BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
REGULAR MEETING
January 30, 2002
1:30 p.m.
Harris Hall
APPROVED
2/19/2002
Commissioner Bill Dwyer
presided with Commissioner Bobby Green, Anna Morrison and Peter Sorenson. Cindy Weeldreyer was present via
telephone. County Administrator Bill
Van Vactor, Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes and Recording Secretary
Melissa Zimmer were also present.
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. REVIEW/Request by Eugene Sand and Gravel for Reconsideration of the
December 4, 2001 Tentative Board Decision on Ordinance PA 1164.
Dwyer explained that the hearing is to consider and provide an
opportunity for all parties to respond to the January 2, 2002 letter from
Eugene Sand and Gravel requesting reconsideration of the tentative Board
decision made on December 4, 2001. He
added that written testimony or evidence may also be submitted. He said the comments should focus on the
request for reconsideration and not restate evidence or arguments in the record
on the substantive issues involved in the application.
Dwyer asked the Board to disclose any ex-parte contacts they have had
since December 4.
Green responded he had received as many e-mails as everyone else. He said he received a phone call from a
representative from the Alltuckers, the same afternoon they had the
meeting. He didn’t return the phone
call and discussed it with legal counsel.
Green called the owner of Thistledown Farm back out of courtesy. He added there were other letters he gave to
staff. He noted someone from the Parks'
advisory committee had also met with him on other matters and mentioned the
Eugene Sand and Gravel issue. He said
none of the conversations would change his objective opinion on this.
Morrison declared she spoke with Mike Alltucker on December 6,
expressing concern that they had not allowed his entire application to be heard
fully. She wanted to do a review of the
videotape of the proceedings and explore whether there was a procedure to
review the entire application. She
spoke with Randy Henderson on January 11 and his comments were directed toward
the Reed report. She heard no new
additional information. She said on
January 15, she met with Helen Goss in her office and she shared conversations
about traffic at Beacon and River Road and impacts to her business. Goss submitted a photo that was already
submitted into the record. She had
given the duplicate information to Thom Lanfear and didn’t think it was new. She noted she had a phone conversation with
Travis Williams and Libby McCulley on January 23 regarding significance of the
site, public interest and the Beak Report.
She said they sent a letter confirming the original phone conversation
and it is in the record. She noted in
today’s Register Guard there is an editorial about the public having to
pay. She said as a decision maker for
Lane County, she had to be concerned about how monies were spent. She added the decision the Board makes would
predicate the amount of money that not only would the applicant pay, but also
the opponent and the Lane County taxpayers, would by bouncing this back and
forth through the system. She received
numerous e-mails and voice mails, letters to the editor, and editorials. She
had listened and not heard anything beyond what had already been put into the
record. She said there would be no
further contacts with the public on this issue because this is her last
opportunity to disclose contacts.
Sorenson said in addition to written materials, e-mails and letters, he
had telephone conversations with Mike Alltucker, Randy Pape, Mary O’Brien and
Lori Jenson. He also received comments
from the public. He stated he had seen
articles in the Register Guard and Eugene Weekly and letters to
the editor. He noted he had been on a
radio talk show and one of the callers asked about the issue.
Weeldreyer stated she had an ex-parte contact the afternoon of the day
they made their tentative decision. She
had a five minute telephone conversation with Mike Alltucker about future
plans. She referred him back to the Planning Department. She forwarded all of
the e-mails she had received (through Monday) to Thom Lanfear. She added she had been following the letters
to the editors in the newspaper and she received a voice mail message from a
community activist in Cottage Grove.
She also received a voice mail on her home answer machine from a woman
she did not know in Springfield encouraging her not to support the Eugene Sand
and Gravel proposal. She had no
conflicts of interest.
Dwyer announced he had a telephone conversation with Mike Alltucker
after the hearing. He told Alltucker
his objections were part of the record.
Dwyer objected because he wanted farm land protected. He also told Alltucker they needed to have a
better test if they expected to prevail with the significance issue. He said even if they did get by these
issues, the other issues might have some impacts. He added even if Alltucker were to amend his application to address
his concerns, there would be no guaranty that he could mitigate the other concerns. He talked with Lori Jenson and he told her
of his conversation with Alltucker. He
added there was also a public request for all of their e-mail and they provided
that to the attorney for the farms. He
spoke to County Counsel about Alltucker and they told him not to discuss this
with Alltucker any further. He also
spoke with the public on the issue. He
stated he received a call from the press that someone had said that he left
Eugene Sand and Gravel under adverse conditions when he drove a truck for them
and that was what was driving his decision and he had a vendetta against Eugene
Sand and Gravel because they parted ways.
He said 12 years in the legislature he had a 95% voting record in terms
of aggregate mining. He said he is a
miner and has had mines and he drove gravel trucks. He said this decision was not based on any water under the
bridge, it was based on the facts before him and he was sworn to uphold the
law. He said he tries to make sound
public policy based on the common good.
Dwyer asked if there was anyone that wanted to respond to the ex-parte
disclosures or challenge any board member hearing this matter on the account of
bias or conflict of interest.
Shannon Nill,
91502 Coburg Rd., Eugene, raised a challenge based upon the ex-parte contact
between representatives of the applicant and Commissioner Morrison. He requested that she disqualify herself
from this deliberation based upon her description of the ex-parte contact in
the Register Guard newspaper that indicated there was a change in her
position following the meeting with the applicant. He said this indicated their meeting was prejudicial and there
was potential for bias based on the ex-parte contact with the applicant. He requested that Morrison abstain from
voting on this matter for the same reason.
This objection was on his own behalf and not for any other opponents.
Norm Maxwell,
79550 Fire Road, Lorane, was concerned about Morrison’s qualifications to
impartially reconsider this matter. He
noted in August 2000, he had the same situation with the Fire Road and he was
told he could not communicate with his County Commissioner, Anna Morrison.
Thom Lanfear, Land Management, reported the commissioners had received
copies of all e-mails and letters he had received since the December 4
tentative decision. He added that
included all the materials gathered under the public records request received
in early December.
Sorenson stated they made a tentative decision to have staff prepare a
draft denial of the application. He
asked about the status of the draft denial and if it was available to reviewed
by the Board.
Lanfear responded it was in the process of being drafted but not ready
for review.
Dwyer explained today’s meeting was to give the public an opportunity
to comment on the request for reconsideration, but not to go into other issues
that would be deliberated at some other time.
Randy Henderson,
94155 River Road, Junction City, stated with Step 2, (in determining whether
the site is significant) if the answer is no, then it is a dead-end and stops.
He discussed Exhibit 35 (the letter from the Eugene Sand and Gravel’s attorney)
that was in the record. He asked the
Board to follow the rules that were laid out initially.
Robert Emmons,
40093 Little Fall Creek Road, stated he had testified on this issue on two
previous occasions. He said the issue
was decided when the application had an overestimated amount of aggregate and
did not meet state regulations. He said
there was no reason for Morrison to reconsider her vote. He said the meeting between Alltucker and
Morrison was improper and unethical and in the interest of fairness, he asked
Morrison to recuse herself from voting.
Bruce Loudon,
30318 Victory Dr., Junction City, stated he was the president of the Oregon
Thoroughbred Breeders Association. He
said when the Board gets to Item 2, the aggregate is not met.
Jeffrey Lyons,
221 Hileman Lane, Eugene, commented that Alltucker was willing to forego
standard practices if he stands to benefit.
He asked Morrison to stand by her decision to deny.
Jolene Loudon,
P. O. Box 677, Junction City, said reopening the issue was shady and asked why
once a decision was made, they could go back on the decision after having
ex-parte contacts.
Mary O’ Brien,
3525 Gilham, Eugene, stated she submitted a letter for the record. She said the Board needed to follow Goal 5
Rules. She added once they acknowledged
that Eugene Sand and Gravel had not demonstrated having a significant gravel
source, then it wasn’t right to subject the parties to go through the steps to
consider what damage the mining would do when it is not a significant resource
to begin with. She asked Morrison to
recuse herself from voting because she was requesting a bending of the Goal 5
Rule process on the basis of a closed door meeting with Alltucker.
Bob O’ Brien,
3525 Gilham, Eugene, prepared a letter that was submitted into the record. He said they have to determine there is a significant
resource before they could mine on the sites.
He said the evidence was clear there was not a significant
resource. He asked the Board to
reaffirm their earlier decision.
David Hoffman,
2790 Madison, Eugene, stated he had submitted an e-mail about food supply and
homeland security. He said there are
farms close to the gravel pit that are growing a wide variety of crops and
support families.
Ken Riverlighter, 140 Hamilton Ave, submitted written testimony to the Board. He said the Board should stick with the
original decision.
Rich Engstrom,
OCAPA, explained they represent the construction of concrete, aggregate and
aggregate related products and they have 85% production statewide. He said he was involved in the development
and the implementation of the Goal 5 Rule.
He noted they spent time with the governor’s office in collaborating on
the new Goal 5 Rule with the farm bureau and the Association of Oregon
Counties. He didn’t take a position on
the application and did not testify.
His comments were to follow the law as they worked out process and apply
fact to the law and come up with conclusions.
He said they wanted to have less mines and fully utilize the
resource. He said the practice of the
industry was to mine through the intermittent layers found throughout aggregate
deposits. He encouraged the Board to
separate what is relevant and irrelevant within the decision making process.
Dwyer asked how they justified the rule that allowed averaging whereby
they could pick a site of which only a portion is prime farmland in meeting the
test.
Engstrom responded the prime soil determination of 35% or better came
up throughout the Willamette Valley where there are pockets of soil
classification. He said in the balance
with the farm community, they acknowledged areas where there are Class 1 soils
but in a small pocket. He noted there
were different depths in different counties.
Dan Stotter,
259, E. 5th, stated he was the attorney for Thistledown and Lone
Pine Farms. He explained there were undisputed facts on the reconsideration
that the Board’s decision making is limited by the Goal 5 Rule and it is not an
open political decision. He said it was
undisputed that this was a sequential step by step rule. He submitted an e-mail to the Board that indicated
by law they could not address or skip to Step 3, if the prerequisite of Step 2
was not met. He noted the Board made
the correct decision on the aggregate issue based on the requirements and the
language of the rule that is statewide.
He said that the testimony of Mark Reed goes step by step on that
issue. He said the rule requires a 60
foot layer, not layers. He said if the
Board thought notwithstanding the legal requirement of the rule, that they have
to break the law and reconsider the rest of the process, (that is a violation
of law) then he asked the Board to consider only the other issues other than
aggregate. He urged the Board to reject
reconsideration.
Mark Reed,
Mineral Resource Geologist, University of Oregon, indicated he submitted
written testimony. He said the difference between the everyday use of the term
significance and the definition of significance meeting Goal 5 standards is
confusing. He said the County Planning
Commission missed the distinction that is critical to the decision. He said for a gravel deposit to be legally
significant according to Goal 5, all four of the questions must be answered in
the affirmative, but Eugene Sand and Gravel fails on three of the four. He said if it fails on one, the deposit is
not significant. He said that Eugene
Sand and Gravel had not taken representative samples and no one knows if the
gravel passes ODOT standards. He added
half of the deposits may not pass based on problems with sampling, and the
deposit is not significant.
Marie Gray,
353 Knoop Lane, Eugene, hoped the Board would vote their same response.
Wanda Simmons,
1183 Skipper, River Road, hoped the Board would deny the application. She turned in a written response.
Lyn Wineger,
37221 Wallace Creek Road, Springfield, spoke on behalf of the employees of
Eugene Sand and Gravel. She asked the
Board to reconsider their previous decision and move forward to approve their
company’s application. She said they
were asking for fair treatment. She
noted the science shows they will not hurt their neighbors on River Road. She stated they have been good neighbors at
their current site and that is why their close neighbors had testified on their
behalf. She asked the Board to approve
the application because their future livelihood depends on it.
James Ralph,
2161 University, Eugene, said this was an unfortunate development. He urged the Board to reconsider their
vote. He commended Anna Morrison for
her urging the reconsideration. He said
the Board should be as fair as possible and hear the entire matter.
Kathy Alfers,
P. O. Box 557, Monroe, stated it was unnecessary that this had to happen
again. She said Morrison brought them
due to her indecision on this. She said with Morrison’s ex-parte meeting with
Alltucker that she should be dismissed from voting. Alfers thought this was a violation of ethics. She said if this is allowed it would destroy
a way of life. She said the City of
Moser has two gravel pits they are trying to be shut down because of dust,
noise and traffic impacts. She asked
the Board to contact Don Clarke to see what they had been going through.
Lori Jenson,
92019 River Road, Junction City, said
in the beginning everyone agreed this was a step process, passing the first
step before going onto the next step. She
believed that the statute required this.
She understood the record was closed to all parties on October 29,
2001. She noted that 53 feet of gravel
did not meet the 60 foot rule and the representative sample failed the
test. She understood what was asked to
be reconsidered is the entire step process, for the benefit of Eugene Sand and
Gravel to save time and money. She said
the law stated at Step 2, if it was no, then it was denied. She said Morrison was more than able to make
a good decision. She noted Morrison
voted for a denial the first time.
Jenson said she did not read in any place that Morrison would change her
vote.
Doug Graves,
9217 River Road, Junction City, stated he had previously submitted evidence
into the record. He read quotes from
the first night of testimony at Sheldon High School. He noted they were dealing with a letter that came in after the
record was closed and no commissioner should have had any ex-parte contact with
Eugene Sand and Gravel. He asked the
Board not to be persuaded and to stick by their decision of December 4, 2001.
Ben Brown,
4300 Goodpasture Loop, thanked the Board for opening this back up. He thought
this would speed up the process so there wouldn’t be continual appeals. He said if this decision goes against Eugene
Sand and Gravel it would hurt their company to the point where it may shut
down. He said they don’t need to lose
any more jobs. He said they can get
along with the farms and it shouldn’t be a problem.
Marilyn Rear,
91820 Territorial Highway, Junction City, stated she had testified
previously. She commended the Board for
reconsidering the Eugene Sand and Gravel’s request. She urged the Board to re-examine the science of the project by
engineers and geologists. She said it
was a serious issue for her farm and it is about survival of her farm and other
farmers who own farmland on River Road.
She said by voting no on the gravel pit, the River Road area would stay
the same and not change. She said
production farming in the area had changed.
She noted the land being leased to Eugene Sand and Gravel is river
bottom soil and is coarse in nature.
She added that soils of this makeup limit the kind of crops that could
be successfully grown. She asked the
Board to save the farms. She urged the
Board to reconsider the permit to harvest gravel.
Janet Harper,
29850 Harper Road, stated her family is one of the groups involved in the
project in leasing to Eugene Sand and Gravel.
She appreciated the Board reconsidering the subject.
Coralee Whitley,
3535 Alameda St., stated she lives near where the gravel pit would go in. She said people’s wishes should be
considered. She was concerned there
wasn’t enough emphasis on parks. She
said there should be a policy change so they don’t go through this with another
company that wanted to put a gravel pit in the city.
Dale Miller,
4750 River Road, said he testified at the last hearing. He noted across the street from his house
are two housing projects with over 100 homes.
He stated the traffic alone along River Road should stop the building of
the gravel pit. He hoped the Board
would keep the decision they made.
Joy Knutson,
4440 Ryan, strongly opposed what had happened.
She said if this goes through, then the other gravel companies would
need to have the same opportunity. She
asked the Board to stick with their first decision.
George Banke,
2040 Willamette St., Eugene, said that Eugene Sand and Gravel over the years
have been good citizens. He said the
Alltuckers had been good citizens and kept their place clean. He urged the
Board to change their vote.
Hazel Jenson,
30776 Lone Pine, stated that after December 4, the record was closed and the
January 2, 2002 letter was inadmissible.
She noted step 2 of the process was to determine if the resource site was
significant. She said it was found not
to be. She said the opponents of the
gravel pits are required to follow the law, but the applicant doesn’t have to. She added if the applicant chooses to break
the law via ex-parte contacts and submittal of testimony after the record is
closed, consideration would be given for these actions. She didn’t think the Eugene Sand and Gravel
January 2, 2002 letter should be accepted into the record. She said this decision wasn’t about the
future of Eugene Sand and Gravel as a company.
She noted the Commissioners did not cause Eugene Sand and Gravel to be
struggling for survival, they did it on their own. She noted that Mike Alltucker stated there were other sites for
mining. She suggested they pursue those
other options.
Baynard McConnaughley, 1653 Fairmount Boulevard, Eugene, commented under
current regulations, the Alltucker’s application is not admissible and could
not be permitted without a change in regulations. He said the Board should be bound by current regulations instead
of hoping for a change. He noted if
such a change occurred, that would be the time to consider this again. He said there was no alternative but to deny
the application because it does not meet the current regulations.
Patty Driscoll,
671 Irving Road, asked the Board to vote no on reopening Eugene Sand and Gravel
for mining at the River Road site. She
said the Board couldn’t look at the other issues involved if there is no
significant resource. She understood that if there was not significant
resources shown by Randy Henderson that it would be denied. She said they would be saving Eugene Sand
and Gravel time and money and the rest of the community time by letting them
get on with the process of finding a site.
She corresponded with Morrison by e-mail and asked her questions. She didn’t think the news coverage gave
adequate consideration to what was coming back.
John Alltucker
P. O. Box 1067, Eugene, stated he wasn’t asking to help the Alltucker family as
people, he asked to look at his employees to see if they could be helped. He wanted the Board’s final decision to be
made on what is best for Lane County and most of the people in Lane
County. He noted at the present time,
they have 209 employees and they are paying $9 million per year in pay and
benefits. He added that amounted to
$44,000 per year for each of their employees.
He said if they shut down, there would only be a few people who could
obtain a comparable salary. He said if
their permit is delayed or they have to go to Court for the next five years,
they would have to shut down. He asked
for the meeting so the Board could make their decision on all of the
issues. He said if they are turned down
they will close. He said the only
evidence that there is not a significant amount of material on the property
that meets state law is testimony by Mark Reed. They could not find that he had a license.
Roxie Cuellar,
Home Builders, 2053 Laura St., submitted written material. She stated she didn’t know if this was a
significant resource or not. She said
they were familiar with land use decisions and LUBA appeals. She reminded the Board how expensive and
time consuming the processes have become.
She said it is becoming too expensive for everyone in the land use
arena. She said the process doesn’t
work well if decisions are not made on the merits of the case. She encouraged the Board to reconsider their
vote.
Shannon Nill,
91502 Coburg Road, didn’t think the revote should be allowed. He noted
sufficient time was available to all parties to study the materials
submitted. He said they were wasting
people’s time because one commissioner was convinced to change her stance by
the applicant. He stated if every issue
was allowed to be revoted, society would collapse. He said if a revote is given, it would give the time for
Weeldreyer and Green to vote properly.
He said that Morrison voted and he asked her to stick to her vote.
Mike Alltucker,
President, Eugene Sand and Gravel, noted they filed their application with Lane
County 922 days ago to permit aggregate mining on River Road. He said that process was mandated to take
180 days. He said they asked for a
process that would be fair and predictable and the application judged on its
merits under statewide planning rules.
He said since that time, they had designed a plan that answered all
concerns raised by the community. He
said the record was clear that they had met the rule. He asked the Board that they reconsider the decision on
significance. He noted their
application was consistent with the practice of the industry statewide. He asked the Board to reconsider and move
quickly through the rest of the process to complete their application. He noted the record was overwhelming and
clear they had met the rule. He added
that Lane County staff recommended approval of the application. He thought if the application was denied, it
was for political reasons. He noted the
appeal process was more uncertain and expensive and an option they weren’t
willing to pursue. He said if the Board
denies their application they would be forced to start to shut their operation
and lay people off. He asked the Board
to approve the project and save 200 jobs.
Sophie Bello,
30699 Maple Drive, said if there is no new information, she asked why this was
being reconsidered. She stated she just
bought a farm down the road from the site and they have been farming on
it. She said this was between economy
and environment and preserving both of them for a healthy community. She said it was hard to say what the impact
the gravel pit would be, but it was easy to predict the domino effect that
allowing this would create. She urged
the Board to stick with their original decision.
Lisa Arkin,
29136 Gimple Hill, Eugene, voiced her objection to a request by Mr. Alltucker
of Eugene Sand and Gravel to reopen this process and give his company’s
proposal another “hearing” and decision.
She added the official record had been closed and citizens witnessed the
public vote by the County Commissioners. She noted the vote on December 4
reflects the evidence in the record and if there is no new evidence, there is
no need for considering Alltucker’s request for a new vote or decision. She stated the vote to deny the application
is the correct decision based on testimony and documentation that had been
submitted. She said if the Board alters
its vote after contact with Eugene Sand and Gravel, it would be a slap in the
face to citizens who gave testimony.
She urged the Board to stand by the December 4 vote, a decision that
took into account the failure of the application to satisfy the requirements of
Step 2 of the Oregon Administrative Rules regarding Goal 5.
Jan Spencer, 212 Benjamin, Eugene, stated he testified and
submitted written documents at previous hearings. He said the proposed gravel mining is not a good idea. He asked
the Board to stand by their previous decision and deny the application and save
the farmland.
David Sullivan,
30797 Maple Drive, Eugene, testified that he spoke at the two other hearings
and he sent a letter to the editor at the Register Guard. He said he was
opposed to the application and urged the Board to stick with their original
vote. He noted that Step 2 of Goal 5
stated that the Board must deny the application. He urged the Board to make a serious commitment to farmland.
Shelley Reed,
30145 El Rio Lane, Junction City, urged the Board not to reconsider
their December decision on the matter.
She said it was her observation that in order to challenge the data that
Eugene Sand and Gravel puts forward, no one has had the funds to provide
independent studies. She noted that the
issue of relevance was absent. She said
that all of the challenges had been based upon identifying weaknesses in the
application. She believed it gave
Eugene Sand the opportunity to determine the substance of the debate and there
is no real opportunity for anyone to provide good solid information that is
irrefutable. She said this was not a
fair process.
Kevin Jones,
4740 Wendover St., stated the Board’s original decision was correct. He submitted testimony into the record.
Gabe Cox,
30699 Maple Drive, Junction City, said he is a farmer against gravel mining
operations on River Road. He asked the
Board to follow the rules of Goal 5 and for them to keep their original vote.
Jessie Coon,
93510 River Road, stated the best thing for that land would be a gravel
pit. He said the farmland is marginal
and if they want to keep people working they should allow Eugene Sand and
Gravel come in to take the gravel.
There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Dwyer closed
the Public Hearing.
Dwyer explained this hearing is to give everyone in the community an
opportunity to respond to the letter that was submitted from Eugene Sand and
Gravel. He noted that under Roberts
Rules of Order, Morrison could have moved to reconsider at the next meeting
related to sand and gravel.
Lanfear noted they had received a request from Dan Stotter
(representing Thistledown Farms) for an opportunity to present additional
evidence to address any new information presented on the reconsideration
issue. He added it was pursuant to ORS
197.763. He said he had not heard any
new evidence that had been submitted.
Vorhes explained the request and the focus of the request and the
obligation to allow additional time only occurs in the initial public
hearing. Vorhes noted this was not the
initial public hearing so there was not an obligation. He added the decision was up to the Board.
Sorenson stated that all parties should have an opportunity to respond
to what had been put into the record.
He didn’t think that it was fair for one side to submit something
without having parties determining if it was new information.
Vorhes stated there was no obligation for the Board to do anything more
than an opportunity for people to respond to the request for reconsideration to
reopen the record. He said the Board
chose to reopen the record to allow response to the request for reconsideration,
a focused issue. Vorhes stated the
Board took in the information on the issue of reconsideration. He added there was no legal obligation to
continue with the record open for any period of time.
Sorenson asked if the Board should deny the request for a rebuttal
opportunity.
Vorhes stated it was up to the Board to decide. He said the Board could and not run any
significant legal risk for closing the record since the notice was pointing to
this proceeding and hearing. He
indicated there was an opportunity to submit the written comments prior to the
meeting. He said there was opportunity
to provide input to the Board on the issue of reconsideration.
Sorenson requested allowing the rebuttal opportunity for any
party. He didn’t want to close off the
opportunity.
Weeldreyer wanted to do everything they could to make sure the record
procedures were as clean as possible.
She said if this would help move the process forward, then she would
have no objection to it.
Dwyer reiterated they held this hearing strictly on the issue of
reconsideration. He asked Stotter the
purpose for allowing rebuttal.
Stotter explained there is new information submitted that was not in
the record. He said for the first time
they heard that the Alltucker’s might close down Eugene Sand and Gravel. He added there were economic impacts,
aggregate impacts and none was in the record.
He asked if the Board was going to take the information that had never
been put into the record and make a decision.
He suggested the Board could create a Goal 1 and statutory procedural
error. He said for the Board to say
that he could not respond to new information is creating a procedural
error. He said if the Board agrees that
they are not going to reconsider this matter, he would be willing to withdraw
his request for additional time. He said he wouldn’t need more than 14 days to
respond to the new information submitted into the record.
Morrison stated there was a request under the Freedom of Information
Act to receive information and she asked if that was complied with.
Lanfear responded it was available for review. He said the request occurred in early
December and all of the material submitted within the last week was what
Stotter was referring to. He added
Stotter received a copy of the information this morning at the same time the
Board received their copy.
Stotter responded this was information that he had never seen before
and testimony that was presented with inaccurate information by the applicant
they had never had an opportunity to respond to.
MOTION: to
move that the Board reconsider the application they have in front of them.
Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.
Dwyer explained the motion to reconsider, (having been made by a person
who voted on the prevailing side) is a legitimate motion and the second was not
required to have the same status. He
noted it was a valid motion.
Morrison stated she recently made a process error. She said the recent vote she took on the
Eugene Sand and Gravel issue cut the hearing process short on an issue with so
much meaning to so many people. She
wanted the issue brought back to the table to insure that both sides of the
issue have a complete and thorough discussion by the Board. She added bringing the issue back might not
be politically popular, it was the right thing to do for everyone
involved. She said that people matter,
not politics. She was not convinced
that the resource is significant, but she said there was enough doubt in her
mind that she wanted to complete the process and reserve the right to make a
decision on all of the merits of the proposed application. She questioned whether there had been any
new information received.
Sorenson said it was his view that there was nothing else to
reconsider. He said they have the
information and testimony. He didn’t
think the Board needed to reconsider this matter. He thought the motion for reconsideration should be denied.
Dwyer did not support the motion.
He objected on the ground of public interest. He said it was in the public’s interest to preserve prime
farmland. He didn’t see anything that
would change his mind on the issue. He
said the burden is on the applicant and they will have a hard time proving that
things are no longer significant.
Weeldreyer said the state processing allowed for averaging of the
cells. Through the averaging process,
she still believes that the issue of significance was adequately addressed by
the application. She said the Board needs to focus on mitigating the impacts of
the mining operation on the property owners and people in the River Road
area. She noted what Morrison did was
courageous. She supported the motion.
Green said when they met last time, he had hoped they would have gone
through the whole process. He recalled
asking staff twice that if the Board took a position on the first question, if
they could still go through the step process.
He said he misinterpreted their response. He supported the motion as they should get into the process with
a full discussion. He noted that
Morrison came to him the same day after the December 4 meeting and admitted
that she made a procedural error.
VOTE: 3-2
(Dwyer, Sorenson dissenting).
Dwyer didn’t believe there was anything material that had been put in
the record that hadn’t been heard before.
He wanted to get to the issues of whether the impacts are significant
and that mining shouldn’t be allowed, and whether or not they could be
mitigated to the point where they are no longer significant or whether or not
an ESEE analysis might be required to make that determination. He announced the date of February 20, 2002
to deliberate on the application issues starting with the significance under
Goal 5.
Vorhes explained the Board had voted to reconsider the decision on
significance and the next step for the Board is to decide what to do about significance. He said the discussion that took place was
when it should occur. He said the Board
could take up the significance issue, now.
He said the Board needed to decide when to take up the decision that is
being reconsidered.
MOTION: to
move to approve Option 1, setting the date of February 20 to deliberate on the
application issues starting with significance under Goal 5.
Weeldreyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
Sorenson stated the motion would delay the review of this further to
move it out into February. He said they
could reconsider this now. He didn’t
support the motion.
Dwyer didn’t support the motion.
He agreed with Sorenson that they could make a decision on the issue of
significance now. He said there was no
more evidence entered into the record.
Morrison stated it didn’t matter if they heard this today or on
February 20 because it would be the same.
She thought it would be simpler if they did everything all at one time.
Green said the commissioners asked for reconsideration of the vote on
significance. He explained a majority
of the Board had supported Morrison’s motion.
He said even if they went back to discuss significance, they still have
a majority of the Board in the position to agree there is significance and they
could discuss the conflicts.
Dwyer noted the motion to find that it is significant (if it is made
now) and the motion to reconsider would clarify the issues they would deal with
on February 20. He added it would take
away the politicking as it related to the issue of significance.
Weeldreyer withdrew her motion and Morrison withdrew her second.
Morrison wanted to discuss significance today and on February 20, they
would start with Step 3.
Weeldreyer stated she wouldn’t change her vote on significance. She wanted to take this up on February 20,
when she would have all the information in front of her.
Sorenson asked if the motion to take this on February 20 had been
withdrawn.
Vorhes noted what the Board had in front of them is the motion
previously made that was to find that this was not a significant resource. He said if the Board chooses to take this up
now, the motion that was made was to postpone the debate to February 20. He said they could discuss the issue now and
decide if they wanted. He said part of
the reason for providing an option for this Board was to give ideas of what the
possibilities are and some of it had to do with staff preparation and the
ability to respond to commissioner questions on the issue that is in front of
the Board and that was why one of the options was for February 20. He said the action that was taken
tentatively was the motion to find that there was not a significance resource
on December 4. He added the Board voted
to reconsider that decision on that motion so the motion is alive.
Sorenson wanted to deal with the significance issue, moving all other
issues to February 20.
MOTION: to
move that there is a significant resource at the Eugene Sand and Gravel site in
the proposal.
Morrison MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED.
Vorhes requested that the Board make these decisions tentative because
until they have a decision in writing, they do not have a final decision.
Dwyer reiterated it was a tentative decision to find a significant
resource.
Sorenson stated by the Board making a reversal on the decision that
they had contradicted data in the record.
He said the reports that had been submitted by the opponents are
forceful.
Dwyer was not convinced it was a significant resource. He said it moves to the next step of
groundwater, dust, noise and the other issues.
He did not support the motion.
VOTE: 3-2
(Dwyer, Sorenson dissenting).
Dwyer said the Board determined it was a significant site and they
would set the date of February 20 to deliberate on the application issues other
than significance.
11. COMMISSIONERS'
ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
12. OTHER BUSINESS
None.
There being no further business, Commissioner Dwyer adjourned the
meeting at 4:50 p.m.
Melissa Zimmer
Recording Secretary