Planning Commission

MINUTES Lane County Planning Commission and Eugene Planning Commission Council Chamber – Eugene City Hall – 777 Pearl January 17, 2006 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Lisa Arkin, Ed Becker, Steve Dignam, James Carmichael, Todd Johnston, Juanita Kirkham, John Sullivan, Nancy Nichols, Jozef Zdzienicki, members Mitzi Colbath, Rick Duncan, John Belcher, John Lawless, Phillip Carroll, Phillip Hudspeth, Eugene Planning Commission Stephanie Schulz, Kent Howe Lane County Staff Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, City of Eugene Staff I. CONTINUED 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 include 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. Commission Chair James Carmichael convened the meeting of the Lane County Planning Commission. Eugene Planning Commission Chair Mitzi Colbath convened the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission. Mr. Carmichael thanked the audience for attending the hearing. He noted that the commission members were all volunteers who made recommendations to elected officials. The commissioners present introduced themselves. Lane County Planning Commissioner Todd Johnston recused himself from the meeting. City of Eugene Staff Kurt Yeiter noted for the record that Eugene Planning Commissioner Hledik had also recused himself from the hearing. Mr. Carmichael requested that the audience show courtesy for all speakers and acknowledge that everyone had a right to disagree. He urged those signed up to speak to not repeat testimony and keep testimony related to the issue. Mr. Carmichael opened the public hearing for the Lane County Planning Commission. Ms. Colbath opened the public hearing for the Eugene Planning Commission. Lane County Planning Staff Stephanie Schulz provided the staff report. She noted that the written report contained answers to questions asked by the commissions during the previous public hearing. She said that some questions were more appropriately answered by the applicant and said those questions had been noted in the staff report. Steve Cornacchia, 180 East 11th Avenue, spoke as the applicant’s representative. He noted that LCDC had modified OAR 660-023-0180 and the application did not conform exactly to that modified wording. He said there was no substantive change or difference in the actual criteria that the applicant was required to address. He said LCDC had added paragraph 4 and a paragraph 6 but stressed that neither of which pertained to the application since both referred to a Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment process that dealt with a piece of property that had less than two million tons of aggregate. He remarked that the applicant had 9 million tons of aggregate and therefore came under paragraph five of the OAR. Mr. Cornacchia said the commissions had been provided with a memorandum from a City of Eugene transportation analyst that stated that the applicant had not addressed some provisions in Eugene Code regarding transportation. He reminded the commissions that the administrative rule was very specific about the criteria to be addressed by the applicant and to be considered by the commissions. He said if the City of Eugene and Lane County had not adopted regulations consistent with the Goal 5 rule then only the provisions of the Goal 5 Rule were subject to the proceeding. He noted that neither Lane County or the City of Eugene had adopted regulations consistent with the Goal 5 Rule and stated that the commissions had to operate under OAR 660-023-0180. He reiterated that the applicant had stated that the increase in its supply of aggregate would in no way affect the number of trips to and from the quarry. He also noted that the Lane County Transportation Division had determined that there was no traffic impact and a traffic impact analysis was not required. Regarding the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority permit, Mr. Cornacchia said the permit limited the production of aggregate at the facility to 2 million tons per year as well as a daily output requirement. He said the current LRAPA discharge permit remained valid until LRAPA issued a new permit. He said LRAPA was currently going through the process of issuing a new permit. Mr. Cornacchia distributed/submitted additional written materials from David Standlee who had done the noise analysis for the applicant. He said the materials discussed the legitimacy of the calibration of the measuring instruments since a question had been raised at the last hearing. He added that there were some new houses that had been built in the Silver Meadows and Mr. Standlee had recommended that the Zone 4 protection area be expanded to move the DEQ compliance line at the edge of Delta’s property. Mr. Cornacchia said the applicant was amending the request of a variance for the setback where there had been a request to excavate in the setback to within 100 feet of properties and 50 feet on resource land. He said the request for the variance had been withdrawn for the entire length of the set back on the west side that abutted residential areas. Mr. Cornacchia distributed a letter from himself to the commissions summarizing the reports provided by experts testifying for the applicant. He said all of the reports that evening were responses to the testimony raised by the opposition during the previous hearing. MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission January 17, 2006 2 Eugene Planning Commission Regarding ground water and the construction of a low permeability barrier, Mr. Cornacchia said several citizens had raised concern that the barrier would raise ground water levels and cause flooding. He stressed that surface and ground water were two different things and, in fact, ground water would move sideways once it reached the low permeability barrier and would continue to move sideways until it found an open way elsewhere. He reiterated that the water level would not be raised. In response to a question from Lane County Planning Commission member Jozef Zdzienicki regarding the requested variance, Mr. Cornacchia said the request for variance on the west side of the property had been withdrawn but the request for the variance for remaining sides was still valid. In response to a question from Lane County Commission member John Sullivan regarding the letters received and where it was stated that a Traffic Impact Analysis was not required, Ms. Schulz said the written material she had just distributed had an e-mail memorandum where that statement from Lane County Transportation Staff was shown. Shane Hughes, Principal Engineer for EGR and Associates, noted that there had been concern on the part of the opposition about the low permeability barrier and whether it would cause flooding. Regarding surface water aspects, he said anything below the ground did not have anything to do with surface water. He said that during a flooding event it was assumed that the ground was saturated or of low enough permeability that there was no penetration. He called attention to pages 3-5 of his report regarding flood impacts as well as page 18 of the staff report. He said there were references to an adjustment to a vertical datum that had been transposed and noted that the actual number was 3.57 feet. He said there were planes of reference that surveyors took their measurements from including flood elevations. He noted that there were more than one datum and said that the two that were in use for the proceedings were NGVD 29 and NAVD 88. He said all of the site data was on the 88 datum and all of the flood data was on the 29 datum. He said, in order to make the numbers make sense when they were compared with one another they would have to be put on the same plane of reference. He stressed that this had nothing to do with altering flood elevations or FEMA mapping. He also stressed that all of the proposed activity for the project would be done below grade and excavation with no filling above grade or above grade sound berms so there would be nothing to impede flood waters and, in fact, the excavation would buffer against a flood should one occur. In response to a question from Eugene Planning Commission member John Belcher regarding whether the low permeability barrier would cause the ground around it to be saturated faster, Mr. Hughes said the measurement of flood impacts did not include whether the ground was saturated. He said other experts would testify to the ground water level. He said the commissioners should also consider the excavation volume of the gravel pit itself. In response to a question from Lane County Planning Commission member Steve Dignam regarding whether it was his contention that there was no increased risk of flooding as a result of the project, Mr. Hughes stressed that there was zero chance of increased flooding. In response to a question from Mr. Zdzienicki regarding whether it was his contention that there would be no risk of flooding because of the installation of the low permeability barrier, Mr. Hughes said the low permeability barrier surrounding certain sides of the pit was designed to not allow ground water tables to be drawn down. He reiterated that this activity would have nothing to do with surface water flooding or the analysis of surface water. Mr. Zdzienicki said the reason for the low permeability barrier was to prevent ground water from adjoining properties to seep into the pit. MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission January 17, 2006 3 Eugene Planning Commission Mr. Hughes said there were other experts for the applicant that had more knowledge of the issue but said his understanding of the reasoning behind the low permeability barrier was to prevent the ground water levels for adjoining properties to be drawn down. Ralph Christensen, EGR and Associates, 2535 Prarie Road, submitted written material into the record. He said the low permeability barrier could better be described as a ‘coffer dam’ in a river. He said a coffer dam did not substantially change the water level of a river since the water would simply go around the dam and flow away. He said the barrier would reduce the amount of water seeping into the pit but would also hold the level of ground water stable in the areas around the quarry. Regarding the concern that the barrier would cause flooding in the area, Mr. Christensen said in a flood situation the ground water would be measured and might hold as much as 1-3 cubic feet of water in a square foot of ground ten feet deep. He said a flood over the top of that would be measured in cubic feet per second so a cubic foot of ground ten feet deep, in extreme situations, could possibly hold three seconds of water before it was saturated. He stressed that it did not matter how much saturation of the ground there was during a flood event. Regarding the concern that the low permeability barrier was unproven technology, Mr. Christensen said there were many references in the written report that the barrier was not new technology and had been made use of in many other locations. MR. Christensen also commented on the replacability of gravel with basalt rack, and added that LCDC and ODOT had written a report on crushed aggregate and sand & gravel which stated that they were not the same thing. He said sand & gravel was preferentially used in concrete and it was not appropriate to switch that with quarried rock. Regarding sampling, Mr. Christensen said there had been reference made by the opposition regarding the ASTM standards on how sampling was done. He stressed that it was particularly important to note that when open face mining was taking place, the prescribed method was a composite sample of rock from top to bottom. He said the same ASTM standard stated that the actual rock that should be samples was the processed rock that was ready to be sold. He stressed that the samples used for the quality analysis in the application were not the processed rock but composite samples that still met the requirements for being listed as a significant resource. He added that if the processed rock had been used as a sample then the resource quality rating would have been even higher. In response to a question from Eugene Planning Commissioner Ms. Colbath regarding where ground water would go when it met the low permeability barrier, Mr. Christensen said the water would flow out into the Willamette River where all the ground water in the River Road/Santa Clara area was moving. He said during the winter when water levels were high enough the water would flow out through small channels that passed through that area. In response to a question from Mr. Zdzienicki regarding the effect of the low permeability barrier on the east Santa Clara waterway which needed to be protected under Environmental, Social, Economic, and Energy, (ESEE) standards, Mr. Christensen said there was less water flowing in the waterway now than when the barrier was constructed. He noted that the water table would be raised to the bottom of the water way when the barrier was constructed. He remarked that the waterway was dry for a significant portion of the year. In response to a question from Mr. Zdzienicki regarding the size of the setback from the waterway to protect its natural vegetation, Mr. Christensen said the setback had already been proposed by the applicant. He said setbacks were not part of his area of expertise but remarked a setback would be adequate as long as the vegetation was not MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission January 17, 2006 4 Eugene Planning Commission disturbed. He noted that the current ground water levels had been drawn down to such a degree that much of the natural vegetation in the water way had already been lost. In response to a question from Lane County Planning Commission Member Lisa Arkin regarding how the higher water table caused by the low permeability barrier would affect nearby property owner’s issue of insurance and the requirement of building one foot above the water table, Mr. Christensen said it was important to understand that the requirement was to build one foot above the 100 year flood level. He added that this was a surface water requirement. He stressed that the low permeability barrier would raise the ground water to its historic level which would be the same as what was found in the rest of the River Road/Santa Clara area. He said the barrier could not suddenly raise the water level above the ground water level in the rest of the area. He stressed that the ground water level around Delta would rise to that same level which was generally 8 feet below the surface during the winter. Dick Ruth, PO Box 1491, Eugene, submitted written material into the record. He said he had worked in environmental dispute resolution as well as 13 years working at Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority. He said he had been interested in the Delta Sand and Gravel case because he had inspected the facility when he worked for LRAPA and was aware of the efforts the company made to “do the right thing.” He said he had reviewed data regarding the wind patterns in the area because of the concern of the neighbors about dust blowing their way. He said his written material contained historical data from the meteorological site by Madison Middle School. He said the key point was that the chart showed very little wind blowing from the east (4 percent) both for the long term average and for the summer months or dry season. He said there should be very little wind born dust blowing into the neighbors on the west of the site since the wind blew so rarely from the east. He added that the wind was below six miles per hour for the most part which would also be to the neighbor’s benefit. Mr. Ruth said he had also done enforcement of noise reduction standards for the Department of Environmental Quality for Lane, Linn, and Benton Counties. He said he had reviewed the consultant’s report on noise and was impressed by the detail of the examination of individual equipment. He said the applicant had done a very thorough job of understanding and mitigating noise of the operation. In response to a question from Ms. Arkin regarding whether there would be significant dust impact to the northwest of the site, Mr. Ruth said the chart in his written material showed that 15 percent of the time the wind blew from the south east to the northwest. He said often those winds were associated with weather fronts moving through the area that often brought rain which would also mitigate dust. He stressed that the prevailing wind patterns were from the north/northwest in the summer time. In response to a question from Lane County Planning Commissioner Steve Dignam regarding his qualifications, Mr. Ruth said he had worked for over 30 years in environmental fields including 13 years with LRAPA. He added that he was also the Director of Health, Safety, and Environment for an asbestos abatement company in Houston and said since 1990 he had been doing consulting on environmental site assessments and had also worked in environmental dispute resolution and mediation. He said his interest in mediation had attracted him to the Delta application. He said neighbors often wanted to have scientific data reviewed by someone who was more objective rather than from one of the opposing sides. He expressed the hope that the data he had collected would be reassuring to the neighbors. Eugene Planning Commissioner John Belcher commented that, by the data shown on Mr. Ruth’s written material, the wind blew from the southeast and south southeast 18.5 percent of the time for a total of one day out of four. MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission January 17, 2006 5 Eugene Planning Commission In response to a question from Mr. Sullivan regarding noise and the indication in his report that he was satisfied with the mitigation efforts proposed by Delta Sand and Gravel and whether the methods used were typical methods that noise was mitigated to DEQ requirements, Mr. Ruth said the typical method was to handle mitigation efforts in a step by step fashion. He said the most obvious mitigation efforts were carried out first and if more was needed then other efforts could be made. He reiterated that the study conducted by Delta was thoroughly done and he had been impressed. He added that there were equipment specific things that could be done to reduce noise further. In response to a question from Ms. Arkin regarding if the wind data near Madison Middle School was the same as the data collected at the airport, Mr. Ruth said he had not made that specific comparison but commented that the data should be basically the same since the topography was a broad scope open valley so there were not hills in the way. In spite of that he said he would expect some differences since there were trees around the neighborhoods and there was also an open pit to the east. He said the topographic differences would not really change the patterns of the seasons. He said when low systems came through there was some wind from the south and south southeast and reiterated that those winds often brought rain with them. He said he had checked the rain patterns for the last 53 years and almost every day over the long term there had been at least 2/100 of an inch of rain. He reiterated that rain was a mitigating factor and said the wetness of the site was a benefit. Ms. Arkin commented that she had seen other Wind Rose graphs and had seen indications of wind from the south and southeast during the non summer months. Mr. Ruth suggested looking at the long term chart because it contained the full history of the entire site. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath regarding his remarks about noise enforcement, Mr. Ruth said he had experience with noise enforcement while working for the Department of Environmental Quality, (DEQ), but remarked that the applicant had a primary noise enforcement specialist from Beaverton that had done the study he had reviewed. George Staples, Delta Sand and Gravel, said he was testifying to answer some of the questions that had been raised by the commissions. Regarding the type of soil to be used for the low permeability barrier proposed for around the new site, he said there were clay deposits on site that could not be used for sand and gravel purposes and that material would be put into the barrier as well as clean fill dirt that could be used to fill in the barrier. Regarding the reclamation plan required to be done by Delta, Mr. Staples said Delta was required to have a conceptual reclamation plan turned in and as part of the process there would be references to the reclamation plan in place at the current time. He said the information submitted to the record included a letter from Randy Moore who worked for the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, (DOGAMI), which stated the progress of Delta in the reclamation process. He said Delta had a reclamation plan for some years and expressed a hope that, after approval of the application, DOGAMI would put final conditions on a reclamation plan that Delta would have to abide by. Regarding truck traffic on Hunsaker Lane and the concern raised by Rob Funk, Mr. Staples said there were two exits from Delta that were used. He said trucks were weighed and then exited to River Avenue and the second gate used by Morse Brothers to exit onto Division Avenue. He said other access was for entrance only. He said trucks did not travel on Hunsaker since everything going west would use Division Avenue. He acknowledged that empty trucks entering the facility would travel on Hunsaker Lane to relieve traffic congestion at River Road and Beltline. He said the amount of traffic on Hunsaker Lane would fluctuate depending on the amount of work that Delta was involved with in that area. He stressed that traffic levels had nothing to do with the amount of rock being produced MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission January 17, 2006 6 Eugene Planning Commission or the amount of reserves built up. He reiterated that traffic on Hunsaker would be a result of the projects that Delta was involved in. Regarding the concern over noise levels at the site from the residents of Silver Meadows, Mr. Staples called attention to the graph in the meeting packet showing administrative controls to keep noise compliance boundaries at the property line. In response to a question from Eugene Planning Commission member Rick Duncan regarding trucks on Hunsaker and whether they were always empty, Mr. Staples said they were commonly empty but some trucks brought in dirt that had been excavated from another site. He said it would depend on the job being done. In response to a question from Ms. Arkin regarding the location of the asphalt batching plant on the site, Mr. Staples said Delta did not have an asphalt batching plant nor a concrete plant but noted that Morse Brothers had those facilities located directly behind the company’s main office. He said Morse Brothers facility was located due north of the Delta office. In response to a question from Ms. Arkin regarding the light colored green on the map of Zone 4, Mr. Staples said Zone 4 was the most strictly controlled area of all the zones. He said the zone combined the restrictions of the other three zones in addition to specific restrictions imposed by Delta regarding the number of trucks that could be loaded during an hour’s time. He said this made the zone the quietest zone of the four since it was closest to residences. He said the noise mitigation boundary had been moved to Delta’s property line so that any houses built in the Silver Meadows area would be within the noise mitigation standards. In response to a question from Ms. Arkin regarding the distance from the property line to the new subdivision, Mr. Staples said estimated that it was several hundred feet. In response to a question from Mr. Zdzienicki regarding whether Delta had increased its mining since the last traffic impact analysis, Mr. Staples said a graph would be shown regarding production rates. He said Delta had increased its production by approximately one percent per year. In response to a question from Mr. Zdzienicki regarding whether there was a filtering process for fill dirt on the site, Mr. Staples said Delta looked at material in the field because there was a lot of potential junk in the dirt. He reiterated that the material was inspected in the field before being trucked to the Delta site because Delta was inspected by the Department of Environmental Quality on site. He said if there was any question of contaminants or any other debris he was called in to test the material. Lee Babb, 645 Spyglass, spoke as the co-owner of Delta Sand and Gravel. He said the land had been owned by his family who had worked on the land for over 60 years. He stressed that it was the decision of the commissions whether Delta would have the opportunity to work the land and turn the property into something useful to the community. He said opportunities such as that did not come very often. He stressed that his family had been and would continue to be good stewards of the land and added that Delta had reclaimed approximately five acres of land per year. He said Delta recycled tires, asphalt, dirt and rock. He urged the commissions to look to the future when making a decision and stressed that Delta was needed in the community. Avon Lee Babb, 695 Fair Oaks Drive, spoke as the co-owner of Delta Sand and Gravel. He expressed his desire to have a positive recommendation from the commissions to the Board of County Commissioners and the Eugene City Council. He urged the commissions to remember that Delta was only asking for an addition to an existing site. He MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission January 17, 2006 7 Eugene Planning Commission stressed that there would be no change in existing operations. He noted that he was asking for a longer life for his company. He stressed that additional resource did not mean increased production. He said things did not work that way. He said economics and demand controlled what could be produced and sold. He stressed that Delta competed for its contracts and customers. He said the amount of resource Delta had did not have anything to do with what demand and the market allowed. He stressed that Delta had to earn its customers. He said he had never been interested in growth for growth’s sake. He acknowledged that Delta had grown some over the years and could grow more in the future. He said the company would have to grow as its customers grew and demand increased. He reiterated that Delta would have to grow to keep up with its customers and remarked that if a company like his was out of supply then it was out of business. He reiterated that he was asking for a longer life for the company. The company’s application stood on its own merits. He urged the commissions to remember when making their decisions that Delta had given up 45 acres of resource land to protect a heron rookery near the site. He stressed that his company provided more than family wage jobs and extraordinary benefits for his employees and added that he would like to continue doing that for another 20 years. Gordon Loeschen, 28700 Lake Side Drive in Corvallis, said he had worked for Delta Sand and Gravel for 20 years. He showed an aerial map of the Delta property to illustrate the setback limits proposed by Delta. Mr. Loeschen showed a graph of production rates since 1964. He said there had been an average of one percent growth per year since that time. Dan Stotter, 627 Country Club Road, spoke as the attorney for the opposition. He spoke in opposition to the application. He submitted expert written testimony into the record on aggregate/geology, air pollution, natural resources/wetlands, groundwater hydrogeology, and noise impacts. He said the first section of the packet contained information on aggregate and geologic resource criteria required by the PAPA process in the Oregon Administrative Rules. He said the information was supplied by Dr. Mark Reed who was an economic geologist at the University of Oregon. He said the next section contained information on air pollution impacts of the proposal and was presented by Camile Sears who had more than 25 years experience as an expert in air pollution and air dispersion modeling as well as risk assessment. He said the health and medical impacts of particulate were provided by Dr. Stephen Kimberly who specialized in internal medicine. He said the information on natural resources and wetland issues was provided by Dr. Ethan Perkins who is a highly respected natural resources expert and wetlands consultant. He stated that the ground water and hydrogeology was prepared by Malia Kupillas who was an expert on ground water and hydrogeology issues. The section on noise and sound impacts was prepared for noise engineer Arthur Noxon. Regarding agricultural impacts, Mr. Stotter said the information was prepared by Ross Penhallegon who was an agricultural expert working for the Oregon State University Extension Service. He added that this section contained letters from nearby impacted farms that detailed the significant increased costs and changing farm practices that would result from the application. Mr. Stotter requested an extension of the hearing to address the new information submitted by the applicant. Mr. Stotter presented written information on air pollution from the report written by Camille Sears. He said the report stated that the Delta’s air quality evaluation was based on flawed and inadequate information and was unreliable. He said her conclusion was that the applicant’s air quality conclusions were not supported by appropriate evidence in the record. He said one of the most interesting sections of the report was the section on meteorological conditions including wind direction and velocity. He said she had indicated that if the proposed expansion were approved the dust exposure problems to the west of the area would increase significantly. He said the area would be impacted with inhalation particulate matter 60 percent of the time during the dryer months and 50 percent of the time the entire year. He said one of her greatest concerns was that there was no air dispersion MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission January 17, 2006 8 Eugene Planning Commission modeling for the proposal. He said without air dispersion modeling the commissions had no basis to make a decision on: 1. Whether the proposed expansion would cause significant air pollution and dust fallout impacts, 2. Whether the project would or could be mitigated to minimize potential impacts, and 3. The degree and downwind distance that potential significant impacts would occur which was important to determine the proper impact area for the PAPA administrative rule analysis. Mr. Stotter said there was no assurance to the public that there were not significant pollution impacts. He added that Ms. Sears was a specialist in air pollution impacts and dismissed the testimony of Dick Ruth because he had not listed his degree as part of his qualifications. He said Ms. Sears had determined that there were serious and significant air pollution impacts to farms and residents near the site. Dr. Stephen Kimberly, 85296 Ridgetop, spoke in opposition to the application. He said he was a board certified specialist in internal medicine and had also been past president of the Alliance for Lung Cancer. He said he had extensive training in lung and pulmonary diseases. He said he could not speak to the amount of dust that would be created by the proposed expansion. He remarked that there had already been testimony to that topic and speculated that the amount of dust created would be significant. He said there would definitely be health effects from the dust of the quarry. He said miners who were exposed to coal dust had a much higher incidence of lung disease. He said his concern was that rock dust varied in size ranged from 2-10 microns and remarked that particulate matter in that size range would increase the episodes of bronchitis, asthma attacks and chronic obstructed pulmonary disease. He said COPD was a leading cause of death in the United States and was increasing dramatically. He said one of the leading causes of COPD was chronic bronchitis. He said, over time, the lungs would lose elasticity and fibrotic tissue would form in the lungs and COPD would occur. He added that rock dust was chemically reactive and said there would be reaction in lung tissue that, in addition to causing more fiberous tissue, might lead to lung cancer. He said children that were exposed to rock dust would be found to have slowly developing lungs and would be more susceptible to bronchitis. In response to a question from Lane County Planning Commissioner Nancy Nichols regarding whether some of the particulate would fall out of the air, Dr. Kimberly said those who were working to mine the rock would be the most exposed to particulate but remarked that, given the statements made by Camile Sears about residents being exposed to wind born dust 50 percent of the year, the dust would be by no means innocuous. In response to a question from Ms. Arkin regarding his assessment of the additional particulate matter added to the pollution in the area, Dr. Kimberly said it would increase health risks in terms of the lungs for a significant portion of the community. He said it had been estimated that every ten years of exposure to dust doubled the chance of lung disease from particulate matter. He acknowledged that he was not an expert in rock processing but speculated that the activities at Delta would produce 1 million tons of rock per year and that a ton or more of particulate matter would be dispersed into the air. Mr. Dignam commented that a farmer living nearby the site had testified at the previous hearing that he generated significantly more dust than was generated by Delta Sand and Gravel. He added that he lived on a gravel driveway shared by five families. He questioned how the dust generated by Delta was different from other dust generated in Lane County. MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission January 17, 2006 9 Eugene Planning Commission Dr. Kimberly said the difference was in the type of dust. He said the farmer in his field raised dirt dust. He said dust from processing rock was different from dirt around gravel on a driveway. He said the type and size of particles could cause chemical reactivity. He said older people and people with existing lung conditions would be much more susceptible to problems associated with rock dust. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher regarding the amount of particulate matter speculated to be raised by processing a million tons of rock and whether the need for gravel would prompt the same amount of dust in another location, Dr. Kimberly said that was not his area of expertise. He added that he had not read anything that quantified the amount of dust that would be produced. Mr. Dignam questioned whether Dr. Kimberly was familiar with the geology of the site. He noted that Delta had indicated that they would not increase production of rock and questioned whether the new area had more potential to generate more of the ‘bad’ dust or whether the discussion was over the same amount of dust that was currently generated by the operation. Dr. Kimberly said he had no information as to the geology of the Delta site nor could he give an educated opinion about any changes in dust generated by the facility. He said there was a possibility that the new area being proposed would be better in terms of dust production than what was happening currently but added that it also could be worse. Ethen Perkins, 2410 Monroe, spoke as a wetlands consultant and a natural resources specialist for the opposition. He said, in his professional opinion, the use change of the land would have the adverse effect of removing on site waters that recharged the local aquifers. He added that aquifer interfaced with an abandoned river meander or oxbow wetland expression above the 375 foot elevation contour. He said the reduced onsite flow of water would require state and federal wetlands permits and a mitigation plan based on an approved wetland delineation. He noted that none of this had been provided by the application. He said the outlined zoning change plan submitted by the applicant did not avoid significant adverse impact to the wetland despite mining occurring outside of the wetland itself. He said the low permeability barrier would impede movement of water through the local aquifer and would change the existing wetlands functions and values and would not adequately replace them. He cited wetland vegetation, songbird habitat, amphibian habitat, nitrogen removal, and phosphorous retention as examples. He added that western pond turtle breeding on the site should be documented in areas where breeding might occur. He also said that the possibility of red legged frogs should also be examined. He said if either of those species were present on the site then the possible impacts of the proposed zone change should be analyzed fully. He added that there should be analysis of possible down stream impacts to salmon such as migration and breeding habitat. He recommended that the application should be denied. He said the details of the mining reclamation were insufficient and, as example, said the low permeability barrier, if left in place, would not be restored to pre-mining conditions. In response to a question from Ms. Arkin regarding whether there was a map of the wetlands in the record, Mr. Perkins said one of the problems with the application was that the wetland area was only briefly described. He said the area was essentially on the oxbow area with the tree lined on the west of the project as he understood it. He added that it did not include the already existing ponds which could also be wetlands but were not part of the proposal. In response to a question from Ms. Arkin regarding the low permeability barrier and whether water would flow around it, Mr. Perkins said it would but noted that the barrier was close to the existing wetland and remove any water flowing off the surfaces that were further out into the present field. He said the ground water would be held in place and would therefore be elevated. MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission January 17, 2006 10 Eugene Planning Commission In response to a question from Ms. Nichols regarding whether the wetlands permits and mitigation plans for the wetland were done when the housing development nearby was constructed, Mr. Perkins said it was always advisable to have them since the law required that wetlands not be diminished in size or value. He said a good developer would have looked at those things but said he did not know if the particular developer had followed through with permits and biological assessments. Mr. Sullivan said he had concerns that there had been very little agency input regarding riparian corridors, wetlands and wildlife habitat. He questioned whether Mr. Perkins thought that if the Department of State Lands and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife investigated the site their assessments would agree with his own. Mr. Perkins said he thought the agencies would agree with him but acknowledged that he had not walked on the site and collected specific information and had only presented a general analysis. In response to a question from Mr. Sullivan regarding whether in his opinion the agencies should be requested to make those inquiries, Mr. Perkins said the request should be made to determine that the wetland boundary mentioned in the application was accurate and to look at possible effects to nearby wetlands. In response to a question from Mr. Sullivan regarding whether he had been on the property at all, Mr. Perkins reiterated that he had not been on the land but had rendered an opinion based on the information in the application. Mr. Belcher asked for a map of the wetlands along the boundary of the application to be provided. Malia Kupillas, President of Pacific Hydro Geology, said she was registered geologist with a specialty in hydro geology. She said she had reviewed the reports that were prepared as part of the application as well as the computer model. She said after reviewing both of the reports she said there had not been enough information given to show that ground water would not be affected. She noted that information was missing. She said the applicant had stated that ground water and surface water were separate bodies and stressed that this was not true. She stressed that ground water and surface water were connected and impacts to one would also impact the other. She said ground water would go where it was easiest to flow. If the easiest was to go up because the soil was more permeable then it would go up. She said the computer model submitted by the applicant failed to show what would really happen. She said her biggest question was about the low permeability barrier. She said the computer model showed two scenarios. The first was a dam that enclosed the new area and another scenario around the entire operation. She said both scenarios would have an impact on ground water. She said what the applicant had not shown was that a coffer dam like barrier could not be built as described in the application because a full circle barrier was not planned to be constructed. She said there was no map that showed where the barrier was supposed to be constructed. She remarked that excavating for the barrier would mean excavating wetlands. Ms. Kupillas noted that the Santa Clara area was developed with the current ground water levels which were lower because of the current mining activities. She said there had been no analysis of what could happen if the low permeability barrier were constructed and the natural ground water returned. She remarked that the residential developments had been constructed under the assumption of current ground water levels and their concerns over flooding were valid. She said the only difference between ground water and surface water was the ground level. She said if ground water levels were raised to a certain point then there would be surface flooding. She said the water in the oxbow lake was filled by ground water exposed to the surface. MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission January 17, 2006 11 Eugene Planning Commission In response to a question from Ms. Nichols regarding when the excavation was finished and refilled and if there would be impacts to nearby homeowners, Ms. Kupillas said that was a problem that had not been addressed by the applicant. She said refilling the area, depending on the fill material, could cause additional problems. She said the applicant’s report did not talk about the impacts of the low permeability barrier and opined that this was essentially mining in an area where no mining should be allowed. She noted that the top of the barrier would be 130 feet wide and 12 feet at the bottom. In response to a question from Ms. Arkin regarding how deep the barrier would be, Ms. Kupillas said the applicant had proposed a depth of 30 feet. In response to a question from Ms. Arkin regarding whether it was possible that the water would flow beneath the barrier, Ms. Kupillas said the reality was that the barrier was only partial and was really just slowing down water flow. She said water would still be able to flow in the older alluvium below the barrier. She said there were wells that could produce up to 100 gallons per minute from those lower gravels. She said water would still be flowing into the pit and the applicant was expecting water to be coming through. Mr. Zdzienicki commented that originally the applicant was proposing a 30 foot depth with an excavation to 60 feet. He remarked on the 30 foot discrepancy. In response to a question from Mr. Zdzienicki regarding whether the Silver Meadows housing development was located on topsoil on top of gravel, Ms. Kupillas said she was not familiar with the specific development. In response to a question from Mr. Zdzienicki regarding whether the area just to the west of the housing development had gravel as well, Ms. Kupillas said it was. Mr. Zdzienicki questioned whether, if the excavation for low permeability barrier would go 30 feet below the barrier, the ground water in the development to the west be slowly drained away with the land drying out and vegetation being impacted as a result. Ms. Kupillas said that was possible. She said the current water levels were lower than they should be because of the current activities of Delta Sand and Gravel. She said Delta was trying to install a low permeability barrier to have less of an effect on the ground water level. She said the applicant was hoping that ‘less of an effect’ would mean ground water rising to previous levels. She said the problem with that assumption was that there would still be water flowing into the excavation. She said if water levels outside of the barrier built up it could create more pressure for the water to go lower and come out beneath the low permeability barrier. In response to a question from Mr. Dignam regarding what would happen if the water did flow through or under the barrier, Ms. Kupillas said nearby domestic wells and irrigation wells could go dry. In response to a question from Mr. Dignam regarding whether it was her contention that the low permeability barrier would lower ground water levels while still being a risk of flooding to nearby housing, Ms. Kupillas there was a possibility of negative impacts whichever way the water went. Mr. Dignam commented that he was uncertain how the low permeability barrier could both cause flooding and cause wells to go dry. MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission January 17, 2006 12 Eugene Planning Commission Mr. Belcher noted that Mr. Christianson had testified that there would be no more than a 1-3 cubic foot capacity for ground water in a 10 foot deep range and that this was a very small figure when compared with the foot per second measurement for surface flood water. He questioned how Ms. Kupillas would respond to that. Ms. Kupillas said she envisioned a bath tub and how much water it would hold with or without being filled with marbles. She said the issue was not flood waters coming from surface water but the water table coming up high enough to reach the surface. In response to a question from Ms. Nichols regarding the water from people’s wells that seeped into the excavation would then be pumped into the Willamette River and could not be given back to those who lost water, Ms. Kupillas said the current plan was to pump water into settling ponds and then let it filter into the Willamette River. She said she had worked with other situations where mining operations had affected wells and water had been given back to farmers but remarked that this only worked for irrigation and not for drinking water. In response to a question from Eugene Planning Commission Member Rick Duncan regarding whether there was a significant change in ground water levels because of the new excavation that had not already occurred with the current pit, Ms. Kupillas said there had already been a change in ground water with the existing pit. She said the plan is for expansion to a new area that would be closer to that impacted land. In response to a question from Mr. Duncan regarding whether there would be a reduction in problems as the pit was reclaimed, Ms. Kupillas acknowledged that there could be but surmised that if the materials used to fill the pit were lower permeability then there would be lower water storage capacity for ground water. In response to a question from Mr. Duncan regarding whether in the long run (20-30 years), when the pit was eventually filled in and whether the ground water would then stabilize itself, Ms. Kupillas said the ground water would be stabilized at a new equilibrium. She speculated that the pit would be reclaimed with lower permeability soils and create a draw down cone of depression. She said the closer a well came to the lower permeable soils there would be well interference issues. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher regarding if the application were approved and whether at the end of the mining process the low permeability barrier should be left or removed as part of the mitigation process, Ms. Kupillas said it would make sense in the interests of ecology to leave it. Mr. Sullivan commented that much of the testimony provided by Ms. Kupillas was based on the applicant’s ‘lack of good science.’ He questioned whether it was her opinion that the matter could be addressed if the correct procedures were taken. Ms. Kupillas said she was not able to complete the evaluation of impacts that could happen because of lack of information in the application. She said she could say whether everything would be fine if proper procedures were followed, but not enough information was supplied by the applicant. Lane County Planning Commissioner Juanita Kirkham noted that the commission needed a vote to proceed in a meeting past 10 pm. Ms. Arkin, seconded by Lane County Planning Commissioner Ed Becker, moved to extend the meeting until no later than 11 pm. The motion passed unanimously. MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission January 17, 2006 13 Eugene Planning Commission Mr. Carmichael called for a 10 minute break. Arthur Noxon, 3690 County Farm Road, spoke as a state licensed acoustic engineer. He said he had worked in the community and held a masters degree in physics and mechanical engineering. He said he had helped put in many rock quarries in neighborhood areas. He submitted a 30 page report into the record. He said the DSA noise impact study done by the applicant had missed several sections of the Code established by the Department of Environmental Quality. He cited impulse noise and tonal noise as examples of noise types that were not mentioned in the applicant’s report. He added that there was a fatal flaw in the applicant’s report in that there was no mention of how those noise types would be mitigated. He added that all truck traffic off site should be accounted for. He said the applicant’s report had mentioned the matter in one sentence. He noted that the applicant had stated that trucks would leave on Division and return via Hunsaker Lane. He said he had been unaware of that process and speculated that there were other gates entering the Delta site that had not been mentioned. He raised concern over ‘giant dump trucks weaving their way through winding rural roads.’ He remarked that Delta was not considering the truck noise generated by vehicles returning to the Delta site. He said truck noise was part of the DEQ regulations that protected the community from noise impacts. He said the report from Delta showed an unacceptable level of work. Mr. Noxon said the noise impact boundary zone survey done by the applicant had not taken the new development in Silver Meadows into account. He said noise from the rock crusher was used for the report data and not total ambient noise levels. In response to a question from Mr. Zdzienicki regarding whether he had made on site measurements, Mr. Noxon said he had not made measurements on site. In response to a question from Ms. Colbath regarding whether there would be construction noise on the site, Mr. Noxon said that information was in his written material submitted into the record. Mark Reed, 719 East Beacon Drive, spoke as a geologist on his own behalf. He submitted written material into the record. He said he was addressing the issue of deposit significance under the Goal 5 rule for sand and gravel. He said the gravel resource in the proposed expansion area failed to meet the significant resource standard of the Goal 5 rule concerning aggregate. He said the samples failed because the four samples tested by the applicant were not a representative set as required under the Goal 5 rule and therefore the applicant had not met the burden of proof that the resource met the Oregon Department of Transportation requirements for quality. He said an additional problem was that one of Delta’s bore hole log descriptions fell short of providing adequate information to demonstrate whether the deposit contained sufficient thickness of sand and gravel. He said the significance test, under the Goal 5 rule, was there to determine whether there was sufficient thickness of gravel to justify ‘destruction’ of farmland. He said the significance test was completely unrelated to whether the deposit could be mined profitably and was simply a question of whether legal requirements had been met. Regarding significance criteria, Mr. Reed said the key issue was representative sampling. He said the fundamental failing of the Delta samples was that they violated established protocol for representative sampling because shallow grade rock had been mixed with poor quality rock from deeper in the deposit. He said the deeper rock could fail the standard but, actually, that could not be established because the sample mixed that deeper rock with high quality rock. He used a loose analogy about the average age of 100 people in a room and whether they could all be served alcohol. He said the answer was no because fifty eight of the people could be two years old and forty two of the people could be forty eight years old which would result in an average age of 21. He said the analogy fit the example of the samples submitted into the record from Delta. He said sampling standards required that geologic MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission January 17, 2006 14 Eugene Planning Commission units that were separate from each other be sampled separately. He said there were at least two geologic units in the area. He said the established methods for sampling were well known to geologists and had been established by the American Society for Testing and Materials. He added that the Army Corps of Engineers had established requirements for gravel sampling. He said one of the key features of those standards was that the importance of obtaining representative standards cannot be emphasized too strongly since failure to do so could provide misleading and inaccurate information even if the tests were completed properly. He noted that if visual inspection indicated that there was considerable variation in the material then separate samples from different depths should be obtained. Mr. Reed accused EGR & Associates of intentionally mixing the samples in defiance of the standards thereby improving the apparent quality of the rock. He added that Bore Hole Log Number Three contained errors in the content and geologic description and therefore did not meet the adequate information standards. In response to a question from Ms. Arkin regarding a statement from Ralph Christensen that the appropriate test was to compile a composite sample, Mr. Reed said ASTM did say something to that effect but added that the composite needed to be a representative sample of the face. He said this would be representative of what was being produced from the pit as opposed to the standard requiring separate samples from distinguishable layers. He reiterated his contention that the samples were distinguishable and needed to be sampled separately. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher regarding the standards that he had mentioned the quarry should be following and whether they were required by DOGAMI, Mr. Reed said the Goal Five rule called for ‘a representative set’ and did not provide a reference for what would be called a representative set. He said the standards he had mentioned were industry standards that defined a representative set and acknowledged that there was no explicit legal link to those standards in the law. Doug DuPriest, Attorney representing Joel and Theresa Narva, said the Narva’s owned property close to the proposed expansion site and had serious reservations and concerns over the impacts of the application. He said the application understated the impacts on nearby properties and neighbors as well as proper measures to mitigate those impacts. He said the Narva’s were particularly concerned about noise. He submitted written testimony from Mr. Noxon. He said the DSA report did not define the difference between administrative mitigation and structural mitigation. He said there are administrative mitigation procedures that people should comply with. He said DEQ had stated that administrative mitigation was an interim measure and not a permanent measure. He said the applicant did not provide any structural mitigation measures. He said Delta had failed to combine excavation loading and haul truck noise into one noise source or event which would result in a rating of over 50 percent and different standards would apply. He said Delta created statistical noise levels from interviews and not measurements and underestimated excavator noise by eight decibels. He said the applicant’s noise predictions fell 16 decibels short of reality and added that the data used to develop the statistics was not fully disclosed. He added that the applicant had used federal standards for dump truck noise because they allowed a higher level of noise than the Oregon State standards. Regarding the statement from the applicant that there would be no increased production on site, Mr. DuPriest said if the market supported increased production then there could be impacts on the neighbors as a result. He said a critical point was that if the level of production was maintained at its current levels, the change in location of activities relative to neighbors could cause additional impacts. He said Delta was trying to skip over or short circuit the process of analysis of the consequences of what they were proposing. MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission January 17, 2006 15 Eugene Planning Commission Debra Higby, Sierra Club, 1281 Dalton Drive, said the expansion of Delta was not acceptable. She said to allow an open pit mine next to an established neighborhood with the associated ‘noise, dust, loss of soils, flooding, and ground water contamination’ was inappropriate development. She surmised that Delta had not used good scientific methodology to analyze noise levels on the west side of the site. She speculated that neighbors would be ‘bombarded’ by noise from the site. She said the neighbors had been unaware of the expansion plans of the quarry when they purchased their homes. Regarding dust, Ms. Higby said Delta had admitted that dust from the site could cause a potential conflict with nearby land uses by creating a nuisance condition. Ms. Higby said application materials referred to nuisance and annoying throughout the report. She said the word choice shifted attention that Delta’s mining practices were potentially damaging to people and could cause respiratory problems to the very young and old. Regarding wind, Ms. Higby urged the commissions to rely on experts and scientific information. She submitted written material into the record. James Nepler, 49 Salty Way, commented that Dr. Kimberly’s statements showed that people who worked around quarries had a variety of serious health problems due to dust and those effects would extend to properties beyond the Delta Site. He cited the air pollution report from Camille Sears had stated that Delta’s air quality conclusions were unsupported. He said her report had concluded that properties to the west of the site would be impacted with inhaleable particulate matter 60 percent of the time during dry months and 50 percent of the time during the rest of the year. He acknowledged that these statements did not match the Wind Rose Chart testimony submitted by Dick Ruth but urged the commissions to consider the fact that there were homes to the north and south of the Delta site which would make up for the discrepancy in the stated percentages. He added that Ms. Sears had stated Delta did not use air dispersion monitoring. Mr. Nepler noted that he had children with asthma and said dust and diesel fumes had a horrifying effect on people with that condition. He remarked that it would be like watching his children drown on dry land. He urged the commissions to carefully consider the reports of the opposition and use a healthy measure of skepticism when reviewing the reports generated by Delta Sand and Gravel. Joel Narva, 2830 Echo Lane, said his property abutted the proposed expansion. He said the sound analysis provided by Delta were grossly understated. He noted that he could already hear the noise from the quarry. He surmised that the noise would become worse but acknowledged that it was difficult to tell how much worse. Regarding water issues, Mr. Narva said the City of Eugene had a responsibility to the new residences in the Silver Meadows subdivision. He said there was much more urban storm water runoff from that subdivision and remarked that this would add to flooding problems created by the proposed low permeability barrier. He said decisions that the City had already made were impacting the nearby wetland and drainage ways. Jeff Wisner, 423 Gerold Avenue, raised concern over the low permeability dam and surmised that water would fill storm drains and possibly cause flooding. He raised concern that the barrier would bring up the flood elevation from one to three feet. Mr. Wisner said natural resources and wetlands were of great concern to the neighborhood organization and raised concern that the proposed expansion would negatively impact those wetlands. MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission January 17, 2006 16 Eugene Planning Commission Kersten Sweet, 414 Gerold Avenue, raised concern that Delta had not done enough research to show the effectivness of the low permeability barrier. She reiterated her opinion that there was not enough information provided by the applicant. She submitted photos of a storm drain heading towards the Santa Clara Waterway. She said she had never seen water in the drain at such high levels. Nina Lovenger, 40093 Little Fall Creek Road, Fall Creek, offered testimony on behalf of Land Watch Lane County. She said the group was concerned over the loss of farmland in Lane County as well as the adverse impacts to agricultural areas caused by dust generated from the proposed quarry expansion. She said ongoing agricultural use of the expansion area was more appropriate for the nearby residential areas than a quarrying operation which would compromise the health of those living nearby. Greg See, 2746 Tato Street, submitted pictures of flooding on Summer Avenue and Gerold Avenue. He said there were no plugged drains that he could see. He said the photos were within the ‘impact area’ of the proposed expansion. Kate Pearle, 4740 Wendover Street, said she farmed on East Beacon Drive approximately one mile from the proposed expansion site. She expressed her concern over the loss of farm land in the Eugene area. She surmised that the soils in the proposed expansion area were prime farmland soils that could help feed local residents for the ‘rest of time.’ She said the proposed expansion site was prime farmland soil and should be used for food production. She said Delta’s report stating that the land was not suitable for farming was patently false. She said if a farmer was willing to ‘work with the soil’ to produce the most abundant crops the outcome would be astonishing. She said the proposed expansion site lacked nothing in terms of productivity and remarked that the current owners did not have enough imagination to make it productive. Kevin Jones, 4740 Wendover Street, submitted written material into the record. He said if the expansion lowered water tables then his farm would be impacted. He said his farm required irrigation in the dry season. He said he was outside the stated impact zone but did not agree with the stated impacts of the proposed mining activity. Jean Odell Pearle Jones, 4740 Wendover Street, said his parents drew water from an agricultural well. He said he liked farming with his parents and said the proposed expansion could easily make the well on his parent’s property go dry. He added that the proposed expansion would cause kids to get asthma and said he did not want people in the area to get sick. Kevin Matthews, 1192 Lawrence Street, spoke as a representative of Friends of Eugene. He said the hearing represented a generational clash. He said a generation ago the application would have been approved because people were ignorant of the accumulating impacts. He said it was not clear from the application whether it would be feasible to legally and responsibly develop the mine. He acknowledged that it could be possible but stressed that it was clear that the case for expansion had not been made and that it was environmentally irresponsible to expand the mine. Robert Emmons, 40093 Little Fall Creek Road, Fall Creek, said the applicant had asked to be relieved of the need to do a traffic study but noted that Goal 5 called for analysis of potential conflicts to roads within one mile of the mining site. He said the City and the County could not waive the requirement for a traffic impact analysis. Mr. Carmichael called for applicant rebuttal. MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission January 17, 2006 17 Eugene Planning Commission Mr. Cornacchia said he had heard new information that evening and what concerned him the most was the testimony challenging methodology used by the consultants for the applicant. He suggested a 30 day extension of the record to be used for response to new material submitted that evening and not for the submittal to new evidence. Mr. Stotter said there was a written request to allow a response any new information and noted that State Law specifically provided the right to provide responsive evidence to any new information submitted by the applicant. He said it would be a procedural violation to not allow rebuttal to new information submitted by the applicant. Mr. DuPriest said if the applicant put in new information then the opposition had the right to rebut that information. He asked for time to review any new information by the applicant and provide a response. Lane County Planning Director Kent Howe offered a suggested timeline. He suggested leaving the written record open for 30 days for anyone to submit new evidence, allow response to that information by anyone who wanted to respond for an additional 14 days and then allow the applicant to provide final rebuttal for an additional 14 days. Mr. DuPriest suggested 30 day periods for each side on new evidence to be submitted. Mr. Stotter said it would make more sense to allow the opposition to respond with new evidence to rebut any evidence submitted by the applicant’s representatives. Mr. Cornacchia said there had to be an end to new evidence being submitted. He suggested 30 days for the applicant, 30 days for opposing rebuttal, and 14 days for final applicant rebuttal. Mr. Howe suggested a new timeline. He said the record could be left open for written testimony provided by anyone for 30 days. He said an additional 29 days, (until Friday, March 17), would be allowed to respond to any new evidence but with no new evidence to be submitted. He said 14 days could then be allowed for final applicant rebuttal. Mr. Stotter said it would be a violation of state law to not allow new evidence to be submitted in response to new evidence submitted by the applicant. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved that the applicant be allowed 30 days to submit new information in response, and the opponents 29 days to respond to that new information, to be followed by applicant rebuttal period of 14 days. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Dignam, seconded by Mr. Zdzienicki, moved to pass the same time periods as were approved by the Eugene Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Colbath closed the public hearing on behalf of the Eugene Planning Commission. Mr. Carmichael closed the public hearing on behalf of the Lane County Planning Commission. Mr. Howe said there would be separate deliberations for the commissions in April. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 pm. (Recorded by Joe Sams) MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission January 17, 2006 18 Eugene Planning Commission