BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION
December 4, 2001
Commissioners' Conference Room
Commissioner Anna Morrison presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Bobby Green and Peter Sorenson present. Cindy Weeldreyer was present via telephone. Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
3. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
4. PUBLIC WORKS
a. FOURTH READING AND DELIBERATION/Ordinance PA 1164/Amending the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan to Revise the “Significant Mineral and Aggregate Resources Inventory”, Redesignate From “Agriculture” to “Natural Resource: Mineral”, Rezone From “E30/Exclusive Farm Use” to “SG/Sand, Gravel & Rock Products” and Allow Mining For 575 Acres of Land Pursuant to Lane Code 16.400 and 16.252 and the Goal 5 Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR 660-023); and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (File PA 99-5996; Eugene Sand & Gravel)
Morrison asked if the Board had any ex-parte contacts.
Dwyer stated he had received e-mails and read an editorial in the Register Guard, but he had no ex-parte contacts.
Green stated he had none.
Sorenson stated he read the editorial in the Register Guard and the opinion piece by Dr. Whitelaw in the Register Guard and received a call from a Mr. Jenson from the Laborer’s Union. He added he received a phone call from Mary O’ Brien but did not get to talk with her. He said he received a call from Randy Pape but was not able to talk with him. He noted while he was in Flics & Pics, two people came up to him.
Weeldreyer stated she read her e-mails and the Register Guard, with most of it put into the record. She had no conflicts.
Morrison concurred she received e-mails, voice mails, and read the Register Guard. She didn’t think that any of the information would have any bearing regarding the decision she would be making.
Dwyer stated he was a member of the Senate Water and Land Use Committee and voted on the bill that allowed gravel mining in farmland. He added that he used to drive a truck for Eugene Sand and Gravel.
Thom Lanfear, Land Management, explained there had been a procedural issue raised by the applicant regarding the record (in his staff report on page 3). He noted there were submittals turned in during the last submittal period by the opponents that the applicant had objections to in the record. He said they hadn’t responded to the evidence that was submitted in their rebuttal, but they requested those items be stricken from the record. He noted there was one instance where the evidence submitted did respond directly to what was turned in by the applicant and should be allowed. It appeared that the process the Board set up at the end of the hearings at Sheldon High School did allow a time period where the applicant could have responded with new evidence to the submittal if they chose to. He stated they did not take advantage of that opportunity and the material should be allowed into the record.
Lanfear explained the Goal 5 Rule as discussed previously is set up in a series of steps to determine whether the resource is considered significant in terms of quality and quantity and there are additional steps to review if the conflicts are minimized. He added if the conflicts are not minimized, than an ESEE analysis is required. He said based on that, a decision is made. He stated the first step in the Goal 5 Rule process is to determine if the information submitted by the applicant is adequate and there were specific standards in the Goal 5 Rule to determine that. Staff believed they had turned in the required information and the application was deemed adequate for review.
Sorenson asked if there was a difference of opinion between the applicant and the opponents on whether or not this step had been met.
Lanfear responded there was a difference between having an application that was adequate to review and an application that could satisfy all the criteria. He noted at this point it was more of a checklist of that information had been received. He stated it was not a determination of whether it is adequate to meet the criteria, it was whether it was adequate for the Board to begin the review.
Sorenson asked if Lanfear had a recommendation on whether or not the first step had been met and the information was adequate in light of the difference of opinion.
Lanfear stated that staff recommended it was adequate and the Planning Commission was also in agreement.
With regard to Step 2, Lanfear explained it was a determination whether the resource is significant or not. He stated the Goal 5 Rule discusses significance in the terms of quantity, quality and location. He noted there needed to be a representative set of samples that meets ODOT specifications for base rock, air degradation, abrasion and sodium sulfate soundness test, and the estimated amount of material must be greater than 2 million tons in the Willamette Valley. He said there was no debate on whether or not there was 2 million tons of rock. He stated the opponents were disputing the representative set of samples. He noted there were arguments on both sides about how those representative set of samples are to be taken in terms of mixing of the material that comes out of each hole. He said there had been a series of holes drilled by the applicant (documented in the record). He noted there was evidence from geologists on both sides on how the samples were taken from the drill holes. He said the materials that were tested were found to meet the ODOT standards of the rule, but the debate centered on the different classification of the layers under the ground. He noted there was a disagreement about the affect of the clay layer. Whether it is a layer or a series of lenses is being debated, and there was an older type of alluvium below and a newer alluvium above, and they had a different quality. He said the applicant had made the case that the sampling methods met the industry standards and that, in their best professional judgment, they had demonstrated that they met the standard. He noted the Planning Commission found that the applicant had met that requirement and staff agreed with that analysis.
Dwyer stated this project consisted of a number of cells. He asked if each of the cells under the rule could stand on their own regarding what was required and if not, what cells would fail the test.
Lanfear responded that was discussed on page 9 of the staff report. He said it stated that if more than 35% of a proposed mining area consists of Class 2 or a combination of Class 2 and Class 1 soils, then the average width of the aggregate layer must exceed 60 feet. He said it was tied with the sampling methods. He added there was a provision in the rule that stated if more than 35% of the proposed mining area is Class 1 soils, then it could not be found significant, it is a determination that the farm soils outweigh the value of the aggregate resource.
Dwyer asked if each cell were to conform to Goal 5, would it meet the test and stand on its own in terms of soil. He wondered, considering the averaging they did, if each cell could stand alone.
Lanfear explained if the applicant only came in with area 1, it appeared that it had more than 35% Class 1 soils and would not stand the test. He noted there was a definition of mining area in the rule that appears to describe a situation they have. He understood that to mean the mining area is the area of a site within which mining is permitted or proposed, excluding undisturbed buffered areas or areas on a parcel where mining is not authorized. He stated they have a situation where there is a Class 1 stream between Areas 1 and 2.
Dwyer asked, if they isolated some of the other areas and segregated the tests in terms of quantity, all of the cells would qualify.
Lanfear responded that Area 1 would fail the 35% of Class 1 soil test.
Sorenson recalled the OAR used the term “aggregate resource site”. He asked if there was a definition for that.
Lanfear responded there was not one in the Goal 5 Rule, that only the mining area was defined.
Sorenson asked how large an area could be called a resource site.
Kent Howe, Land Management, noted they had gone by parcel ownership. He stated it had been in one ownership for a long time and that is how it is going forward.
With regard to sampling, Sorenson stated that a representative set of samples met the ODOT specifications. He asked if there was a law or any authority on how the sampling should take place.
Lanfear said there was some discretion in the rule and it didn’t define a set procedure for sampling the rock. He said there were standards used by AASHTO. That language said the samples should be so chosen from each different stratum in the deposit discernable to the sampler. He said it left room to argue what a discernable stratum is, and both sides were arguing that. He noted the applicant maintained that the difference was not that great and it was not a discernable stratum. He said they had averaged the material brought up out of the holes for their sample.
Sorenson asked about the ODOT specifications on the base rock for tests. He asked if that had to be good rock.
Lanfear responded it was good for building roads.
Sorenson asked if the samples met the standard for quality.
Lanfear responded it had. He noted the debate was whether the material brought to the tester is a representative sample.
Sorenson asked how many different strata of rock were present on the 570-acre site.
Lanfear said according to the applicant, it was one resource deposit, and according to the opponents (regarding the clay layer) they maintained there was a layer of clay that separates the lower alluvium from the upper alluvium. He said they were maintaining that the lower alluvium is more cemented than the upper alluvium.
Sorenson asked what the applicant’s view was on the width.
Lanfear stated there was agreement that there is about 53 feet of material before encountering any clay but it wasn’t agreed that there was a consistent layer. He said the applicant portrayed it more as lenses and there are different heights. He said it didn’t form a clear separation. He added when they drill hole samples, to call something clay or gravel was a judgment call by the driller, and there was a dispute about that.
Sorenson asked, if in the applicant’s perspective, there was any clay layer.
Lanfear said there was clay, but he didn’t know if it could be considered a layer.
Sorenson asked if they had just sampled the upper rock.
Lanfear stated some samples were just the upper rock, but there was one that mixed all of it together.
Green asked if the sample that was submitted was a true representative sampling of what was being proposed for the mining.
Lanfear responded the opponents believed that the lower rock should be sampled separately to see if it met the ODOT standard. He said the applicant had used one sample that mixed the upper and lower rock together, and it was found to meet the ODOT standard. He added it didn’t state what a representative set of samples was.
Green asked if the applicant had to demonstrate that the entire depth was required to prove that it would be utilized.
Lanfear noted Eugene Sand and Gravel had to demonstrate that the average width of the aggregate layer had to be 60 feet. He said that was separate from the section that stated the representative set of samples has to meet the ODOT requirement. He said it didn’t require all 60 feet to meet the sample, but the average had to.
Sorenson asked if the opponents took the view that the quality of the rock in the 53 foot layer was adequate to meet the ODOT and AASHTO standards for quality.
Lanfear believed they agreed on that.
Sorenson asked how many times samples were taken.
Lanfear responded it was sampled at least once combined, and once separately. He said there were six or eight holes specifically within the subject property and two off the property.
Sorenson asked if the 11 holes sampled were the average of 60 feet.
Lanfear said, according to the applicant, they demonstrated 77 feet of aggregate.
Green said when he asked about the requirement of whether or not the entire 60 feet had to be utilized, that Lanfear replied he didn’t believe so. He asked what that was based on.
Lanfear responded he was looking at the rule and there was a Section (a), discussing the representative set of samples as well as (b)(c) and (d). He added there was a different set of the rule where it is (B), a separate section of the criteria. He said the requirement was 60 foot in depth, and it was listed as a subsection under the representative set of samples. He said since it resides in a different part of the rule, he didn’t see where it tied in, and both sides could argue it. He noted the 60-foot part of this affects whether the Board could consider it significant or not.
Morrison stated if they couldn’t meet the 60-foot requirement, then it was not classified as significant.
Lanfear stated the rule has parts that deal with the quantity, quality and location of the resource. The 60-foot piece deals with the quantity of the resource. He added the representative set of samples dealt with the quality of the resource.
Lanfear said if the soil type on the property falls within a certain range, then they need to exceed the 60 foot of depth for the rock in order to be determined significant. He noted the 35% part was if the Class 1 soils were focused on, and if they had 35% of Class 1 soils in their mining area, then it couldn’t be found significant.
Dwyer asked if the applicant’s average included the clay in the other layer of aggregate to get 77 feet.
Lanfear responded they subtracted out the clay.
Dwyer asked when they were sampling and running tests, why they continued when they hit clay.
Lanfear stated that not each hole had the same depth of clay, and they were trying to determine what the quality of the resource was to the bottom.
Sorenson noted on Lanfear’s report, (page 9) that according to the data from the holes, there existed an average 14-foot intervening layer of clay within the aggregate resource ranging from 45 feet to 70 feet below. He asked Lanfear if there was any further guidance on using the 14-foot clay as a barrier or part of the overall average for the depth, to meet the average width of the aggregate layer.
Lanfear said they had received a letter from DLCD that discussed the clay layer issue. They were supportive of a finding that the clay doesn’t interfere and that it meets the 60-foot width. He said the clay in the holes didn’t appear to be a continuous layer that could be seen straight across and it might be more exactly identified as lenses as the applicant proposed. With regard to the average width of aggregate layer, he said they had support from DOGAMI, and the DLCD letter found this to be consistent with material they see in other gravel pits in the area. They thought it could be found to meet the 60 foot requirement.
Lanfear stated there were two major pieces to the review, whether the resource is significant or not, and the site-specific impacts and minimization techniques and whether they would allow mining. He noted the Planning Commission recommended that it did meet the significance requirements and could be a significant resource site.
Dwyer said if they find the site is not significant then they don’t have to go further. He wanted the Board to make a determination, based on the evidence and testimony, as to whether or not this met the test.
Lanfear explained this could be in the form of a tentative motion, with the final decision coming later.
Sorenson noted the advantage of going through the whole list was that they were hearing the staff responses to board questions about the testimony. He said they should review the whole record and the adequacy of the application. He said there was an advantage in continuing the review on all of the items the public testified on. He noted it was a legal issue to determine whether or not the resource quality and quantity had been met.
Green opted to go through the whole list.
Dwyer had no objection to hearing the testimony, but he said what they do with the PAPA would hinge on the determination of significance, and whether they make the determination, that it is, or is not, significant. He said if they determined that it was significant, they would get an opportunity to hear the rest of the testimony and how the conflicts could be mitigated or minimized where they are no longer significant within the mining area and within the area that is defined to be impacted, 1500 feet away from the resource.
Morrison concurred with Dwyer. She agreed that the information was adequate. She said to determine if the resource site was significant with the quality and quantity of the resource, they had to ascertain if that was a valid issue and if the applicant had met the test.
Green said if they answered the threshold question, they could go forward, but it didn’t preclude them from going back and raising questions.
Morrison stated they could say they determined the resource site was significant but there could be questions they could discuss. She said they were moving it forward and answering the questions as they go.
Dwyer said he had the same concerns when he was in the senate. He said if they have to average everything out, and if the applicant claimed they met the test by converting 575 acres of various types of soil and depths to fit into that, the test had not been met. He said averaging was a way to expand an area beyond what they try to do with minimizing conflicts. He said he had no doubt that the resource was significant in terms of the quantity and quality, the applicant shouldn’t be allowed to average everything together. He noted they met the test as it applied to certain cells. He said it did a disservice to the farming community to allow that site to be significant in total. On that basis he couldn’t find they met the test of significance.
Green stated he thought they met the test in terms of quality and quantity. He had questions whether or not the 60 feet had been met. He said the quality of samples had met the test as far as the state’s guidelines. He said the legislature didn’t give the Board much to work with. He added interpretations were gray and it was everyone’s best judgment. He said the questions that were put to the applicant in preparation for this issue had met the test for the resource site being significant.
Sorenson asked about subsection (d) on page 8.
Lanfear responded that tried to balance the value of the Goal 3 resource valuable soils with the value of the Goal 5 resource. He said subsection (A) refers to the provision where 35% of the mining area is clearly Class 1 soils, then they couldn’t find it to be significant. He said (B) if it is a mixture of Class 1 and 2, it has to be a 60-foot average foot of aggregate.
Sorenson asked what the difference was between subsection (d) Class 1 soils and subsection (b) that dealt with Class 1 and 2 or unique soil. He asked if the applicant had met the criteria in subsection (d).
Lanfear noted there was one objection being raised that the Board should look at the three mining areas as individual mining areas. He said to look at it that way, area 1 would fail on (A) provision that says if it is 35% of Class 1 soils, it couldn’t be found significant. He said if they were not to view that as one mining area and just isolate one piece, they would have more than 35% soils and they would not find it significant under the (A) provision. He added under the (B) provision, there are Class 2 soils and there is a mixture of Class 1 and Class 2 soils that have the average width of aggregate layer to be 60 feet. He said what was being debated was whether or not it was subject to subsection (A) of the 35% of Class 1 soils.
Lanfear noted the definition of mining area is the area of a site that mining is permitted or proposed, excluding undisturbed buffered areas, or areas on a parcel where mining is not authorized.
Sorenson stated it was an area of a site. He asked if more than 35% of the mining area was Class 1 soils at the site.
Lanfear said he took the position that the site is the subject property as a whole and since they are to exclude undisturbed buffer areas and areas where mining is not allowed, that clearly areas 1 and 2 are only separated by a riparian resource, where mining would not be allowed. He added it wasn’t acceptable to separate out the land on the west side of the riparian stream from the land on the east side of the stream and it would not cross the 35% threshold for Class 1 soils.
Morrison asked Sorenson if he determined whether or not the resource site was significant.
Sorenson wanted to go down the OAR, (starting with A) with regard to the requirement that there be a representative set of samples of the aggregate material in the deposit and whether it meets the ODOT specifications for the degradation, abrasion and sodium sulfate soundness and the amount of materials in the Willamette Valley. He said there was no dispute about the 2 million tons, and there wasn’t a dispute about ODOT or AASHTO standards for the quality of the rock on the degradation, abrasion and sodium sulfate soundness. He said there is a fair amount of disagreement about the sampling and he would find that it does not meet the test of subsection (a) because of the presence of the average 14-foot intervening layer of clay. With regard to (d), he would want further discussion. He added for subsection (b), that more than 35% of the area was Class 2 or combination of Class 2 and Class 1 soils and that the average width of the aggregate layer did not exceed 60 feet in Lane County and therefore it failed the test of subsection (b).
Weeldreyer said in reviewing the material in the record and the information provided, she found that under the state process, using state rules (and with the input provided by the state agencies of DLCD and DOGAMI and the use of AASHTO standards for sampling), and that the process allows for averaging. She stated the applicant had met the test for significance.
Morrison said her temporary decision concurred with Dwyer. She said there was an ambiguity in how the methodology is applied, using it over the entire area instead of having it separated by each cell. She said by examining the report cell-by-cell, and the tests, some of the cells would not meet the test. She added as this application would be implemented, it would be by stages and it could be that a cell they use would not meet the test, but collectively the whole parcel would.
Lanfear stated that they should still review the conflicts and minimization with the likelihood that any decision the Board makes could be appealed to LUBA. If they had no findings at all on the conflict minimization, it might come back.
Howe explained they were at a point with decision making that determined whether or not they would proceed and examine the issues of impact and whether they could be minimized. He said there wasn’t a need to proceed if the determination of the board is that it is not a significant site. He noted at this time the majority of the Board was saying it was not a significant site. He said it was time for the Board to have that as their finding, and move forward or reconsider to move forward, into the discussion of impacts. He said in 1984, Lane County’s Rural Comprehensive Plan adopted an inventory of their mineral and aggregate areas. He noted they didn’t have a legislative process to identify where all the mineral and aggregate sites were in Lane County, they did it on a plan amendment, site-specific basis. He asked (according to the Goal 5 Rule, based upon its requirement), if the application that was being proposed represents a significant aggregate site. He said if it was, then to add it to their inventory they have to look at the potential conflicts. If they could be minimized, then they would add it to their inventory. He added they protect the site and they allow it for its aggregate extraction. He stated if the conflicts couldn’t be minimized then they go through the ESEE analysis and determine whether it is more important to protect the resource or to allow other conflicts to go ahead and not protect it. He stated there was no need to proceed if it was not a significant site.
Dwyer said, on face value, it was a stretch of the imagination and public policy to view the 575 acres in total as being a significant resource, giving no opportunity to make a determination on other ways that it might be significant. He stated it was not a significant site. He said if mining was allowed, everything else would fall into place. He said if they determine it is not significant, they don’t add the resource to the comprehensive plan because of the determination that they don’t believe it meets the true test of significance. He added the plan could be amended to make it significant and he would rather keep it clean. He said if he would have to determine the difference between farming and aggregate, it didn’t meet the test in significance in depth. He said it was an overreaching application. He wasn’t willing to say the whole site was significant. He was not willing to add the whole 575 acres to the resource lands.
Green thought if they took tentative action on the first step, they could go through the rest of the process. That was the only reason he changed his position at that point. He said if they did determine the site is not significant then they would use that as their findings. He had concerns about the minimization of some of the conflicts. He said if the resource site is not significant, there was nothing to minimize, and that was not what he was led to believe in his earlier question. He thought they could still go through it and have a discussion.
Howe said the Board sets the policy for Lane County by interpreting the rules and statutes and the requirements of Lane Code. He added where the rule sets what the standard is (to a depth of 60 feet) it didn’t speak to what happens if there were exceptions that are being referred to as different depths. He said they have letters from DLCD and DOGAMI that state it is consistent to interpret that as averaging as an industry standard. He said it was up to the policy makers to make the determination whether the Board thinks the intent of the law was being met by allowing that. He added once they determine the site is not significant, they are saying they were not adding that site to Lane County’s inventory and the issues of the potential impacts are not in question, because mining would not be allowed and they don’t have to go further.
Vorhes stated that local policy makers are called upon to interpret rules regularly and sometimes they interpret them differently than how a state agency thinks they should. Whether that is accurate or not would be determined if there is an appeal by another body. He said it might take a court to determine if it was reasonable or not. He noted many land use appeals involve disagreements between local government bodies and their interpretations of the rules that might differ from the agency that made the rule. He said the difficulty in this case is that if the Board thinks there is not a significant aggregate resource using the rule as their guide, then the rule doesn’t compel any further action because the rule says for significant mineral and aggregate sites, local governments shall decide whether mining is permitted. He noted the precursor to the decision on whether mining is permitted and whether conflicts exist and could be minimized is a determination that there is a significant mineral and aggregate site.
Dwyer stated the mining area was not defined in the law other than what the applicant wanted to do. He said farms are important and people could co-exist. He said he wouldn’t pass this on the basis of averaging because it would be a bad precedent. He added by sending this forward, the gravel operators throughout the state could find the resource could be designed so they could take parts of the land that might not comply with the strict area of the code and mix it in so they could get a greater resource based on averaging. He said it would be a stretch to allow the whole area to be determined as significant. He admitted that there were parts that were significant, but on the basis of exacerbating the conflict between farmland and aggregate, he would say no.
Weeldreyer agreed with Dwyer. She said if three members of the board find that this is not a specific resource and it doesn’t go through, it would be appealed and returned to Lane County. She thought the area was significant.
Sorenson said the issue of the representative set of samples language of the OAR is an important part of determining what the facts really are with the data. He said the record showed that there was information on how to conduct the quality of the rock type testing, but not a lot on the best way to do the sampling, and there was controversy on whether or not the sampling was done adequately. He said the sampling would tend to be dispostive of the 60-foot rule. He said in applying what they do know about the 60 foot rule, it is an average rule and the word width is in the rule and the width of the rule excludes the depth of the top soil and non aggregate over burden. He said it didn’t meet either of the two components. He noted the application met other components of the significance of resource determination. He said the state should change their views on how land use laws are made and how they are interpreted. He said the state should give guidance to local governments on setting up zoning, but that policy makers are in the best position to make rules and zoning decision for their local communities. He added that local government officials were not used to being put into a role of making decisions based upon the specific facts of a particular case. He said if the applicant wanted to appeal, it would go through the remaining process.
Green said he didn’t get to comment on things he wanted to. He thought this would come back to the Board. He said if they went through the matter, it would save time in the long run so they could demonstrate they addressed different topics. He said they would have to deal with the minimizations. He said the applicant may appeal this decision and it would be remanded back to the Board. Then they would be obligated to go through again.
Morrison asked, if they moved forward with the rest of the steps on the outline and addressed some of the other conflicts, could they forward any concerns, along with the issue around the resource site being significant, or were they precluded from doing that.
Howe responded the only way to get to the determination of conflicts for mining is if they are able to reach the point that it is a significant site that might be mined.
Weeldreyer said if the Board wanted to use this case as an opportunity to get the State of Oregon to determine its policy (of how much prime agricultural soils are to be sacrificed to an aggregate mining operation) based on the averaging, then it is an opportunity the Board has to have LUBA or the appellate court make that determination. She reiterated that, based on the rule that the state had developed, the applicant had met the test based on the ability that they have to use averaging of all of the different cells for quantity and significance.
Dwyer said they are determining whether they should add 575 acres of land to Lane County’s mineral aggregate resource land, including a portion of the land that is better suited for farming. He wasn’t convinced that the evidence in the record showed that the basis of the depth was significant because of the argument over the clay. He said it was in the Board’s best interest to ask for that clarification and to deny this so people could have a greater understanding of what overreaching is, or what the rules are, as they apply to conflicting soil types. He added the applicant could amend their application that would take those arguments away. He said averaging was not in the law. He said the question of significance would come back to the Board if it is modified.
Morrison stated the intent is to have a clear and concise way of how they would deal with specific issues. She was involved when this was going forward in the legislature and in the compromise between the agricultural and aggregate community. She didn’t think they have clear direction on what they were supposed to do. She said if they examine this cell by cell, it doesn’t meet the criteria.
MOTION: to tentatively deny the application and direct staff to prepare an order with the appropriate findings for final action.
Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
Green had hoped to discuss the issues that needed to be minimized. He didn’t anticipate that they would have this threshold question. He thought the reason to go forward was due to the average of findings. He said he would vote against this as he believed if they determined the site was significant they could discuss the conflicts.
Weeldreyer did not support the motion. She noted that any decision would be a political one. She was certain if they were going with a 3-2 vote to rule that it was significant, it would get back to the state where they make the policy choice on determining the value of protecting agricultural land and protecting aggregate land.
Sorenson said they tried applying the facts to the law. He noted the testimony offered by the people on this issue was valuable in the Board’s determination. He stated they had to base their vote on the record and under OAR 660-023-180 (3) this application did not meet what was required.
Morrison agreed with Sorenson that they are not authorities on this type of technical information. In reviewing the matter, she didn’t look at this as being political, she studied this from a citizen’s standpoint and weighed the pros and cons of both sides. She had a problem with the way the legislative intent came out. She said in looking at this in total, compared to cells, was problematic and that is why it would probably come back to the Board. She thought she voted the correct way.
VOTE: 3-2 (Weeldreyer, Green dissenting).
Sorenson asked what the follow-up would be to the Board’s tentative vote.
Morrison explained that staff would come back with an order and findings.
Lanfear said he would meet with Howe to discuss the workload situation.
Howe noted the findings could be developed and he would come back after the first of the year, in early February.
Dwyer hoped it would be expedited so they could give the applicant the opportunity to move forward.
5. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
6. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
7. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Morrison adjourned the meeting at 11:50 a.m.
Back to Board Notices