Planning Commission

MINUTES Lane County Planning Commission Harris Hall - Lane County Courthouse November 15, 2005 7 p.m. PRESENT: Juanita Kirkham, Lisa Arkin, Ed Becker, Steve Dignam, James Carmichael, John Sullivan Nancy Nichols, Jozeph Zdzienicki, Lane County Planning Commission members; Kent Howe, Stephanie Schulz Staff; Marlene Colbath, Chair; Phillip Carroll, John Belcher, Rich Duncan, John Lawless ; Eugene Planning Commission Members; Steve Nystrom, Susan Muir, Kurt Yeiter, City of Eugene Staff ABSENT: Phillip Hudspeth I. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING: PA 05-6151 – In the matter of amending the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area Genera Plan to redesignate 72.31 acres from “Agricultural” to “Sand and Gravel,” amend the Goal 5 significant Aggregate Site Inventory to includ the 72.31 acres, rezone the subject property from Exclusive Farm Use (E-RCP) to Sand, Gravel and Rock Products (SG –RCP). The proposal includes a request for two administrative variances to decrease setback provisions and to allow construction of a low permeability barrier within the setback area. Lane County Planning Commission Chair Steve Dignam convened the meeting at 7 pm. The commissioners present introduced themselves. Addressing the audience, Mr. Dignam said the planning commissions had no decision making authority but would make recommendations to their respective elected officials which would be the Lane County Board of Commissioners and the Eugene City Council. He urged those who were going to testify to keep comments relevant to Oregon Statewide planning goals and guidelines. Eugene Planning Commission President Mitzi Colbath opened the hearing for the Eugene Planning Commission. She called for declarations of ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Lane County Planning Commission Member Todd Johnston recused himself from the proceeding for a conflict of interest. Mr. Dignam opened the public hearing for the Lane County Planning Commission. Eugene Planning Commissioner Rich Duncan noted that his company had done work in the same area but said he had no conflict of interest. Lane County Planning Director Kent Howe provided the staff report. He said sand and gravel were protected resources under Goal 5. He acknowledged that the usual Goal 5 resources were wetlands, wildlife habitat, archeological sites, or historic/scenic resources but noted that because sand and gravel were non renewable resources they also fell under the Goal 5 rule and were protected. He outlined the process for approval of the application shown on an overhead projector. He said there was a clear and objective Oregon Administrative Rule to determine whether the site was deemed significant. He said Oregon Administrative Rule 660.23 dealt with the significant determination. 1. Determine if the PAPA information is adequate 2. Determine if the resource site is significant 3. Determine if mining conflict can be minimized 4. Weigh the ESEE consequences and decide whether to allow mining 5. Determine the ESEE consequences of new uses 6. Develop a program to allow mining. Lane County Planning Staff Stephanie Schulz continued with the staff report. She noted that notice for the public hearing had been sent out by direct mail as well as being published in local newspapers. Ms. Schulz distributed written material that had been received after the staff report had been published. Mr. Dignam called for testimony in favor of the application. Steve Cornacchia, 180 East 11th Avenue, provided the applicant presentation for Delta Sand and Gravel. He distributed written material into the record. He called attention to the stamped document mentioning Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. He said DOGAMI had said the applicant had met the requirements for providing a reclamation plan for what would become of the land once extraction of the resource had been completed. He said the meeting packet included the permit application for adding the proposed expansion area added to the DOGAMI permit and the reclamation plan that the applicant was currently operating under. He said he would submit a copy of the reclamation plan into the record. He stressed that the reclamation plan had been approved by DOGAMI. Mr. Cornacchia submitted a letter from a local farmer who had farmed the expansion area in question and had provided a written evaluation of the quality of the land for farming purposes. He noted that the man had farmed the property for many years and did not think highly of the land for farming purposes. Mr. Cornacchia submitted written material responding to statements written in the local paper. Regarding noise levels, Mr. Cornacchia said the inverse square law did not apply and said the physics of the matter were explained in the written material. He said Delta was placing itself under an additional requirement which was an analysis of ambient noise levels. He said it would be demonstrated that the ambient noise levels from the quarry activities would also meet Department of Environmental quality noise standards. Mr. Cornacchia said Delta Sand and Gravel had been a good neighbor in the area for 80 years. He showed an aerial map of the Delta property. He stressed that the company had conformed with every environmental and regulatory standard that had been applied. He showed the Delta area on the map and MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission November 15, 2005 Page 1 Eugene Planning Commission noted that a portion of the property abutted a residential area and stressed that there had been no citations or complaints filed against the company. He acknowledged that there had been a recent citation for dirt on River Loop Road that was still under discussion. He said demonstrating that the company did what it was supposed to do was how he defined a good neighbor. He said Delta was only asking to remove material from the area in question and was not requesting to move its rock crusher or any other processing equipment. He noted that it was the processing of the aggregate that made the most noise. For the sake of comparison he called attention to a recent application filed by Eugene Sand and Gravel. He said the Delta application was completely different than that application. He reiterated the Delta had coexisted with residential neighbors without complaint for 80 years. Reiterating Planning Director Kent Howe, Mr. Cornacchia noted that in 1996 LCDC decided that it was time to adopt rules for the siting of aggregate resources because of the significant opposition, concerns, and arbitrary decision making by the appropriate bodies. He said the new administrative rules were intended to create a system of objective criteria, demonstration and evidence. He acknowledged that every quarry application had faced opposition from nearby land owners. He stressed that applications were not a popularity contest and that a balance between the significant need for aggregate products and the land uses adjacent to quarries. He explained that the established standards and requirements contained methodologies for minimizing potential conflicts. Mr. Cornacchia said if the company demonstrated that it met the established standards for noise and dust emanations then it had minimized any potential impacts. He said the noise study had divided the property into zones which required the company to do certain things to minimize noise those zones. He said the company operated below ground level and stressed that this lessened noise from the site. He said, because of concerns raised by nearby residents a noise study had been conducted at a new residential subdivision that was significantly further away than houses abutting the quarry site. Mr. Cornacchia cited the staff report stating that there was a significant resource of gravel on the site. He said the analysis had determined that there was over 9 million tons of aggregate on the site. He noted that 2 million tons was the standard that determined significance of aggregate resources. Mr. Cornacchia noted that the noise criteria enforced by DEQ stated that when a mine site was expanded onto a contiguous property the noise criteria that applied to the equipment in the old area also applied in the new area. He said this was a lesser standard than judging what noise would be on a new site. He said Delta had chosen to submit itself to higher standards of noise mitigation. He said the higher standards required an analysis of ambient noise levels in addition to the decibel levels that occurred on the edges of the property. Going back to dust, Mr. Cornacchia said Delta had complied with all dust regulations for 80 years. He noted that the standards for what the company had to do to be in compliance was included in the written material submitted that evening. He said the company could produce 70 pounds of dust particulate per hour and still meet regulations. He said Delta currently emitted 22 pounds of particulate per hour. Mr. Cornacchia called attention to the Lane Code requirements for setbacks from aggregate operations. He said setbacks were 150 feet. He said the setbacks could be reduced by the County department head. He said the variances being asked for were for reducing the setbacks to 50 feet near agricultural land and 100 feet for residential areas. He said the applicant had determined that there was a wetland near the site MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission November 15, 2005 Page 1 Eugene Planning Commission and said the 150 foot setback would be adhered to near that wetland area. He said the code required two things to grant a variance. The first was compatibility with the surrounding land. He said if the commissions came to the conclusion that the applicant had met the requirements for significance of the site and minimization of impacts then the applicant had demonstrated compatibility under the law. The second test was that no flood hazard was created by mining. He noted that the applicant had an engineering report that stated that because the mining was done below ground level there was nothing present to impede flood waters in the area. He said those two findings demonstrated that the criteria had been met for the requested variance. He said for the other variance for installing a low permeability barrier in the setback area the commissions had to decide that the applicant would fill the area with material that was non pollutant and that would not decompose. He said the company had estimated that the 50 feet requested in the variance contained around the 400,000 tons of aggregate material. Regarding running water, Mr. Cornacchia said the water that flowed through the first 15 to 20 feet would not be allowed to run into the pit. He said the low permeability barrier would prevent this to ensure that the quarry did not impact ground water users in the area. He noted that all of the residential areas surrounding areas were all connected to public water sources but acknowledged that some had wells that were not used for domestic purposes. He said the barrier was there to protect groundwater sources. Mr. Cornacchia noted that there was a staff report comment that the coarse aggregate material found in the analysis met ODOT requirements for use. He said the EGR report also included a statement that the fine aggregate samples did not meet ODOT requirements but noted that this was not injurious to the application. He stressed that the applicant was only required to demonstrate that coarse material met the ODOT requirements. Mr. Cornacchia reiterated that Delta had been a good neighbor in the area for 80 years. He said the application showed that Delta would continue to be a good neighbor into the future. Shane Hughes, EGR and Associates, 2535 Prairie Road, said his company specialized in civil engineering and hydrogeology. He said he had been licensed to practice civil engineering since 1982. He said he had been working for Delta Sand and Gravel for 13 years and were routinely asked to visit the site and consult with them on similar topics as the public hearing that evening. He remarked that Delta was a good steward of the land. Mr. Hughes said the applicant was required to show that there were 2 million cubic yards of resource that went to a depth of 60 feet in the area described in the application. He noted that staff had concluded that the quantity/depth criteria had been met. He said he had done a visual examination of an exposed face of aggregate. He said the exposed wall was entire eastern area of the proposed expansion area. He said a visual examination did not show if the aggregate thinned out as one moved west so he went as far west as possible on the site and bored a 80 foot hole and did not find the end of the resource. He added that two more holes had been bored in the middle of the site with the same result. Regarding quality of the resource, Mr. Hughes noted that the staff report had said that fine aggregate fractions did not meet Oregon Department of Transportation standards. He clarified that all of the tests of all of the samples met the ODOT base standards which were required in the application but noted that OAR660.23180(3) stipulated a base rock test for sodium sulfide which was a chemical abrasion test for which ODOT did not have a standard. He said the closest ODOT test was a concrete standard. He noted that concrete tests were much more stringent than base rock tests. He said the coarse material met the MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission November 15, 2005 Page 1 Eugene Planning Commission more stringent concrete test and the fine material did not meet the concrete test. He said the intent of the process was to demonstrate that there was enough material of a good enough quality to be protected as a resource. He said the area had three times the amount of material that met the requirements of the test. He added that staff had raised concern that the evidence was based on too few borings. He called attention to the applicant’s report and noted that the sample results of the borings that had been made were identical. He said 1000 more holes could be bored and the results would be the same. Steve Recca, EGR and Associates, spoke as the Geologist for the applicant. He said EGR had been retained to determine if there would be ground water impacts as a result of the expansion of the current excavation. He said there were two methodologies to prevent ground water from getting into the pit. The first was to install ground wells around the pit or set up an impermeable area, (slurry walls), to prevent migration of ground water from entering the pit. He said both were standard construction techniques that were used in dams. He stressed that the slurry walls would be below ground so there would be no impact to flooding above ground. He said they were non structural components that could not be immediately against the pit wall and this was why they needed to be installed in the buffer zone.. He added that the slurry walls would be constructed from on site materials left over from gravel extraction. He said the slurry walls would insure that there would be no inverse impacts to ground water and would reduce the cost of pumping water out of the pit. George Staples and Gordon Lotion , Delta Sand and Gravel, outlined the Delta property shown on the aerial map. Mr. Lotion noted that there was a nearby heron rookery as well as a tree nursery. He stressed that neither had been adversely impacted by the quarry. Mr. Staples noted that 85 acres in the reclamation area on the site had been reclaimed to date. He added that the water table behind the impermeable area to be installed would be maintained at its current levels. Mr. Staples said if the application were not approved then Delta had approximately 10 years of material to extract. He said if the expansion area were allowed it would add an additional 10-12 years for the company to operate in that area. He noted that a sound and sight barrier would be planted on top of the ground water dam. He said fir trees would be planted but would need time to be established. He stressed that the slurry wall would maintain ground water levels. Mr. Staples said the rock crusher currently operating on the site would not be moved. He said Delta would be building a road out of recycled concrete that would lead to the crusher. He said this would reduce distance traveled in the crusher and air emissions from the trucks by 30 percent. He added that Delta would be installing sprayers which will reduce dust tracked onto the streets from the site. Dave Babb, 645 Spy Glass, said his father had been born on the property in 1895 and said the property in the application had been in Babb family ownership for over 110 years. He said he had started Delta in 1965 and noted that Delta supported many local social service providers, schools and hospitals. He noted that Delta had been awarded the National Award for Business Ethics. He said Delta excavated approximately 7 acres of land per year and reclaimed 5 of those acres. His dream for the land was to see the land eventually developed into a regional park with miles of river frontage and a lake. Alan Babb, 695 Fair Oaks Drive, spoke as the manager of Delta Sand and Gravel. He said the application was enough to show that all criteria and rules for expansion had been met. He urged the commissions to remember that the application was for an addition to an existing site and there would be no change in operations or additional trucks and truck routs. He said the land in question was not good farm land. He MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission November 15, 2005 Page 1 Eugene Planning Commission noted that he had done a lot of farm work on the land himself. He noted that some of the land was impossible to plow because of the amount of gravel in the soil. Mr. Babb stressed that Delta was one of the few businesses that provided family wage jobs that had insurance benefits and pension for employees. He stressed that 217 families depended on Delta for their wages. He stressed that Delta offered extraordinary family wage jobs. Mr. Babb said the current site had approximately ten years of resource left to extract. He said the time left to the operation was important for decisions that had to be made regarding machinery purchase. He said the expansion was vital for continued operations. Dan Stodder, on behalf of Santa Clara Neighborhood Association, requested that the record be left open for 60 days to allow informed decision making by the commissions. He noted that many of the same experts who had spoken for Delta Sand and Gravel were not highly thought of by their scientific peers and had presented ‘poor science’ to the commissions. He said he had experts in geology, noise, ground water, flood impacts, wetlands, transportation and environmental resources who all needed 45 to 60 days to respond to the material presented by the applicant. Mr. Stodder noted that the area in question was in close proximity to dense residential neighborhoods and schools and there were significant potential impacts. He added that the burden was on the applicant to show that there would be no impacts to surrounding areas. He reiterated that the applicant was providing poor scientific evidence. He raised concern over potential flooding in the area. He submitted written material into the record. Robert Funk, 428 Gerald Avenue, maintained that the variances sought by the applicant would have potential flooding impacts. He said the impermeable wall was essentially an under ground dam that would cause the flooding of ground water in the surrounding area. He also raised concern over dust generated on the site and extra traffic from the site during summer months. Jim Neppler, 49 Salty Way, said 100 home owners would be adversely affected by the expansion. He noted that his son had an asthema condition and raised concern over dust emanating from the quarry site. He expressed his distrust of the Delta Sand and Gravel Study. He commented that there needed to be more study of wind patterns to see how dust emitted from the quarry would dissipate. He added that it was the role of the commissions to determine if the applicant had met the criteria for approval but stressed that there was also a value judgment to be made on the part of the commissions. He said homeowners would lose property value if the application were approved. Donald Themen, 3536 Baywood Street, said he lived in a Type A flood zone. He said most of the houses in the area had been built just above the flood zone and did not have to pay flood insurance. He raised concern that if the barrier dam were built in the buffer area the flood zone would expand. Brock Ventener, said he had just heard about the proposed expansion two weeks previously. He said nobody had said anything to him when he purchased his house about a possible quarry expansion. He urged that more time be granted for scientific evidence to be collected to refute what had been presented by the applicant. He added that the quarry should be responsible for where drainage water went when it left the quarry site. He urged the commissions to deny the application until more scientific evidence was submitted. MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission November 15, 2005 Page 1 Eugene Planning Commission Joel Narva, 2830 Echo Lane, submitted written testimony into the record. He stressed that the Babb family were good citizens but commented that ‘reclamation’ was a relative term. He said Delta had filled in its pits with construction debris such as tires and chunks of broken cement. He also raised concern over flooding during winter months if the underground dam was constructed. He added concerns over noise and urged the commissions not to be fooled by decibel levels provided by the applicant. He said could hear the gravel trucks at his house at 1000 feet away. Kate Pearle 4740 Wendover Street, urged the commissions to deny the application. She said the land in question was class two soil and prime farm land which was protected from development by state standards. She said the land was significant source of local food. She said neighboring land would also be negatively impacted. She said farmers of the future would not necessarily be of the same positive opinion as the farmer currently working next to the quarry. She raised concern over the possible lowering of the water table in the area if the expansion of the quarry were allowed. She said farmers had documented lower water tables due to Delta’s mining of gravel. She urged the commissions to ask for a site reclamation plan that reflected current best practices. Jeff Sweet, 442 Gerold Avenue, only received notice two weeks previously. He urged the commissioners to pay special attention to the fact that the future expansion of the city would be to the north and around the quarry. He said commissioners needed to think about what the city would look like in 75-100 years and suggested that heavy industrial operations should be moved further out from the center of the City. He also raised concerns over the impact of quarry dust on children and homes in the area. Mike Alltucker, President of Eugene Sand and Gravel, spoke in support of the application. He said he was keenly aware of the need for aggregate in the community. He cited a figure of ten tons per person per year as what was needed in the local area. He said that number would swell to 5.2 million tons needed per year in the near future. He stressed that the community needed the rock and support of the application was just good planning. Corallee Whitely, 3535 Allan Street, raised concern that her house was in a flood plain and disturbance of the land would make flood hazards worse. She also raised concern that property values in the area would go down if the quarry were allowed to expand. She suggested that there should be a local vote by the people over the zone change. She expressed her opinion that quarries should be moved out of city limits and added that the applicant should provide an expert to show how flooding concerns would be addressed. Gene Odell Pearle Jones 4740 Wendover, said that Delta Sand and Gravel was dumping trash into its gravel pit. He stressed the importance of having clean drinking water for the area. Kevin Jones, 4740 Wendover Street, opposed the expansion because it would interfere with farming. He stressed that the expansion would affect farming in many ways. He said clean available well water was essential to his farming operation. He said Delta would not drill him a new well if his went dry because of quarry operations. He said dust was an area of concern when raising healthy crops and raised concern over dust emanating from the quarry. He said farmland had higher resource value than a quarry and noted that Lane County had less than 10 percent of prime farmland left. MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission November 15, 2005 Page 1 Eugene Planning Commission Jeff Ankeny, 3120 Admiral, said his property bordered the north side of Delta’s property and had never impacted his farming operation. He strongly supported the application and stressed the need for gravel in the community. Kurt Eaton, 408 Salty Way, said his family lived in the ‘significant impact area.’ He said the area of question was significantly different than other land being used by Delta. He noted that the expansion area was bordered by residential areas on three sides and raised concern over dust emissions from the quarry. He asked that the commissions deny the application. Mark Reed, 719 East Beacon Drive, said he was geologist and specialized in resource geology. He said he was concerned over supply of aggregate, supply of farmland, and high quality of scientific work in the context of government decision making. He said sampling was a key part of his work. He said there were excellent alternatives to sand and gravel in Oregon. As an example, he said basalt production could be increased. Steve Hill 2942 Windgate Street, supported the application. He said property owners should have the right to do what they wanted with their own property. He urged the commissions to consider the need for gravel in Lane County. He stressed that Delta would do all it could to mitigate impacts and live by the letter of the law. Clyde Beek, 55 Delay Drive, spoke as the owner of the tree nursery adjacent to the quarry. He said he had lived on his property since 1945. He said his nursery made more dust than delta ever thought of making and no one complained. He noted that an adjacent farmer made huge amounts of dust during his operations. Regarding flooding, Mr. Beek said if Delta’s pit had not been there in 1996 then there would have been flooding along Admiral Street. He noted that the land in question had been farmed by him in the past and he had lost 70 percent of his crop. Regarding moving the quarry, Mr. Beek stressed that a quarry had to go where the aggregate was located. Randy Ledick, Wildish Sand and Gravel Company, urged the commissions to consider that the amount of land designated in the Metropolitan Area General Plan for aggregate extraction had not changed in 20 years but during those 20 years millions of tons of aggregate had been mined and used in the local community. He said there was no substitute for raw aggregate for building material. He said future demand would further reduce supply. He stressed that aggregate was not a renewable resource. He stressed that Sand and Gravel was a Goal 5 resource and deserved the same protection as other resources with that designation. He said aggregate sources close to their point of use needed to be preserved for future use. Greg See, 2746, showed his property on an overhead projector. He urged the commissions to deny the application because citizens had not had the opportunity to study and refute the scientific evidence presented by the applicant. He asked for a 90 day extension of the record to complete that work. He said the expansion would cause significant harm to the surrounding areas and added that no noise studies had been done for the residential areas further away from the quarry. He added that the people in the area needed proof that the underground dam would not affect the local water table. He acknowledged that MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission November 15, 2005 Page 1 Eugene Planning Commission Delta had been a good neighbor and provided good jobs but said the question was not about jobs but about a rezone that would affect the community. Scott Landgreen, 296 Hunsaker Lane, said there was dust problem almost a half a mile from the existing quarry and his property would have a worse problem if the quarry were to expand. He also raised concern over flooding of his property. He added that he had received no notice of the planned expansion. Russ Fish, 2795 Summer Lane, maintained that dust did blow to the south of the quarry. He said the land should stay zoned as agricultural and urged the commissions to deny the application. Tyler Trumball, 445 Salty Way, raised concern over impacts to a very nice area if the quarry were to expand. He said expansion might force people out of the neighborhood if their property values decreased because of the quarry operation. Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Mr. Dignam called for options from Planning Director Howe on how to proceed. Mr. Howe recommended leaving the written record open for two weeks, two additional weeks for new information to be submitted and an additional week for applicant rebuttal. He said if commissioners had questions they could e-mail them to him. Eugene Planning Commissioner John Belcher questioned whether there were any statutory requirements that would disallow extending the hearing for more than two weeks. Mr. Howe said there were no such requirements. Eugene Planning Commissioner John Lawless suggested leaving the record open for 90 days. He said two weeks seemed inadequate for research time. Lane County Planning Commissioner Steve Carmichael agreed and suggested a longer period than two weeks. Lane County Planning Commissioner Jozef Zdzienicki suggested leaving the record open for 90 days. He noted that some of the people who testified had said they received no notice. Lane County Planning Commissioner Lisa Arkin supported the suggestion to leave the record open for 90 days. She stressed the need for the commissions to make an informed decision. Planning Director Howe stated that the county met all legal requirements for public notice of the hearing. Mr. Belcher supported leaving the record open for 90 days. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath regarding a future deliberation of the information in the record, Planning Director Howe said e-mailed commission questions would be responded to until the record was closed and then the commissions would go into deliberations. He said questions could still be answered by staff after the record was closed but no new information could be submitted after the record was closed. MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission November 15, 2005 Page 1 Eugene Planning Commission He said there needed to be a period for new information to be submitted, a period for reply, and a period for rebuttal of new information by the applicant. Lane County Planning Commissioner John Sullivan noted that the attorney for the opposition only needed 60 days. Steve Cornacchia suggested having another public hearing in 60 days where everyone who had testified that evening would be prohibited from testifying again to avoid repetition. He said all of the questions raised could be responded to by the applicant. He expressed his preference for a 30 day extension period . He said a 90 day period was excessive. Planning Director Howe said there could be a 60 day extension and the commissions could continue the hearing on a date certain of January 17. Mr. Zdzienicki said he did not agree with restricting who could speak at the next hearing. Mr. Sullivan agreed and encouraged continuing the hearing to a date certain of January 17. Mr. Duncan stressed that people who had not testified wanted to testify then they should be allowed. He expressed a hope that the testimony would not be repetitious. Mr. Lawless supported 60 days while still leaving the record open during that time. Mr. Dignam said he supported that idea. Ms. Kirkham, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, moved to leave the public record open and continue the public hearing in 60 days (January 17, 2006) and preclude any testimony other than expert witnesses. Mr. Zdzienicki said he would prefer 90 days but, in the interests of cooperation, would support the motion. Ms. Arkin offered a friendly amendment which was accepted to allow the attorney for the opposition enough time to present a full argument. The motion, as amended, passed unanimously. Eugene Planning Commissioner Phillip Carroll expressed his discomfort with restricting anyone in particular from testifying. Ms. Colbath called for a motion from the Eugene Planning Commission Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved to adopt the motion of the Lane County Planning Commission but to remove the prohibition of public testimony. City of Eugene Planner Steve Nystrom suggested a motion to continue the hearing on January 17. He said testimony will be limited to new evidence presented by anyone. MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission November 15, 2005 Page 1 Eugene Planning Commission Mr. Belcher with the permission of his second withdrew his motion. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved that the hearing be continued on January 17, 2006 and testimony be limited to new evidence provided by anyone who wished to speak. The motion passes unanimously. Mr. Sullivan said he supported the Eugene commission’s motion. Ms. Arkin, seconded by Mr. Zdzienicki, moved to withdraw the earlier Lane County Commission motion and adopt the motion of the Eugene Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The hearing was continued to January 17. Planning Director Howe urged commissioners to forward questions to commission staff as soon as possible. The meeting adjourned at 10:20 pm. (Recorded by Joe Sams) MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission November 15, 2005 Page 1 Eugene Planning Commission