition. So, that will be the first matter that we will address. There were a number of <br />correspondence that came in, basically revised conditions. In talking to the applicant, as well as <br />rd <br />the petitioner’s representative, it’s, it appears that the two letters dated June 3 from both the <br />applicant as well as from the petitioner’s representative, are the most current revised conditions <br />up to date. So, my understanding is that they supersede the previous conditions submitted so we <br />don’t get too confused trying to figure out which one is which. <br /> <br />I think that brings us up to date in regards to that. So with that, that concludes our presentation. <br />Thank you. <br /> <br /> <br />3 <br />EXHIBIT B <br /> <br /> <br />