HomeMy WebLinkAbout20181448.tiffBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO
1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado 80634
TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC MEETING
DOCKET 2017-86.C
IN RE: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT,
USR17-0043, FOR MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING ASPHALT
AND CONCRETE BATCH PLANTS, MATERIALS PROCESSING (CRUSHING AND
SCREENING), MATERIAL STOCK PILES, AN OFFICE, A SHOP, AND OUTDOOR
TRUCK AND EMPLOYEE PARKING IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT
CACTUS HILL RANCH COMPANY, C/O SIMON CONTRACTORS, INC.
(9:58 A.M. TO 12:23 P.M.)
The above -entitled matter came for public meeting before the Weld County Board of
County Commissioners on Wednesday, January 10, 2018, at 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado,
before Tisa Juanicorena, Deputy Clerk to the Board.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that upon listening to the audio record, the attached transcript, as
prepared by Rebecca J. Collings, DausteriMurphy, www.daustermurphy.com, 303.522.1604, is a
complete and accurate account of the above -mentioned public hearing.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Esther E. Gesick
Clerk to the Board
Qt4M / GQ.4tc
Q5-07 —t
2018-1448
pc aso3-
1
1 APPEARANCES:
2 ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS:
3 COMMISSIONER: STEVE MORENO, CHAIR
4 COMMISSIONER BARBARA KIRKMEYER, PRO-TEM
5 COMMISSIONER SEAN P. CONWAY
6 COMMISSIONER JULIE A. COZAD•
COMMISSIONER MIKE FREEMAN
8 ALSO PRESENT:
9 ACTING CLERK TO THE BOARD, TISA JUANICORENA
10 ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY, BOB CHOATE
11 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT, KIM OGLE
12 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE, EVAN .PINKHAM
' 13 PLANNING SERVICES ENGINEER REPRESENTATIVE, HAYLEY BALZANO
14 HEALTH DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE, BEN FRISSELL
15, APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE:'
16 ANNE BEST -JOHNSON, .TETRA TECH.
2
1 (Beginning of audio recording.)
2
COMMISSIONER MORENO: Good morning. It is
3 Wednesday, January 10th, 10:00 a.m. Let the record
4 reflect that all five county commissioners are present.
5 I'm going to call up Docket 2017-86. Mr. Choate.
6 MR. CHOATE: For Docket --
7 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Hang on, Mr. Choate.
8 Just a second. We have -- Commissioner Cozad wants to
9 make a comment before we begin.
10 COMMISSIONER COZAD: If that's all right.
11 I don't mean to interrupt you.
12 I just wanted to put on the record, after
13 the last meeting, apparently there was a big discussion
14 out in front of the building, and there was talk about
15 me having a conflict of interest on this case. And in
16 the meantime, there was a complaint made to the County
17 Counsel.
18 And so I just want to on the record state
19 that I have no conflict of interest. I was a past
20 employee of Tetra Tech. I left Tetra Tech in 2014
21 before I became a County Commissioner, and I do not have
22 a conflict of interest. People can think that I do, but
23 I do not. I've spoken to our County Attorney. I have
r
24 no conflicts of interest with Tetra Tech.
25 The other thing I was accused of is having
3
1 a conflict of interest with Simon. I have never worked
2 for Simon, I've never done any work for them, and I have
3 no conflicts of interest with Simon either. So I just
4 wanted to make sure and state that on the record.
5 And as a matter of fact, as far as a
6 conflict of interest with Tetra Tech, there have been
7 determinations that have already been made by our County
8 Attorney, by our County Counsel, by a judge, and by --
9 when we were audited last year for a performance
10 auditor. And all those entities have already. determined
11 that I have no conflict of interest with Tetra Tech. So
12 I wanted to make sure and put that on the record.
13 Thank you, Mr. Chair.
14 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
15 Kirkmeyer.
16 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I just think it's
17 important to note that a conflict of interest in the
18 statute would require that Commissioner Cozad was
19 receiving some kind of financial gain from Tetra Tech or
20 Simon Contractors. So, I think it would be Important for
21 you to put on the record that you don't receive any kind
22 of payment or any financial gain from Tetra Tech or
23 Simon Contractor.
24 COMMISSIONER COZAD: And I agree with
25 that. That's the definition of a conflict of interest,
4
1 and I have absolutely no financial interest or financial
2 gain with Tetra Tech or Simon.
3 As I said, I was an employee of Tetra
4 Tech. I actually -- I didn't leave my employment until
5 the very end of 2014, but I actually separated myself
6 from the company in August of 2014, before I even was
7 elected and took office. And I have no stock options or
8 anything else related to Tetra Tech, so I have
9 absolutely no financial interest in the company at all.
10 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. Now we'll
11 bring up the Docket, 2017-86. Mr. Choate.
12 MR. CHOATE: Thank you. This is Case
13 USR17-0043. The applicant is Cactus Hill Ranch Company,
14 in care of Simon Contractors. The request is a
15 Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit
16 for Mineral Resource Development, including asphalt and
17 concrete batch plants; materials processing, crushing
18 and screening; material stockpiles; an office; a shop;
19 outdoor truck and employee parking in the Agricultural
20 Zone District.
21 This is part of the west half of
22 Section 16, Township 7 North, Range 67 West of the
23 Sixth Prime Meridian in Weld County. Located south of
24 and adjacent to County Road 80 1/2, east of and adjacent
25 to State Highway 257.
5
1 Notice was published October 20, 2017, in
2 the Greeley Tribune. This matter has been continued
3 previously multiple times, most recently from
4 November 8, 2017.
5 I'll remind the board that at that time on
6 November 8th, the public comment was closed and so was the
7 public record. And so the matter was continued to allow
8 the applicant opportunity to provide -- to review the
9 materials that were provided by the public and to
10 provide a rebuttal today.
11 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Thank you,
12 Mr. Choate.
13 Okay. I'm going to start with
14 Commissioner - Conway.
15 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Before we get into
16 the rebuttal, because we got this big binder dumped on
17 us last week, I just want to make sure from a
18 clarification point from the County Attorney that all
19 the applicant is doing today is answering the questions
20 that the public raised. If new information comes
21 forward as part of that, does this Board have the
22 opportunity to open it up to public comments?
23 MR. CHOATE: The board has that
24 discretion.
25 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: If new information
6
1 comes forward as part of the rebuttal?
2 MR. CHOATE: The Board has the discretion
3 either way. The Board provided direction previously,
4 and so staff did not include anything into the record
5 except that which was submitted by the applicant or
6 staff since November 8th.
7 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. Thank you. I
8 just wanted clarification.
9 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
10 Kirkmeyer.
11 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Sure. So I'm
12 probably going to sound a little bit like a broken
13 record, but I'm just going to state this again, that
14 because of the deluge of documents that the Board has
15 received since the continuance and since the last
16 hearing -- so, I mean, I don't know if everyone can see
17 it, but on December 27th we received this notebook of
18 information. That was December 27th.
19 And there were at least two of our County
20 Commissioners who were out of town. So, I know I spent
21 hours going through that. I'm not sure if they've had
22 time to go through all of that because all of the board
23 needs to go through all of these documents. But then
24 since January 5th, which was just last Friday, we received
25 yet another 373 pages of documents.
7
1 So because of that, I'm just going to tell
2 you again, as a Board of County Commissioners, every
3 single one of us have a responsibility to review these
4 documents. They're all considered part of the public
5 record. And I have not had time. I mean, I didn't even
6 know we were getting all those documents until late
7 Monday afternoon. And so there's no way I've read
8 through 373 pages of documents. I mean, our Clerk has
9 to go through and our staff had to go through, put these
10 documents -- put them in the record before we can even
11 receive them.
12 So it's not like they come to the county
13 on January 5th and then on January 7th -- or 8th, sorry --
14 on January 8th staff has had -- i don't know, meripoled
15 (phonetic) some little elves or something to come in and
16 help them put them all into the system over the weekend.
17 I mean, so we don't even start seeing them until
18 Tuesday, which was January 9th.
19 So with that, I am going to ask -- and if
20 I have to make the motion at the end, I will make the
21 motion at the end. But I am going to ask that, first of
22 all, that we limit rebuttal comments to 90 minutes.
23 Second of all, that this matter ends up being continued.
24 I'm not making that motion now, but I would ask to have
25 the motion continued for approximately 30 days or, in my
8
1 estimation, that might be -- I was thinking maybe
2 February 5th would be a good time because that's a Monday
3 and it wouldn't interrupt any of our other scheduled
4 meetings that we have - land use hearings
5 that we have on Wednesdays -- to give the Board the
6 opportunity to read all the comments.
7 Further, not only would I consider -- we
8 should consider the public record closed for the public,
9 but that the public record would be closed for the
10 applicant as well. Because I'm justtelling you, we are
11 required by law to get all this information, read all
12 this information before we make any decisions. And I --
13 I have not had an opportunity. I can't imagine that any
14 of the other Commissioners -- especially since
15 Commissioner Freeman and Commissioner Conway were out of
16 town for two and a half weeks or whatever it was over
17 Christmas and New Year's -- I don't think anybody's had
18 the opportunity to read all of this.
19 So that would be my request, again, is
20 that we limit rebuttal comments from the applicant to
21 90 minutes. They've obviously sent us a whole bunch of
22 stuff here, but they need to be able to get through it
23 in 90 minutes, which I think would be fair. And, again,
24 I'm going to ask for a continuance of this matter. And
25 also I'm going to ask that the public record, if we
9
1 were -- if the board approves to continue this, that the
2 public record for the applicant and the public is
3 closed.
4 COMMISSIONER MORENO: I'm going to jump in
5 and then bring -- I'm going to bring it back to the rest
6 of the Board here too.
7 Commissioner, I -- I agree with you. I
8 was overwhelmed when I received this book last Friday.
9 And I did take it home over the weekend and took a
10 little bit of time going through as much as I could.
11 And then we continued to get more documents in to us as
12 of late yesterday. So, it's just overwhelming with so
13 much information. I agree that we need some time here
14 to review this stuff, and I agree every one of us has
15 the responsibility to review these documents.
16 Commissioner Conway, and then we'll go
17 back to Commissioner Cozad in just a minute.
18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So I share the
19 concerns. I will tell you, I concur. I was stunned
20 when we got this book. And --
21 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: There's another
22 300 --
23 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I know.
24 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: -- 33 pages.
25 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I saw that. I --
10
1 you know, we continued this in November to get this in
2 late December, early January in terms of this. You
3 know, I think we needed time. We needed more time to be
4 able to go through this.
5 I would also say, though, for the public
6 who took time to be here today, a motion to continue
7 allows for public comment, correct?
8 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: No.
9 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: If we make a motion
10 to continue matters?
11 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I won't --
12 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: On the continuance,
13 just on the continuance.
14 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
15 Kirkmeyer.
16 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Yes, there could
17 be public comment on whether or not we continue.
18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Correct.
19 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I'm not making a
20 motion at this time.
21 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I know. But if we
22 get to that point --
23 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Sure, they can
24 comment on a continuance.
25 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: -- they can comment
11
1 on a continuance. And I just want the public to
2 understand that there will be an opportunity if such a
3 motion is made and if such deliberation is undertaken,
4 they'll have an opportunity to make (unintelligible). I
5 just wanted -- for public notification out there because
6 we have a lot of people --
7 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Taken their time.
8 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: -- who took time to
9 be here today, and I would -- I think I know where we're
10 going here based on the comments of my fellow
11 commissioners. But I want the public to know they have
12 an opportunity after a 90 -minute rebuttal, if a motion
13 is made, to continue matters to talk about the
14 continuance, if --
15 COMMISSIONER MORENO: If the motion is
16 made.
17 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: And I would agree
18 100 percent, Commissioner Kirkmeyer, in terms of the
19 applicant, you know, continuing to -- they're having an
20 opportunity today. If we close public comment, the
21 public isn't able to add information that needs to be
22 rebuttaled, so that -- it should be fair. The applicant
23 should also be under the same restrictions as the public
24 in terms of (unintelligible). I agree 100 percent.
25 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
12
1 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I wanted to also just
2 say that I also agree. I actually was here over the
3 holidays, and so when we got the book on the 27th, I was
4 here when they came in, and I did have a chance to go
5 through most of the notebook, if not all of it. I think
6 I've probably gone through all of it.
7 But we did get the large amount of
8 documents on Friday. I was in the office, and I'm --
9 and I know this probably sounds bad to some people, but
10 I am one of those people that has to print everything
11 because I like to have it with everything else, and I
12 like to make notes and things like that.
13 So I was actually here and spent a good
14 portion of the afternoon just printing everything in the
15 afternoon and starting to do my review of it in the
16 afternoon on Friday. And I actually did spend quite a
17 bit of time over the weekend reviewing it.
18 And like Commissioner Kirkmeyer, I am
19 still not through all the documents, and I would
20 actually even like to go back and spend more time
21 reviewing the rest of the -- the file, because there --
22 it's not just the stuff that we've gotten in the last
23 week and a half.
24 It's -- it's the enormous amount of
25 materials that we've had, which I have reviewed, but
13
1 when you're getting new information on top of it --
2 well, not really new information, but additional
3 information, it is difficult to fit that in and make
4 sure that we have -- as you stated, Commissioner
5 Kirkmeyer -- done our job, and that's to read everything
6 and go through all the documents and make sure that
7 we -- if we have questions about them that -- you know,
8 that we're able to ask those questions of the applicant.
9 And so while I agree with you, I'm willing
10 to listen to (unintelligible) today on the previous
11 comments. I'm not comfortable moving forward today
12 either on a decision because I don't think any of us
13 have -- I think we've heard from everybody pretty much
14 that we have not all read through everything that's been
15 submitted. So, at this point I would agree with your
16 recommendation.
17 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
18 Freeman.
19 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: And I would agree
20 as well. I actually left town on the 26th and didn't
21 get back until the 3rd, so I didn't see this packet
22 until last Wednesday. I have spent not a lot, a lot of
23 time, but quite a bit of time looking through this, and
24 that doesn't include all the stuff that we got
25 yesterday. And it is a tremendous amount of information
14
1 with many other things going on besides just that.
2 And so I would completely agree that I
3 think it makes sense to hear the rebuttal today, but I
4 would fully support continuing this and giving all of us
5 an opportunity to actually get through all of this and
6 have the ability to not only get through it, but kind of
7 digest what's in it and then make sure that we're on --
8 complete understanding of what's going on with all the
9 information we've got. So, I would agree.
10 COMMISSIONER MORENO: With that, I guess
11 I'm looking at the Board here before calling up the
12 applicant. It looks like we have some support here for
13 hearing from the applicant today. But I understand a
14 commissioner suggesting a 90 -minute presentation is what
15 you're proposing here in your --
16 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Yeah.
17 COMMISSIONER MORENO: -- possible motion
18 you might make here.
19 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Well, I'm not
20 making a motion on the 90 minutes. I'm suggesting that
21 the board consider that it's a 90 -minute rebuttal. I
22 mean, I don't need the applicant -- or less.
23 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: If they don't need
24 it, limit it.
25 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I don't think we
15
1 need the applicant to read all the documents that they
2 sent to us. I mean, we're going to take time to do
3 that. So I'm suggesting that it's 90 minutes, because I
4 think that's a -- it could be less -- but up to
5 90 minutes, because I think that would be appropriate.
6 And I know that they have experts. At
7 least within their document, they have a lot of expert
8 testimony within their documents. I'm assuming they
9 brought some of their experts today. I want to make
10 sure they have the opportunity to -- you know, there is
11 a thing about convenience here, but I want to make sure
12 they have an opportunity to get in, you know, their
13 experts' testimonies as well.
14 But I don't think we need to be here for a
15 12- or 14 -hour hearing today. I just don't think that's
16 necessary. So, I am asking the Board to consider that we
17 would limit rebuttal period from the applicant to
18 90 minutes. That would not include any questions that
19 we may ask or questions that the staff may ask or
20 questions that we may have of the staff, but clearly
21 just their rebuttal period.
22 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: I would agree to
23 that.
24 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Me too.
25 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. So I'll call
16
1 up the applicant representative. Please state your name
2 and address. And you've heard from the Board.
3 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Before the applicant
4 starts, are you going to be going through this book?
5 MS. BEST JOHNSON: The nature of -- Anne
6 Best Johnson, Tetra Tech, 1900 South Sunset, Suite 1E,
7 Longmont, Colorado.
8 The nature of the rebuttal was to walk
9 through the conditions of approval, the development
10 standards, and how the -- how Simon has mitigated
11 concerns and how those adhere to the development
12 standards and the conditions of approval as well as the
13 list of questions you asked of them on November 11th. So
14 that's the nature of the rebuttal.
15 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Mr. Chair? I would
16 just like, as you go through this, is that part of your
17 PowerPlant [sic] that you know where you are and all of
18 this so we can follow you?
19 MS. BEST JOHNSON: We refer to all of the
20 exhibits.
21 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: You'll walk us
22 through as you (unintelligible)?
23 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yes.
24 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. Thank you. I
25 just wanted to understand the process.
17
1 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay, Anne.
2 MS. BEST JOHNSON: All right. So good
3 morning and thank you again for the continuance for a
4 rebuttal. During this time, we've been able to
5 carefully review comments made, documents provided, and
6 questions asked through the open houses and the public
7 hearings. This time has allowed us to illustrate how
8 the original application and the mitigation measures
9 proposed by Simon go above and beyond.
10 The notebook containing information was
11 provided to each of the Commissioners, the County Clerk,
12 County Attorney, and staff on December 27th. Subsequent
13 information was provided, which was in response to staff
14 comments to that notebook, on January 5th.
15 The January 5th supplement contained
16 housekeeping issues based on staff comments. The intent
17 of providing this information to you prior to today's
18 hearing was to afford you adequate time to review in
19 preparation for today.
20 The intended land use -- we need to be
21 very careful to remember -- is for ready -mix concrete
22 plant, not a cement plant. The intended land use is
23 also an asphalt plant, not a paving operation. And the
24 intended land use is also for parking and office and
25 recycling unlimited timeframe.
18
1 Now, with us today, we do have several
2 individuals here on the Simon team that are going to
3 discuss their areas of expertise as it relates to the
4 applicant's compliance with the proposed development
5 standards and conditions of approval as well as the
6 questions that you asked.
7 These individuals will be available to
8 answer questions if the -- if after the 90 minutes that
9 timeframe allows. So, we have Brett Baker, who's
10 president of Simon Contractors; John Pinello, a
11 construction manager; Rob Haven is the environmental
12 manager. On the Tetra Tech team we have, in addition to
13 myself, Jeff Butson, Jeff Harrington, and Jean Capola.
14 We have Ken Lind; David Rau; John Siren; Dr. Phillips,
15 Dr. Scott Phillips; Mitch Little; and Michael Smith.
16 You've heard our initial presentation,
17 you've also heard from individuals who live in the area,
18 and you reviewed lots of documents that have been
19 provided. This rebuttal presentation is being divided
20 into three different sections to illustrate how the
21 application meets and exceeds standard application
22 requirements that go above and beyond.
23 In Section 1, we're going to discuss
24 additional points of information that you asked to be
25 addressed during this particular hearing. The points to
19
1 be discussed in this section do not necessarily tie
2 directly to the Code, a condition of approval, or a
3 development standard; however, these points that are
4 going to be discussed in this particular section are
5 standalone. Other points that you raised at the
6 November 8th hearing are going to be woven into discussion
7 where we talk specifically about development standards
8 or conditions of approval.
9 So Section 2 contains a discussion on how
10 Simon Contractors have, or will, meet the conditions of
11 approval. These standards are steps which must be met
12 prior to recording the USR map post approval.
13 Section 3 then contains a discussion on
14 how Simon Contractors have, or will continue to, meet the
15 development standards associated with the approval of
16 this permit. The development standards lists how the
17 site must operate to maintain compliance with the USR
18 permit.
19 So to recap, this rebuttal is going to
20 focus on how the applicant has considered questions and
21 addressed concerns brought forward during the public
22 comment period and during the two neighborhood meetings;
23 will comply with development standards; has been working
24 towards satisfying and mitigating the conditions of
25 approval; have gone above and beyond standard
20
1 application requirements; and will continue to work with
2 Weld County staff and referral agencies.
3 So these first three items are not
4 directly tied to a condition or approval or a
5 development standard; however, you requested information
6 during the November hearing. So on property value
7 retention, I'm going to have Michael Smith come up and
8 give a very brief overview.
9 Now, in your notebook, Exhibit J -- this
10 is the notebook that was delivered to you on
11 December 27th -- there is a summary that on January 5th, a
12 supplement was provided to you that supports everything
13 that was in the summary.
14 So this January 5th supplement is
15 Attachment C. That supports everything that was
16 provided in I believe the two or three -page letter in
17 Exhibit J of the December 27th notebook. Michael is going
18 to provide a brief statement on how this question
19 relates to property values and approval of this
20 particular USR.
21 MR. SMITH: I'm Michael Smith, Foster
22 Valuation. I was engaged to (unintelligible) produce a
23 consulting report for the company and address the issue
24 of property values as it related to the planned USR and
25 the facility in Severance, and really came to today's
21
1 meeting to address any questions you guys may have. But
2 I understand it was short notice on reviewing some of
3 those materials, so I would open it to any general
4 questions you have as far as potential for any effects
5 on property values,
6 But we'll keep it brief and tell you that
7 this is a continuation of some earlier studies that have
8 been done on the effects of property values as it
9 relates to similar industrial facilities in Weld County
10 and Larimer County.
11 We did compare sales analysis, try to take
12 two similar homes -- one adjacent to an industrial
13 facility, one that lacked that adjacent influence -- and
14 tried to compare values to come up with any evidence of
15 diminution in value.
16 There's some more recent updating. We
17 have a plant that was completed in Indian Head, adjacent
18 to the Indian Head subdivision by Martin Marietta. It
19 hasn't become operational yet, as you know, but it's
20 obvious that the plant is nearing completion, and any
21 residents there are under the risk of this plant being
22 operational at this point.
23 We used that and Casa Loma in the
24 Severance area as a comparable subdivision to try and
25 come up with any evidence to support a diminution in
22
1 value because of homes being constructed adjacent to or
2 near facilities and, once again, failed to come up with
3 any evidence to support some sort of diminution in value
4 due to these facilities being constructed.
5 Homes being sold in proximity to these
6 facilities tend to maintain value, and it tends to be
7 more often than not the desire of the homebuyer as to
8 where they locate as opposed to the effects of the
9 facility being constructed.
10 Long story short, I'll keep it short and
11 maybe open it to any questions you guys may have as to
12 how this facility may be different than some of the
13 other facilities or -- or any other questions you might
14 have.
15 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Questions?
16 Commissioner Conway.
17 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I don't have a --
18 you know, you've given us a letter, basically, generic
19 40,000 -foot level in terms of property values. I
20 guess -- and maybe I didn't make myself clear at the
21 first hearing -- but one of the things I asked the
22 applicant was their -- they -- quote, they did a site
23 analysis in terms of properties that -- that they --
24 that would fit their criteria.
25 And one of the things that was always
23
1 confusing to me -- and I'll ask it in a general way --
2 is you look at cost per acre in terms of ag land, in
3 terms of that this is getting a use by right versus
4 looking at properties that had the already proper zoning
5 far a facility like this.
6 Can you give me in your -- just a general
7 40,000 -foot level what would be the cost differential of
8 the applicant purchasing a similar type site with proper
9 zoning already in place to fit this -- because we do
10 have within the immediate area zoning that would fit
11 this type of use -- versus a USR where they're actually
12 going in and purchasing ag land and then putting a USR
13 in? Can you give me a price differential on that, just
14 generic 40,000, not specific to this?
15 MR. SMITH: That's interesting. I
16 think -- I think I understand your question. Are you
17 asking what would it cost them to buy a heavy industrial
18 zone site --
19 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: What would be the
20 price --
21 MR. SMITH: -- large enough and suitable
22 for their --
23 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Right. Just
24 general, per acre.
25 MR. SMITH: That's a tough -- that's a
24
1 rough question. I hate to throw -- you know, I'd get
2 myself in trouble by throwing a number out because
3 that's kind of a specific
4 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. I'm not
5 asking --
6 MR. SMITH: -- and I don't have sales of
7 those. But let's just say, for instance, we know
8 industrial sales within subdivisions are a couple
9 dollars a square foot. I couldn't tell you off the top
16 of my head of one available -- large enough and
11 available today that would suit their needs, just like I
12 couldn't tell you the price of that fictitious site.
13 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I'm asking -- okay.
14 Let me ask --
15 MR. SMITH: So hypothetically what you're
16 asking, in my mind, I don't have an example. I don't
17 have a single example of a suitable site.
18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: You can't tell me
19 what a current -- in northern Colorado, in this area --
20 and there are industrial sites.
21 MR. SMITH: There are. There are.
22 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Is that correct? Am
23 I correct in that?
24 MR. SMITH: Absolutely. Absolutely.
25 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: And you can't give
25
1 me a price per square foot in terms of -- or acre price
2 in terms of that?
3 MR. SMITH: Well, a couple dollars a
4 square foot'I think is a fair --
5 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: A couple --
6 MR. SMITH: -- is a fair number just to
7 throw out for an industrial site in general.
8 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So would you say
9 that acquiring the proper zoning land would cost
10 significantly more? Would that be a safe assumption in
11 terms of costs? Because you clearly --
12 MR. SMITH: (Unintelligible.)
13 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: -- follow the
14 market.
15 MR. SMITH: Sure. I'm following your
16 train. If it were available, it would.
17 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay.
18 MR. SMITH: It would.
19 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you. That's
20 good.
21 MR. SMITH: It would.
22 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
23 Kirkmeyer.
24 MR. SMITH: It absolutely would, yeah.
25 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: All right. I'm a
26
1 little confused. I don't know what the relevance of
2 that line of questioning is, but --
3 MR. SMITH: Yeah.
4 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: -- I think my
5 line of questioning is relevant.
6 So with regard to your study that you did,
7 your conclusion was, therefore, it's unlikely that the
8 completion of the ready -mix and asphalt plants project
9 would result in a diminution in value with regard to
10 future sale prices of single-family homes.
11 MR. SMITH: Yeah.
12 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And I believe the
13 question was more that -- so, you know, if the prices of
14 homes -- I'm going to try to explain this. If the
15 prices of the homes or the properties in the area over
16 the course of the next three years, without this
17 facility being there, would have increased by let's just
18 say 10 percent, right, well, now, over the course of
19 this next three years if this facility were to be there,
20 would we still expect a 10 percent increase? Not just
21 that the value of their home would go up -- because it
22 might go up 5 percent when if this facility wasn't there
23 it would have gone up 10 percent.
24 MR. SMITH: Sure.
25 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And I'm using --
27
1 I just pulled those numbers out of the air.
2 MR. SMITH: Sure.
3 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I have no idea
4 where those --
5 MR. SMITH: No, that's a great question,
6 and it's obviously beyond the scope of what's in this
7 report. We don't have the charts to say one index
8 versus the other. But within my file, there's plenty of
9 those sort of analyses.
10 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay.
11 MR. SMITH: If you suggest a similar
12 increase in resales in these subdivisions to suggest
13 similar increases over the course of time for these
14 properties that are close to industrial facilities as
15 opposed to those that are not. So we're not seeing less
16 appreciation for properties close to industrial
17 facilities as opposed to those that are not.
18 And within my file, I do have some of
19 that. Within this report, I don't have those sort of
20 indices put together because they are very -- very
21 difficult to put together because you need a lot of
22 resale data of individual homes.
23 So within one sale -- sales of one year,
24 sales again a decade later, you need all those
25 individual resales. You amass all that data to come up
28
1 with an indices within the subdivision, which I actually
2 have done on a few of these, exactly what you're saying.
3 It's a little beyond the scope of this report --
4 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Sure.
5 MR. SMITH: -- of compared sales analysis.
6 But to answer your question, long story short, I'm
7 confident to say that I've seen similar appreciation in
8 these subdivisions --
9 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay.
10 MR. SMITH: -- very close to industrial
11 facilities.
12 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. Thank you.
13 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
14 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Well, I think some of
15 the line of questioning I was -- I think Commissioner
16 Kirkmeyer already addressed what my question was. But I
17 was getting confused with Commissioner Conway's
18 questions, because here's -- what actually came out of
19 the public hearing and what you were tasked to do was
20 look at residential, as Commissioner Kirkmeyer said,
21 single-family residential in proximity to these --
22 either industrial uses or asphalt concrete batch plants
23 specifically; is that correct?
24 MR. SMITH: Yeah.
25 COMMISSIONER COZAD: And not to --
29
1 MR. SMITH: Most of the concern of the --
2 are residents in their homes and the home value.
3 Understandably, there's ag land and there's farms around
4 this that would be property owners near the facility,
5 and it's hard to -- to think about these larger sites
6 are mare influenced by the value of the income level of
7 the agricultural production.
8 The potential for development down the
9 road would be less impacted than the individual home
10 prices. And so far as the scope of the work goes, I
11 would expect to see more impact on the individual
12 residences and larger development sites and agricultural
13 properties that would surround these type of facilities,
14 if that makes sense.
15 COMMISSIONER COZAD: And I guess what I
16 was getting --
17 MR. SMITH: (Unintelligible)
18 clarification.
19 COMMISSIONER COZAD; Well, no, I guess
20 what I was getting to is you were not asked to look at
21 the property for the industrial use. You weren't -- you
22 weren't asked to look at, Are there other properties for
23 this specific use? And I think that's what Commissioner
24 Conway was asking.
25 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: No, I did ask that.
30
1 I asked that of the applicant. Go back and look at the
2 record.
3 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay.
4 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I asked --
5 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I didn't see that in
6 the study, so that's why I'm asking.
7 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: (Unintelligible)
8 what I'm asking specifically, Commissioner Cozad, I
9 specifically asked why they decided to go -- and I think
10 you remember this; the applicant remembers this -- what
11 your criteria was. You specifically went into your
12 one -mile criteria, and I specifically asked why you
13 didn't look at industrial sites. It was part of the
14 hearings in the record.
15 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. But that's
16 not -- I don't think that's --
17 COMMISSIONER MORENO: One at a time.
18 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Excuse me. Excuse
19 me.
20 COMMISSIONER MORENO: One at a time.
21 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I asked the applicant
22 and the applicant's representative if they were hired to
23 look at that or if they were hired to look at the
24 single-family values of properties, and that's what I
25 was trying to ask. You were asking --
31
1 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I was asking far a
2 general --
3 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Excuse me. They --
4 you were asking the consultant for the applicant if --
5 questions that I'm not sure that he was hired to do as a
6 part of this. Now, the applicant themselves or Anne can
7 answer those questions, but I think the person that you
8 were asking those questions of is not the correct
9 person.
10 That's why I was asking because I didn't
11 see that in any of their reports, because I did read the
12 report, the additional report. There was, in our
13 notebook, just a two -page letter, but then there was
14 additional information provided on Friday, and I did
15 read through all those, and there was nothing in there
16 about that.
17 I'm not saying you didn't ask that
18 question, but this person that's standing up here
19 answering these questions are not -- is not here to
20 answer that question. Maybe that's a question for Anne
21 or somebody else. That's all I was trying to get to.
22 And I guess my -- then my question for the
23 applicant too was are your -- the person from Foster --
24 you're located in Weld County --
25 MR. SMITH: Yes.
32
1 COMMISSIONER COZAD: -- as far as company?
2 MR. SMITH: Yes.
3 COMMISSIONER COZAD: You personally or the
4 company itself, Foster Appraisers [sic]. And basically
5 you can just explain on the record your expertise and
6 what you do in appraisal and that kind of thing and how
7 much experience you have as far as a company in Weld
8 County specifically.
9 MR. SMITH: Sure. Sure. Foster Valuation
10 has been in business since the early '80s in Weld
11 County. I've been employed with the company going on
12 ten years now. I was licensed about seven years ago and
13 got my MAI designation through the Appraisal Institute a
14 number of years back, which requires a little further
15 education and experience level above and beyond the
16 state licensing.
17 I'm on the Department of Transportation's
18 list of approved appraisers to do right-of-way work, and
19 I'm nearing my completion of certification through the
20 International Right -of -Way Association as a senior
21 right-of-way agent.
22 And we typically do quite a bit of
23 condemnation work for condemnation authorities,
24 including the City and County, both in Greeley and
25 Loveland, Fort Collins, Larimer and Weld County,
33
1 Department of Transportation, CSU, quite a few -- quite
2 a few large clients. So, I work for quite a reputable
3 company here in Greeley and in Weld County and work with
4 someone who's had quite a bit of experience and feel
5 confident in producing reliable appraisal work.
6 And you hit the nail on the head with
7 answers of questions outside of the scope of the report.
8 The report was specifically to address the idea of the
9 planned facility and its effect on the surrounding
10 property values. I was not hired to answer any
11 questions outside of -- of that potential for property
12 values.
13 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Thank you for
14 answering that. And that I think that's what I was
15 trying to get to. I'm not saying that that question
16 wasn't asked. I'm just saying that you were not tasked
17 to look at that specific issue.
18 MR. SMITH: Right.
19 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So I just want to
20 make sure that we're being fair to you and asking you
21 the questions specifically to what you were asked to do
22 and what was in your report, which is the effects on
23 single-family residential adjacent to these types of
24 facilities.
25 MR. SMITH: Anne could probably better
34
1 answer that (unintelligible).
2 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Thank you. And that
3 answered my question. Thank you.
4 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Chairman Moreno, if I
5 may, and members of the Board of County Commissioners,
6 every question that you asked us to respond to, every
7 development standard and every condition of approval
8 will be addressed. So this is in relationship to
9 appraisals, so we will address the other at another
10 time.
11 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you.
12 COMMISSIONER MORENO: And, Anne, as you
13 call others up to speak, can you make sure they sign in
14 and have their address and everything? Because --
15 UNKNOWN MALE: Is a list up there --
16 Esther's got it, the Clerk right here. Okay?
17 MS. BEST JOHNSON: All right. Thank you.
18 So in light of the time -- and I know we
19 started about 10:15, so I've got until 11:45, and I want
20 to be very respectful of that -- we are going to skip
21 ahead to some other individuals that came from out of
22 town.
23 As soon as I can get to their pages so I
24 can give them a heads up that they're coming up here, I
25 am going to ask Dr. Scott Phillips and Jeff Harrington
35
1 to come up, and they are going to be talking about two
2 specific development standards. Scott -- Dr. Scott
3 Phillips will be discussing Development Standard 13.
4 And you received items in Exhibit O of your December 27
5 notebook.
6 Jeff Harrington will be coming up and
7 making a discussion. And in your December 27th notebook,
8 there is a summary overview; and then in the January 5th
9 supplement, there was more documentation regarding the
10 air modeling that was provided to substantiate his
11 overview that was provided on December 27th.
12 So first, I'll ask Dr. Phillips to come on
13 up, and then we'll have Jeff Harrington to come up.
14 And, again, Dr. Phillips will talk about Development
15 Standard 13.
16 DR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Commissioners.
17 My name is Dr. Scott Phillips. I'm an internal medicine
18 doctor in medical toxicology, a physician at University
19 of Colorado in the Rocky Mountain Poison Center. I've
20 presented to the Board before on previous similar types
21 of site development.
22 My focus is really on health impact and
23 health impact assessments of these types of sites. I've
24 been working on these types of sites for at least five
25 years, looking at the health impact associated with
36
1 them, in Colorado; and I was asked to look at this site
2 from a similar response for a ready -mix and asphalt
3 site.
4 Part of that involved looking at the
5 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
6 information, the Environmental Protection Agency, the
7 CDC's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
8 and the World Health Organization that all have looked
9 at this specific type of issue regarding health effects.
10 So the methodology is to look at the site
11 for information, look what other similar sites that have
12 happened in the past, and look at available
13 documentation that's been presented by many different
14 government and international organizations on this.
15 And I think it's important to keep in mind
16 that we're really talking about science and not about
17 personal beliefs or that type of thing. So, we really
18 want to look at facts, because the important thing is,
19 What are the scientific facts here? And that's
20 important to separate that from the emotion because
21 obviously there are very relevant concerns that the
22 public and community may have, and it's important to
23 think about these factually.
24 One of the main aspects I was asked to
25 look at is particulate pollution, and they emanate from
37
1 such a site. Particulates come in sizes, basically, and
2 they're in fractions of an inch, as you might imagine.
3 Dust is very small. And you may have heard through news
4 or science reports of dust being measured in 10 micron
5 or 2.5 micron measures. And they go by the names of
6 PM10, PM2.5, or a more generic older term that's called
7 TSP, or total suspended particulates, which is really
8 everything from mold, pollen, dust, everything that
9 might be in the air.
10 So the CDPHE, the Health Department for
11 the state, they are charged with air control, air
12 monitoring, and public health regarding air in the
13 state. And that's one thing they monitor, and certainly
14 that's an important part of permitting, and that's one
15 thing that they look at very carefully in permitting of
16 these types of sites from a health perspective.
17 So to sum up -- summarize this up, since
18 we're on a short timeframe here, I would really agree
19 with the health department, their process, the Agency
20 for Toxic Substances Disease Registry, the World Health
21 Organization, and others that there really is not an
22 adverse health effect from emissions that may come from
23 this site. Part of that is due to the watering of
24 particulates that will occur as well as the paving of
25 the pad site, which will drastically eliminate the
38
1 particulates on the site.
2 So I think there will be no adverse health
3 effects related to that. And with that, I thank you,
4 Commissioners. Are we taking --
5 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Dr. Phillips, we
6 have -- Commissioner Cozad has a question.
7 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Dr. Phillips, there's
8 been several documents that have been submitted by the
9 public, one in -- or one person in particular, Laura
10 Doyle, who submitted information on the clean air
11 information, a doctor's note regarding air pollution,
12 and some other -- there was a lot of documents that she
13 submitted. And I know she's a registered nurse; she
14 actually testified to that. But did you get -- did you
15 read through the documentation that she provided and do
16 you have any comments on the information that was
17 provided by her?
18 DR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I did. I looked at
19 all of the comments that -- that came in at least
20 through the -- through the applicant process from
21 different concerned citizens, and I did look at all the
22 information regarding the Clean Air Act and criteria
23 pollutants, and those also are taken into consideration.
24 That is part of what the Colorado
25 Department of Health Environment concerns itself with,
39
1 looking and monitoring air pollution -- and there's
2 multiple air pollution stations throughout northern
3 Colorado -- and really monitors that carefully, and
4 that's part of the permitting process as well.
5 COMMISSIONER COZAD: And did you have any
6 other comments about the information that was provided
7 by her?
8 DR. PHILLIPS: I don't have specific
9 comments. It's a little inappropriate for me to make a
10 personal health comment about a person's health claims
11 without examining them and seeing them as a patient. I
12 think in general what we have to do is rely on what has
13 the science and studies told us to date. So, there's
14 obviously a confidentiality issue of talking about it --
15 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay.
16 DR. PHILLIPS: -- even if it's on the
17 surface about a specific health complaint. But we do
18 know that the health department permits these, looks at
19 these, has been looking at this for a number of years
20 and controls them very carefully, and they don't
21 think -- and any other organizations -- don't think they
22 pose a health risk.
23 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay.
24 DR. PHILLIPS: And I would agree with
25 that.
40
1 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Thank you.
2 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Conway.
3 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Just briefly. You
4 talked about monitors. Are you talking -- what monitors
5 are you specifically referring to with the Colorado
6 Department of Health?
7 DR. PHILLIPS: The health department
8 monitors particulates, ozone, and other criteria
9 pollutants.
10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Well, I'm aware of
11 the ozone monitors. There are 24 of them up and down
12 the Front Range.
13 DR. PHILLIPS: Yes.
14 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Several along --
15 over near Fort Collins, and Loveland and Greeley. Are
16 you referring to those monitors that monitor for ozone
17 or other monitors that you're referring to?
18 DR. PHILLIPS: They also --
19 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I don't understand
20 what you're talking about when you say the Colorado
21 Department of Health monitors these with monitors. I'm
22 unfamiliar with that. I'm just trying to learn --
23 DR. PHILLIPS: They monitor --
24 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: -- (unintelligible)
25 monitors besides the ozone monitors that you're
41
1 referring to.
2 DR. PHILLIPS: They monitor all the
3 criteria pollutants --
4 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: The ozone --
5 DR. PHILLIPS: -- that are established by
6 the Clean Air Act, yes.
7 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So you're talking
8 about the ozone monitors in relationship to --
9 DR. PHILLIPS: That's one of the -- that's
10 one of the monitors that it -- they also monitor
11 particulates --
12 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Can you tell me --
13 DR. PHILLIPS: -- lead, carbon monoxide.
14 And that's all available on the website.
15 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: But is there
16 specific monitors to batch plants, asphalt plants
17 that -- you mentioned monitors. That's why I'm just
18 trying to get -- I'm trying to learn. That's what I'm
19 trying to do.
20 DR. PHILLIPS: Well, there's not perimeter
21 monitors, if that's what you're asking me.
22 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yeah.
23 DR. PHILLIPS: That's sort of outside of
24 my expertise. I'm a people doctor, not a facility
25 doctor. So they do -- certain plants can have perimeter
42
1 monitors. I'm not aware of this, and that would be a
2 question for the health department.
3 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. But in your
4 testimony as an expert, you're referring to the monitors
5 that the Colorado Department of Health has for ozone and
6 carbon monoxide?
7 DR. PHILLIPS: Right, and other criteria
8 pollutants, yes.
9 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. But those are
10 the monitors you're referring to in your --
11 DR. PHILLIPS: Yes, that's correct.
12 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you. I'm just
13 trying --
14 DR. PHILLIPS: I'm not aware of other
15 monitors.
16 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you.
17 DR. PHILLIPS: There may be, but I'm not
18 aware of them.
19 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you.
20 Appreciate it.
21 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Any other questions
22 for Dr. Phillips?
23 MS. BEST JOHNSON: And if I can -- Chair
24 Moreno, if I may also add, all of the substantive
25 information that was provided, we did go through all of
43
1 the documentation. And much of the information was,
2 again, referring to cement facilities. And we have to
3 be very careful to remember, this is not a cement
4 facility. And so a lot of the information and concern
5 regarding cement production and cement manufacturing is
6 not applicable to this facility.
7 And then a lot of the other documentation
8 that was provided regarding health hazards was in
9 reference to paving operations, and this is not a paving
10 operation. This is an asphalt production facility.
11 So quite a bit of the documentation that
12 was provided, we spent a lot of time going through and
13 determining, Is this applicable to the application? So
14 we did go through all of that material and then
15 reviewed, again, what was applicable.
16 COMMISSIONER MORENO: All right.
17 Commissioner Kirkmeyer?
18 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Not now because
19 it's not for this doctor, but hopefully maybe at some
20 place during your presentation I think it would be
21 helpful if you would talk about what specifically the
22 difference is between a ready -mix concrete plant versus
23 cement production, and an asphalt plant versus paving.
24 MS. BEST JOHNSON: That's noted. Thank
25 you, Commissioner Kirkmeyer.
44
1 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Thank you.
2 MS. BEST JOHNSON: All right. Next we're
3 going to have Jeff Harrington come up. And this was --
4 Jeff provided information in Exhibit N in your notebooks
5 from December 27th, and that is a cover letter. And then
6 on January 5th, he provided supporting material that
7 substantiates his Item N, and that was provided in -- on
8 the 5th. So Jeff.
9 MR. HARRINGTON: Good morning. As Anne
10 stated, I'm Jeff Harrington. I am with Tetra Tech. I
11 am a senior environmental engineer based in our
12 Portland, Maine, office on 451 Presumpscot Street. I've
13 been doing air quality permitting work for almost 30
14 years and have performed permitting valuations in many
15 states across the country, including hot mix asphalt and
16 concrete batch plants.
17 This particular facility will be subject
18 to the air permitting requirements of the CDPHE. The
19 applicant will need to file an air pollutant emission
20 notice as well as an application for a construction
21 permit.
22 And that particular process will require
23 us to meet with CDPHE, inventory the emissions, the air
24 emissions from the project, identify the air emission
25 controls that will be applied by the project, evaluate
45
1 based on that emissions inventory the federal and state
2 regulations that will apply to this particular project.
3 And it will also require the applicant to
4 perform what's called an air dispersion modeling
5 analysis, which effectively looks at those emissions and
6 simulates the transport of those emissions off site and
7 compares the predicted concentrations to ambient air
8 quality standards to evaluate whether or not the
9 facility can comply.
10 So it's a pretty rigorous process to get
11 to that end point, to provide sufficient information to
12 CDPHE, for them to determine that a construction permit
13 can be awarded to -- to this facility. And there are
14 public review -- public participation requirements
15 involved in that process as well.
16 So one of the things we did is I noted
17 Exhibit N provides more or less an overview of that
18 process. The more detailed document that was provided
19 later gets into the emissions inventory. In effect,
20 this document that was provided in the later packet is
21 primarily what the CDPHE will see as a technical support
22 document for that construction permit application.
23 So it walks through the inventions
24 inventory; it identifies the controls that the facility
25 will apply; it identifies the regulations, the emissions
46
1 standards, both federal and state, that will apply to
2 this facility; and it will also include this dispersion
3 model analysis that demonstrates the facility can comply
4 with EPA's ambient air quality standards.
5 So I'm also going to -- while I'm here --
6 just list the controls that Simon is committed to
7 installing at this facility. And obviously this
8 development presented to the CDPHE in the air permit
9 application. They will have a baghouse that will
10 control particulate matter emissions from the hot -mix
11 asphalt drum dryer.
12 They will have a blue smoke recovery
13 system which will minimize the visible emissions as well
14 as odors from the hot -mix asphalt operations. They will
15 have a building that houses a concrete batch ready -mix
16 operation to prevent transport of visible emissions from
17 that process. They will have a number of silos on site
18 that will have bin vent filters that will substantially
19 control all particulate matter, emissions from those
20 sources.
21 And they will also implement best
22 management practices to prevent the emissions of
23 fugitive dust from various activities on the site. They
24 will perform watering as necessary of the storage areas
25 on site and also perform watering during any of the
47
1 material transfer operations on site, as well as the
2 recycling operations.
3 They will commit to washing of vehicle
4 tires to prevent track -out onto public roadways.
5 They'll use prewashed materials when -- when practical,
6 and that considerably minimizes or reduces the amount of
7 fugitive dust generated from the process.
8 They will take prevention measures such as
9 covering trucks to prevent the amount of material that
10 is -- is dropping onto the roads. They will pave the
11 haul roads on the site. That's above and beyond what
12 many facilities are required to do.
13 They will perform vacuum sweeping and
14 watering of the paved roads as necessary. They will
15 adopt a vehicle speed limit of five miles an hour on
16 site, and they will also construct pavement on County
17 Road 80 1/2 to 50 feet beyond the eastern entrance.
18 So really what this all amounts to is a
19 state-of-the-art facility with respect to air emissions
20 controls. And the intent of those controls is to go
21 above and beyond what is required for the emissions
22 standards at the state and federal level and to also
23 comply with ambient air quality standards.
24 So at that point, I'll take questions.
25 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Questions for
48
1 Mr. Harrington? Looks like we don't have any for you.
2 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I just --
3 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Conway.
4 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So -- and if, Anne,
5 you answer this question, that's fine. So your
6 testimony is in relationship to Development Standard 14;
7 is that correct?
8 MR. HARRINGTON: Correct.
9 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. And so this
10 development standard would require all of the things
11 that you're stating in your letter to us as part of this
12 development standard (unintelligible) product? This --
13 what I am trying to get to -- I'm sorry --
14 DR. PHILLIPS: Yeah.
15 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: -- and if Anne needs
16 to answer this, that's fine -- is this development
17 standard will require all of the things that you're
18 stating in your letter to the Board of County
19 Commissioners, or do we need to look at other things
20 that would not be included?
21 Because I'm not familiar with the air
22 pollution emission notice and emission permit
23 application in detail. That's why I'm asking -- you're
24 the expert. That's why I'm asking you in terms of
25 everything that you're stating in this letter would be
49
1 required as part of this development standard?
2 DR. PHILLIPS: Development Standard 14
3 requires them to obtain this permit.
4 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Everything in this
5 letter that you're saying would be required as part and
6 parcel to development standards?
7 DR. PHILLIPS: Those will be in the
8 application. And to the extent that the CDPHE puts
9 those in as conditions of the permit, they will be
10 required to implement them all.
11 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So use of prewashed
12 aggregate and all the things that you cited?
13 DR. PHILLIPS: Right. Correct.
14 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. Thank you. I
15 appreciate that.
16 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I just --
17 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. Commissioner
18 Kirkmeyer.
19 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I just -- I probably
20 have the same question. Go ahead.
21 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I think it's
22 actually more of a point of clarification.
23 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Uh.-huh.
24 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Your comments
25 stated on the record is that they are for Development
50
1 Standards 13 and 14. So Development Standard 14 is --
2 you're correct -- about the APEN. So the air pollution
3 emission notice and the emissions permit application.
4 And so what is required of that is your bullets about
5 the baghouse, the blue smoke recovery system, the
6 building house, and the bin vent filters, so on ---
7 DR. PHILLIPS: Correct.
8 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: -- that is all
9 required within the permit. Then you went further on to
10 address in your letter, address best management
11 practices for the mitigation of fugitive dust.
12 So I believe what you are saying, these
13 one, two, three -- ten bullets that are here are really
14 in relationship to Development Number 13 -- Development
15 Standard 13 in how the company, when we say should
16 attempt to -- should -- fugitive dust should attempt to
17 be confined on the property, you are saying that the --
18 that Simon Contractors would be using these ten bullets
19 here to mitigate and attempt to ensure that fugitive
20 dust is confined on the property?
21 DR. PHILLIPS: Correct.
22 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. I just
23 wanted to make sure that that was a point of
24 clarification.
25 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
51
1 COMMISSIONER COZAD: And just one -- one
2 step beyond that, I think what I wrote down and heard
3 you say is especially for Development Standard
4 Number 13, these are above and beyond requirements from
5 either the county, the state, or federal government; is
6 that correct?
7 DR. PHILLIPS: That is correct. Not all
8 facilities of this type implement all of those measures
9 to meet those best management practice requirements.
10 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. Thank you.
11 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Anne?
12 DR. PHILLIPS: Thank you.
13 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Thank you. So your
14 list of questions that you asked on November 8th, several
15 of them and several of the surrounding property owners,
16 their questions were in regards to dust and emissions
17 and health quality -- health issues as well. And so
18 those are woven into the discussion on those two
19 development standards.
20 So those were some of your questions that
21 were completely tied to development standards. So I
22 just wanted to make sure that those questions haven't
23 been forgotten. They were just woven in, so we didn't
24 have to be repeating there.
25 Okay. So the next item we're going to
52
1 talk about is Development Standard 15. And I'm going to
2 bring Mitchell Little up, and he is an industrial
3 hygienist. And he is going to discuss Development
4 Standard 15, which is specifically related to noise
5 standards. And he wrote a summary, and it's contained
6 in Exhibit P of your December 27 thnotebook.
7 MR. LITTLE: Good morning and thank you.
8 My name is Mitch Little. I'm a certified industrial
9 hygienist and a certified safety professional. I work
10 for a consulting firm called Hellman & Associates with
11 primary offices in Wheat Ridge, Colorado. I'm a
12 resident, however, of Windsor in Weld County.
13 I have 31 years of experience in health
14 and safety. Twelve years of that with OSHA's
15 federally -sponsored consultation program that's operated
16 out of Colorado State University, and ten years with a
17 site development contractor that operates here in Fort
18 Collins and in Steamboat that operates four asphalt
19 production facilities. I've been with Hellman &
20 Associates now for six years.
21 I was retained by Simon Contractors to
22 assist them in evaluating and measuring noise produced
23 from this facility and recommending control measures
24 with the specific intent of complying with the state's
25 community noise standards.
53
1 Simon is committed to meeting the
2 community noise standards and has retained Hellman &
3 Associates to help them do that. They have already
4 taken some measures to reduce noise that would be common
5 to a facility in an operation like this.
6 For example, they've purchased and
7 installed back-up alarms on their mobile equipment that
8 normally operate at a lower level than would be common,
9 with the specific intent of reducing noise at the
10 facility. We will also help them evaluate noise as the
11 facility comes online and other pieces of equipment and
12 operations come online at the site to ensure that they
13 are meeting community noise standards.
14 I will do this by measuring noise, not
15 only the intensity at the property boundary, but
16 specific frequencies produced as well, because frequency
17 is important to how it's perceived by humans, and also
18 frequency is important to applying specific noise
19 control measures.
20 So Hellman & Associates will assist. Simon
21 Contractors moving forward as this site is developed to
22 design and recommend other noise control methods. These
23 may include earth and berms on the property boundaries.
24 They may also include stray [sic] or hay bales located
25 at specific locations around point sources at the
54
1 facility. It may include installing baffles or
2 redirecting compressed and pneumatic air that comes from
3 hydraulic -- or pneumatic cylinders on the bin
4 mechanisms and so forth.
5 In closing, point sources and/or adding
6 treatment -- noise treatment to those enclosures
7 intended, again, to reduce noise at the property
8 boundary. All of this is done with specific science in
9 mind with regard to frequency, designing the control
10 measures, with the intent of reducing the noise coming
11 off of the site.
12 I will entertain any questions that you
13 have.
14 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Just real --
15 Mr. Little, reading through that too and what you've
16 documented here, you're taking into consideration the
17 weather in this here? That's also part of what you do
18 in calculating your measurements there for the noise?
19 MR. LITTLE: Yes. There are a number of
20 ways that we can evaluate noise prior to equipment being
21 brought on site when the manufacturer of the equipment
22 can provide us with data about the sound that it
23 produces. And then we can estimate noise even before
24 the equipment arrives on site. And the physics of noise
25 involve a lot of things, including the frequency, the
55
1 intensity, and the weather, yes, sir. Temperature and
2 pressure affects how noise travels.
3 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Conway.
4 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So I know the
5 applicant hired you to look at the standard of
6 industrial zone; is that correct?
7 MR. LITTLE: Yes.
8 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: And is that 60, 65?
9 60 at night and 65 at -- maybe I should --
10 MR. LITTLE: During the day it's 75 and
11 80.
12 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: 75 to 80?
13 MR. LITTLE: Yes.
14 •COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. If -- so
15 you've gone through here that the applicant is going to
16 take steps to -- because there's some pretty high
17 readings here. 93 in location one. I don't know what
18 93 is. I might ask our staff or if you want to do that.
19 I don't want to put you in a thing.
20 But in similar type USRs like this, we've
21 imposed a residential standard. So my question to you
22 is: I know you were hired by the applicant to look at
23 an industrial zone of 75 to 80, but it looks like you're
24 talking about some of the noise mitigation to meet that
25 standard.
56
1 And Anne, maybe you want to address this,
2 but I guess as an expert, I'm looking through this in
3 terms of some of the noise mitigation -- mufflers,
4 restricting cylinder equipment, some of the other things
5 that you've cited in here -- which I appreciate, and I
6 know your task was to look at the industrial zone
7 standard -- but I guess my question -- and if, Anne, you
8 want to deal with it, that's fine -- if a lower -- can a
9 lower noise standard be achieved without significant
10 change in terms of this operation, I guess is -- and I
11 know that's a hypothetical, so I'll let Anne do it. But
12 what your study does is only look at complying with the
13 industrial zone district -- is that correct? -- that
14 standard of 75 to 80?
15 MR. LITTLE: At the boundary of this --
16 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: At the boundary.
17 MR. LITTLE: -- I think it would be
18 appropriate to apply the residential standard at an
19 adjacent property owner's boundary, some distance away
20 from the facility.
21 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Well, generally
22 we -- we do it from the property line, correct? And so
23 I'm just -- again, I'm asking you a hypothetical
24 question. I guess you've answered my question in terms
25 of the thing, and I appreciate if Anne wants to address
57
1 it. This study is for compliance with the industrial
2 zone of 75 to 80 decibels; is that correct?
3 MS. BEST JOHNSON: The noise standard
4 that's been requested on our development standards --
5 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Right
6 (unintelligible).
7 MS. BEST JOHNSON: -- is light
8 industrial --
9 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: And what --
10 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Which is 5 decibels
11 lower than industrial.
12 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So it's 70 to 75?
13 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Correct.
14 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. That's what
15 this noise study --
16 MR. CHOATE: Actually, just for
17 clarification, it's 10 decibels less, so it would be 70
18 and 65 pursuant to the --
19 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: All right. Thank
20 you.
21 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Thanks.
22 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: You answered my
23 question.
24 MS. BEST JOHNSON: And then one reading
25 that was a lot higher was at the source of the noise
58
1 generation and not a reading at the property line. It
2 was a reading from the point source.
3 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So I understand this
4 document -- and, Anne, you can answer, or the expert --
5 my understanding is location number two is at the
6 property line. It's at the gate, right? Am I
7 understanding that?
8 MR. LITTLE: Correct.
9 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So it's not next to
10 the generator; it's right at the property line?
11 MR. LITTLE: It's approximately 40 feet
12 north of the generator on the property line.
13 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: It's on the property
14 line? That -- that 73 pitch -- the county attorney just
15 said, is that -- did you say 65 to 70?
16 UNKNOWN FEMALE: 70, 65.
17 MR. CHOATE: Yes. 70 during the day, 65
18 at night in the light industrial zone.
19 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So that came in at
20 73.
21 MR. LITTLE: The other point --
22 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: It's higher than
23 what is in the (unintelligible).
24 MR. LITTLE: -- to make is that's the
25 generator at which they intend to take offline and use
59
1 line power.
2 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Right.
3 MR. LITTLE: So that noise source will go
4 away completely.
5 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. Thank you.
6 I'm just trying to look at your --
7 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Any other questions?
8 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Yeah, I have some
9 questions.
10 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Sure, Kirkmeyer.
11 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So we just
12 heard -- and it is light industrial, you're correct, as
13 permissible noise level. So in your expertise, I know
14 we don't necessarily have a decibel level for an
15 agricultural zone, but can you tell us what the typical
16 decibel level is, like, for example, for tractors, crop
17 dusting, you know, typical agricultural uses?
18 MR. LITTLE: What they would produce or
19 what the standard is?
20 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Yeah. Yeah, what
21 they would produce or what --
22 MR. LITTLE: It would be very
23 wide-ranging. I -- in my experience, I would estimate
24 that that's probably around 90 to 95 decibel
25 (unintelligible) right next to the tractor.
60
1 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And what about
2 like on a state highway? Are there any kind of
3 generalities of what kind of noise is generated from a
4 state highway?
5 MR. LITTLE: I would not hazard a guess
6 there, just (unintelligible) --
7 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay.
8 MR. LITTLE: -- piece of equipment
9 traveling there.
10 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. And I just
11 want to make sure I heard you correctly that Simon is --
12 and it was in your report here -- that Simon would be
13 going to electrical power to the site --
14 MR. LITTLE: Yes.
15 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: -- which would,
16 again, reduce noise?
17 MR. LITTLE: Well, it will reduce -- it
18 will eliminate the need for this diesel -powered electric
19 generator which was used there last summer and what I
20 measured the noise from. So that noise source will go
21 away completely.
22 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. Okay.
23 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Any other questions?
24 Continue.
25 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yeah, and I just want
61
1 to let you know, after listening to concerns from
2 surrounding property owners, on the revised -- or the
3 modified site plan, which is included in your notebooks
4 and as Item A in the supplement, you'll see there are
5 corn bales that will be around the recycling operations
6 that will actually baffle.
7 And these are oftentimes used in oil and
8 gas operations that will actually absorb the noise.
9 They're on three sides -- the north, south, and east
10 side -- of those operations where they are the largest
11 source of some of the noise.
12 There's also extra landscaping that has
13 been added to the western berm. A berm on the north,
14 just north of the office, the fuel area and the shop,
15 and going down north/south along the east, there's a
16 large berm that's 75 feet wide and it's 8 to 10 feet
17 tall has been also added on the east with material
18 landscape -- or not material -- but big landscaping, as
19 the landscape architects say, will transplant well, has
20 also been added. And those will not only add a visual
21 buffer, but also add for noise buffering as well.
22 But the best place to buffer noise is at
23 the source, and so that's why the corn bales are used.
24 And corn bales are more absorbing of noise than hay
25 bales are, and so there's a ready source for the corn
62
1 bales, and so that's why we are going to be proposing
2 those. And they are placed on the plat in the December
3 notebook as well as the January notebook.
4 So the next individual we're going --
5 since Commissioner Conway, you had some questions
6 regarding site selection, we are going to talk about
7 site selection. And let me get to that particular
8 slide. So we're going to -- these are some really quick
9 points here that I'd like to just go ahead and finish
10 this slide.
11 So contact at Simon, it's in our concerns
12 on site, they've already decided and they're in the
13 process of developing a blog. The -- and the entrance
14 sign will have contact information on it, This has been
15 even in since the original application packet.
16 This is a graphic depiction of what the
17 entrance sign could look like. It includes space for
18 the emergency contact numbers. And then in addition,
19 they are in the process of developing a blog so that
20 people can contact them, they can share information
21 about what's happening on site.
22 And then the next item that we'll talk
23 about is site selection, and I'll have Brett Baker come
24 up.
25 MR. BAKER: Brett Baker, Simon
63
1 Contractors, 6215 Clear Creek Parkway, Cheyenne,
2 Wyoming.
3 Just -- as part of our site selection,
4 more from a business perspective, obviously the value
5 and the cost of the land is an important factor in our
6 assessment, but what drives us equally and to balance
7 that out is the opportunity for growth in the market,
8 how the competitor layout is, and what we believe our
9 opportunity is for our products and materials and
10 services from a business perspective.
11 So all that has been taken into
12 consideration from a northern Colorado market. There
13 was a lengthy assessment that's been done. We think the
14 northern Colorado market -- and I think it's obvious
15 from population growth numbers, the forecasts that have
16 been out there for Weld and Larimer Counties -- that you
17 see the projections are very high and rapid at this
18 point. So it -- for us, it's -- it looks like a very
19 good opportunity. It's a good market for us.
20 And from a site selection perspective, we
21 want to be close to that as we can, but at the same
22 time, not maybe right in the middle of it where -- and
23 so that -- that weighed heavily on where we were looking
24 and what areas we were looking in. And that's why
25 Highway 14 became a major source of opportunity for us.
64
1 MS. BEST JOHNSON: All right. So this map
2 is included in your December notebook as Exhibit R. And
3 it illustrates land that's available after using several
4 items of criteria. And I'd like to share with you what
5 that criteria was that Simon utilized.
6 So five -- approximately five miles from
7 I-25 on the east side of I-25; one mile north and south
8 of State Highway 14; the minimum parcel size of
9 20 -acres; land that is zoned to support the use; not in
10 wetlands or floodplains; not on Weld County delineated
11 prime farm ground; close access onto a state highway;
12 limited use of county roads; near signalized highway
13 intersections; not in platted residential subdivisions;
14 and haul routes to minimize direct routes 'through
15 communities.
16 Now, this particular site offers a bonus
17 because it graces a development node for the Town of
18 Severance and a development node recognized by Weld
19 County as well. This location evaluates the selection
20 of this property from -- elevates the selection of this
21 property from others because it's not only zoned to
22 support the land use, but it's also designated in
23 planning documents as being suitable for urban scale
24 development. As the town planner for Severance noted, a
25 development node is not going to be a perfect circle.
65
1 It's going to be a more fluid shape as development
2 within that area takes form.
3 In the town code, industrial development
4 is an appropriate land use in development nodes. The
5 Town of Severance has continued to maintain their
6 original letter of support provided with the application
7 materials. And a USR does support ready -mix and asphalt
8 batch plants as a use by special review in the
9 agricultural zone district in Weld County.
10 So other benefits of this particular
11 property, again, include zoning to support the land use;
12 ability to safely enter the highway due to close
13 proximity to a signalized intersection; support of
14 neighboring communities of Severance and Windsor; access
15 utilities in an area including livestock, feed lots,
16 solar farm, and oil and gas support facilities; a parcel
17 that was difficult to farm and suitable -- and the
18 parcel was already suitable for nonresidential uses due
19 to the proximity of highway power lines.
20 So I think now that you've heard in this
21 time from the appraiser to talk about the valuation
22 issues and now you've heard from the site selection, we
23 wanted to make sure that you heard both of those in the
24 same rebuttal period in case there's more rebuttal that
25 we have to discuss at the February -- potential
66
1 February 5 time. But now you've heard both of those
2 during this time.
3 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Questions?
4 Commissioner Kirkmeyer.
5 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Which exhibit is
6 this in? I know I saw it someplace. I just can't --
7 COMMISSIONER COZAD: You're trying to flip
8 through --
9 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Was it in your
10 PowerPoint? Is that the only place that it was?
11 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I think it was in the
12 original.
13 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yeah, this particular
14 one was the original PowerPoint, and it's in your --
15 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I knew I had seen
16 it, but --
17 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yeah, and it's in the
18 new PowerPoint too. And then this one is Exhibit R in
19 your December 25 notebook.
20 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Thank you.
21 That's where I saw it.
22 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Just so everybody
23 else knows, it's Number 4 of 22 under maps under our
24 Tyler.
25 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And that was the
67
1 town of Severance's future growth map?
2 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yeah, it's in the
3 comprehensive plan. And the yellow circle at the bottom
4 here is the property under consideration.
5 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Could you -- oh,
6 okay. Thank you. Okay.
7 MS. BEST JOHNSON: So if there aren't any
8 questions about that, I think Commissioner Kirkmeyer, in
9 the time that we have left, if Simon could, they can
10 come up and tell you the difference between cement
11 production and ready -mix concrete, and the difference
12 between paving operations and asphalt production,
13 because I know that that is a question that you asked.
14 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Mr. Chair?
15 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Conway.
16 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: As part of this site
17 review that you cite five miles east of 1-25, one mile
18 south of Highway 14, were any industrial --
19 currently -zoned industrial properties studied?
20 MS. BEST JOHNSON: There were industrial
21 properties along I-25 and 14, but they were in the City
22 of Fort Collins, and they do not support the intended
23 land use.
24 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you. Thank
25 you.
68
1 UNKNOWN FEMALE: (Unintelligible.)
2 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Continue. Please
3 hold comments out there in the audience.
4 MS. BEST JOHNSON: So would Simon like to
5 come up and just explain the difference?
6 MR. BAKER: Brett -- do I need to say my
7 name again? Brett Baker, Simon, 6215 Clear Creek
8 Parkway, Cheyenne.
9 Yeah, so cement production -- cement is a
10 powder, right? So cement is basically the glue that
11 goes into ready -mix concrete. And cement is made at
12 major giant industrial production facilities where they
13 heat the material, you know, over 1,200 degrees Celsius
14 to melt rock and turn it into this clinker and grind it
15 into a powder to mix cement.
16 Large -- very large stacks, potential
17 to -- different fuel sources as far as coal or natural
18 gas burning, and they're giant industrial facilities
19 with massive limestone deposits for the calcium to turn
20 it into cement.
21 So the powder that is made from those
22 cement plants are then taken and used into mixing
23 ready -mix with aggregates, water. So you'll take rock,
24 sand, the cement powder, and water, mix those together.
25 A chemical reaction then hardens into what we know as a
69
1 sidewalk or a foundation or a building.
2 So that -- that's the difference of a
3 cement process versus ready -mix. Ready -mix is just a
4 use for that powder. And that's the silos that we had
5 talked about with the filtering systems on them, and so
6 they have their own full containment for that.
7 As far as the asphalt versus paving -- so
8 making asphalt is, again, similar to making ready -mix in
9 the fact that you use a liquid binder, an asphalt binder
10 that is basically the glue. And, again, it's rock and
11 sand, potential lime in the mix, depending on what the
12 mix design is.
13 It's heated up, made fairly pliable, put
14 in the back of a truck and taken to a paving operation.
15 The paving operation is actually with the construction
16 of the road or paving a driveway or paving a parking
17 lot.
18 All right? So that's where you're
19 sitting -- you're dumping the material in. The people
20 are standing on the back of a paver. There's rollers
21 compacting it. So that's a paving operation. The
22 asphalt is in use -- goes into the back of a pickup --
23 or in the back of a haul truck.
24 If there's any other questions, I can
25 answer on that if you do.
70
1 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Questions?
2 UNKNOWN FEMALE: No, thank you.
3 MR. BAKER: Okay. Thanks.
4 MS. BEST JOHNSON: I do have one quick
5 question for Brett. Do you put plastic bottles in your
6 asphalt product?
7 MR. BAKER: No, no. The -- the recycled
8 aggregates -- so torn out old roads that are brought in
9 and are recycled materials, that material will be
10 reutilized into new asphalt, which keeps that material
11 out of landfills. So -- but no plastic bottles.
12 MS. BEST JOHNSON: So the last item that
13 does not relate to a development standard or a condition
14 of approval was regarding wastewater handling.
15 Aggregates are not going to be washed on site. A water
16 recycling system will be implemented, and reclaimed
17 water -- any reclaimed water is going to be used on site
18 for dust suppression.
19 And so at this point in time, we're at
20 11:20. We have until 11:45. I can start going through
21 conditions of approval and more development standards.
22 I don't know if anybody else wanted to think about
23 something (unintelligible), or I can just -- just a
24 minute. Excuse me.
25 So one thing I can -- we can talk about:
71
1 Landscaping screening, lighting, and the access permit.
2 Those are pretty simple. I --
3 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: If I may.
4 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner.
5 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Actually, I think
6 it would be helpful -- I mean, I think we can all read
7 through those documents that you sent us and have a good
8 understanding of those.
9 I think it would actually be helpful, at
10 least for me, if we would address the issue of the
11 ditch. I know I brought that up at the beginning of the
12 hearing. There were comments from people who use that
13 same ditch, and I believe I'm correct that Mr. Lind had
14 said that he had comments with regard to the ditch and
15 how that issue was going to be resolved, at least from
16 Simon's perspective.
17 So I think if we can get some rebuttal on
18 that, that would be helpful.
19 MR. LIND: Good morning, Commissioners.
20 Ken Lind, 355 Eastman Park Drive in Windsor. And I also
21 have an expert here with us, John Siren.
22 MR. SIREN: Hi.
23 MR. LIND: Go ahead and give them your
24 name.
25 MR. SIREN: My name is John Siren. I'm a
72
1 water attorney based out of Denver. I work for the --
2 I'll give you my qualifications in a few minutes, but
3 I've worked for the state engineer for a long time and
4 also as a referee in Water Division 1. And I'm going to
5 comment a little bit about the potential water rights
6 concerns about -- if there are any water rights
7 concerns -- with respect to handling of storm water. Go
8 ahead.
9 MR. LIND: What I'd first like to draw to
10 your attention is Exhibit D in your December 27th
11 notebook. And there you will see a letter from Cactus
12 Hill Ranch Company. And Cactus Hill Ranch has agreed to
13 accept the historical overland flows from the specific
14 USR site.
15 That was one of the issues that we had,
16 and, in fact, at the November hearing we were asked if
17 we had an alternative to water being -- or water flowing
18 into the Larimer County Canal. And at that time I did
19 answer we did have an alternative. And that alternative
20 was specifically to take the water from the site
21 underneath the Larimer County Canal and then on to
22 property owned by Cactus Hill Ranch.
23 As part of that, the planning staff
24 requested then that we submit evidence that the
25 down -slope property owner will accept all the storm
73
1 water and drainage water, and that is the purpose of
2 Exhibit D.
3 The other part to that is the Exhibit D
4 supplement. And that Exhibit D supplement is actually
5 just a proposed license agreement involving Simon
6 Contractors and Cactus Hill. That was a request that it
7 also came about from planning staff to have a draft.
8 They called it an easement agreement. Technically it is
9 actually a license agreement because of the fact that
10 you cannot install an easement on your own property.
11 And here the easement -- Cactus Hill owns
12 the property north of the site, owns the site, owns the
13 property under and over the ditch, and the property both
14 to the south and to the west of the property. So we
15 have to call it a license rather than an easement. So
16 we did prepare that as a draft at the request of
17 planning staff, and that was one of the requirements.
18 It does provide for all of the storm and
19 drain water to come on to Cactus Hill. And a question •
20 was raised after the November 8th hearing as to, Well,
21 what does Division of Water Resources think about this?
22 That's when we brought Mr. Siren on board. And
23 Mr. Siren does have -- paired and worked with Division
24 of Water Resources. We do have letters regarding that.
25 I'd have to get my notes for that. Just a moment,
74
1 please.
2 MR. SIREN: Those letters, by the way, are
3 Exhibit Q in this -- the new batch of documents that you
4 received. There's -- go ahead, Ken. Excuse me.
5 MR. LIND: Okay. And there are a number
6 of exhibits, as Mr. Siren stated, under your December 27th
7 notebook, all under Exhibit Q. And John can explain to
8 you his opinion and the work process he had with the
9 Division of Water Resources to give you confidence that
10 this will be handled as indicated.
11 MR. SIREN: So just as a little bit of my
12 background, I've been a water attorney for 25 -plus
13 years. I worked for a large part of that time as the
14 lead attorney for the State of Colorado on ail water
15 rights issues. So I was sort of the attorney for Dick
16 Wolfe. I worked with the Division of Water Resources.
17 And that -- and I also worked as a referee up in -- here
18 in Weld County for a while with Judge Hartmann, water
19 judge Hartmann.
20 So -- now, in that time, what I've
21 discovered is the Division of Water Resources sort of
22 has different ways of dealing with -- of different
23 issues. They have sort of their rules of thumb, which
24 is what the water commissioner will come out and do
25 based on his past experience. Usually those aren't
75
1 written down, but they're rules of thumb. And then we
2 have official guidance that the state engineer will put
3 together that tells how they deal with situations. And
4 then we have statutes.
5 So in this situation, it was pretty
6 simple. We're actually just channelizing some water and
7 moving it from one location to a different location, not
B far, just over the Larimer Canal, the idea being not so
9 this water doesn't enter the Larimer Canal. We don't
10 have any concerns about water quality or don't even have
11 to address those, although we don't think there would
12 be. But in any case, we'd avoid that all by just moving
13 the water over the Larimer Canal.
14 You're channelizing water. You're moving
15 it. Is that a Division of Water Resource concern? It's
16 typically not because this happens everywhere.
17 Municipalities all across the state, you have storm
18 water systems. You have rain gutters on your houses.
19 You have to -- when we get rain, we need to do something
20 with it.
21 But -- and sort of -- I call it asking,
22 making sure we're asking for permission rather than
23 forgiveness -- which my wife might be surprised about --
24 but in this case, we wanted to make sure that we were
25 doing this properly.
76
1 I contacted the Division of Water
2 Resources, Jeff Deatherage, who's the chief of water
3 supply. I discussed to him what sort of process would
4 be useful to make sure that what we're doing is fine
5 with one of the -- either their sort of administrative
6 standards or the guidance of the statutes.
7 He recommended we put together sort of a
8 summary, what's going on, which is the first letter we
9 did, which we sent out I believe in early December. I
10 think it was December 6, yes. And that's in our set of
11 exhibits.
12 And in that we described how we're going
13 to maintain historic drainage patterns. We're not going
14 to put the water at any beneficial use because it's
15 going to be put not onto -- it's not going to be taken
16 and then put onto a field for irrigation use. It's just
17 going to be returned to some native grass.
18 So typically -- I mean, excuse me -- and
19 sure, we're just moving the water a short distance
20 without putting it to any use. And then we have the
21 engineering that sort of backs that up, and that's what
22 we provided to Jeff.
23 I will say that in my -- I've had a lot of
24 experience with this issue, had a case between the
25 Supreme Court -- before the Supreme Court dealing with
77
1 this. But, I mean, the bottom line is, we have to move
2 water all the time. It -- like I said, with ditches,
3 even when you plow your roads in the middle of the
4 winter and move all that into a big pile somewhere,
5 you're moving water. So we don't have just strict --
6 you can't move water. We just need to do it in a way
7 that doesn't injure anybody.
8 So that's what our conversation was with
9 Jeff. And he looked through this and actually decided
10 that what we would qualify for is a -- is the
11 presumption that this causes no injury based on a couple
12 factors -- I'll go through those really quick -- which
13 is -- there is a statute which is 37-92-602(8), and that
14 provides that we can detain water for up to 72 hours if
15 we're doing it under what's considered a storm water
16 detention and infiltration facility, which this would
17 qualify for because we're doing this pursuant to the
18 direction of Weld County.
19 It requires that we be able to release
20 this water on a certain -- within 72 hours in the event
21 of a five-year or less -- excuse me -- event and
22 120 hours after the end of a -- 99 percent of the water
23 within 120 hours after the end of a greater event, which
24 we showed in the engineering are capable of doing.
25 Then we have to not take that water and
78
1 then put it to some use. Obviously, we all know we can't
2 just intercept rain water and start making some
3 beneficial use of it because you're depriving other
4 water users of their water. We're not doing that.
5 Instead we're putting this on an area that has native
6 grasses to replicate historic return flows.
7 And we need to operate the ponds
8 passively, which is what we're doing. And then we have
9 to provide notice pursuant to a substitute water supply
10 plan notification list, which is, again, what Cactus
11 Hill and Simon Contractors have committed to doing.
12 So under this statutory provision, we meet
13 all the requirements and there's a presumption that this
14 operation -- which simply moves storm water a short
15 distance happens all across the state. But under the
16 statute, there's a presumption of no injury to any other
17 water user. And that was confirmed through the email
18 correspondence that I had with Jeff Deatherage, the
19 Chief of Water Supply at the Division of Water
20 Resources.
21 With that, I'd be glad to answer any
22 questions you might have.
23 MR. LIND: I'd like to add one -- one
24 other item. On the license agreement, the supplemental
25 Exhibit D, Weld County Planning staff had requested that
79
1 we include in such a license agreement, one, a statement
2 to the effect that Simon and Cactus Hill would comply
3 with the directives from the state, what John just
4 covered.
5 We have included that in the license
6 agreement. Specifically, at paragraph 3 it makes
7 specific reference to the email dated December 22 issued
8 by Mr. Deatherage, Water Supply Chief, Colorado Division
9 of Water Resources. And that will all be complied with.
10 And then the third request was for
11 decommissioning. And paragraph 5 of that license
12 agreement provides for decommissioning and what will
13 take place with the structures, ponds, and so forth, and
14 we do have that included.
15 Now, the one part that goes with this --
16 there were a couple other comments that we received this
17 morning from Mr. Ogle. We've looked at those. And I --
18 Kim, would that be appropriate to mention now or would
19 you want that later?
20 MS. OGLE: Probably later.
21 MR. LIND: Later? Okay. So that's
22 probably more related to drainage, but it's a few
23 comments. But we have also provided to you language
24 that needs to be changed regarding this development
25 standard -- I mean, condition of approval. And we have
80
I submitted that to you. Is that in Exhibit N?
2 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: It's in
3 Exhibit -- where?
4 COMMISSIONER COZAD: D. It's D.
5 UNKNOWN MALE: D. Oh, yeah.
6 MR. LIND: Okay. On the screen is the
7 (unintelligible) approval of 1-E with the requested
8 language changed. Essentially this says submit -- the
9 applicant shall submit evidence of (unintelligible)
10 property owner dwelling. All storm water and drainage,
11 paren, overland flows, paren, from USR property onto
12 property owned by the down -slope property owner.
13 So that is a -- what we have done, that is
14 the letter from water supply, and this change then meets
15 ail of those requirements.
16 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Just a clarification
17 question.
18 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
19 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So this new language
20 in condition approval of 1.E came from the ditch --
21 suggested from the ditch company?
22 MR. LIND: No, no, no.
23 COMMISSIONER COZAD: No?
24 MR. LIND: This is what we created since
25 we're not utilizing the ditch.
81
1 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. Oh, okay.
2 MR. LIND: There's no water that enters
3 into the Larimer County Canal.
4 COMMISSIONER COZAD: It's going to the
5 south property, but --
6 MR. LIND: Yes. It's going out, which is
7 property owned by Cactus Hill Ranch.
8 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay.
9 MR. LIND: Which is all referenced in the
10 Exhibit D letter -- I mean Exhibit D from December 27th,
11 notebook.
12 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
13 Kirkmeyer.
14 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: All right.
15 There's reference to Condition I.E. This language
16 specifically is in this letter? Is that what you're
17 saying?
18 MS. BEST JOHNSON: This -- excuse me,
19 Commissioner Kirkmeyer. This language in particular is
20 in F-1 of the January 5th supplement. It's our proposed
21 redline for the resolution.
22 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: All right. Okay.
23 And so --
24 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Continue.
25 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: -•- the -- and the
82
1 letter that's the December 27th notebook that we all have
2 from December 20th, you talked about Development Standard
3 Number 30. And did you have -- so that development
4 standard is still -- you're still going with that
5 development standard and the language in that
6 development standard?
7 MR. LIND: Yes. That is all included in
8 the comment from Planning staff.
9 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. And so --
10 may I?
11 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Continue.
12 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So if --
13 Condition Number 17 talks about labeling and the
14 accepted drainage features to include storm water ponds
15 and stuff. Those are all still to be expected. Now
16 there's just going to be this additional channeling --
17 MR. LIND: Yes.
18 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: -- of the water?
19 MR. LIND: What I should mention, there is
20 a separate presentation that will be presented by the
21 engineers regarding the drainage water. This is just
22 related to the --
23 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. I get it.
24 MR. LIND: -- overland flow. And
25 obviously you don't have time for that today.
83
1 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: No, I understand
2 that. And so I just want -- again, just for point of
3 clarification on the record, you're stating that there's
4 no need to submit evidence -- which is in 1-E from the
5 Larimer County Canal Company -- because you will not be
6 putting any water -- any kind of water overflow,
7 anything into the ditch?
8 MR. LIND: Absolutely no water will flow
9 into the ditch.
10 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. Thank you.
11 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Any other questions?
12 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I guess I just --
13 Hayley, you're the one that sent us this email this
14 morning. Can you just clarify this in terms of the
15 language? I'll be honest, I'm a little confused here.
16 MS. BALZANO: Yeah. Hayley Balzano,
17 Public Works engineer. I had not started to view the
18 license agreement yet, but that is what the -- to
19 replace condition of approval 1-E is addressing is some
20 kind of easement or agreement. And the only part I do
21 not see in the proposed license agreement that I wanted
22 to include is that it needs to allow the operator to
23 access for property of -- the property for inspection,
24 maintenance, and repairs.
25 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay.
84
1 MS. BALZANO: So, essentially, I would
2 just wipe out 1-E and replace it with the language I had
3 proposed.
4 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay.
5 MS. BALZANO: But this is addressing --
6 beginning to address (unintelligible).
7 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So from a staff --
8 Mr. Chair.
9 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Continue.
10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: From a staff
11 perspective, this is the language in terms of 1-E that
12 you're recommending to the (unintelligible)?
13 MS. BALZANO: That's what I would
14 recommend.
15 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you.
16 MR. LIND: I have seen that language and
17 that language is acceptable.
18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So the -- so for the
19 record, the applicant --
20 MR. LIND: Yes.
21 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: -- is okay with the
22 draft of approval of 1-E in terms of this language?
23 MR. LIND: That would just be a
24 development standard, then?
25 MR. SIREN: Right, yes.
85
1 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. Thank you.
2 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: If I may.
3 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
4 Kirkmeyer.
5 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: In looking at
6 that language, though, it talks about a recorded
7 drainage easement, and I thought I heard you say there
8 is no easement.
9 MR. LIND: You're right.
10 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: That language is
11 just not necessary at all, right? So it should just be
12 the -- the applicant shall submit evidence of a drainage
13 agreement?
14 MR. LIND: A license agreement.
15 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Is it a drainage
16 license agreement?
17 MR. LIND: Yes. And that has to be
18 recorded, correct?
19 MR. SIREN: Essentially just remove the
20 "easement" and replace it with "license."
21 MR. LIND: Okay.
22 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I'm sorry.
23 Again, I just want to make sure. Are you recording the
24 license agreement?
25 MR. LIND: Yes.
86
1 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay.
2 MR. LIND: The license agreement will be
3 recorded so that it does create an encumbrance upon the
4 property.
5 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And within that
6 license agreement currently, it allows the operator
7 access to the property for inspection, maintenance, and
8 repairs of any drainage -- of the drainage
9 infrastructure?
10 MR. LIND: That is correct.
11 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. Thank you.
12 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Conway.
13 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So since we're
14 dealing with 1-E, I'd like to go back to Hayley and talk
15 about 1-J.
16 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay.
17 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Did you have a
18 specific question for (unintelligible)?
19 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So in terms of the
20 proposed language, I'm just trying to -- have you
21 seen --
22 MR. SIREN: Yes.
23 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: -- in your copy?
24 The reason is Commissioner Kirkmeyer rightly so brought
25 up in terms of your comments, an easement. So I wanted
87
1 to address that portion of the language that's --
2 MR. SIREN: That is correct.
3 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And we would have
4 to remove "drainage easement" or --
5 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: That's what I wanted
6 to address.
7 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: -- if this were
8 to get put on.
9 MR. LIND: Instead of calling it a
10 drainage easement, it's --
11 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: It's drainage
12 license.
13 MR. LIND: -- a drainage license.
14 MR. SIREN: License.
15 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Right. Because you
16 brought that up, I wanted to address that.
17 MR. LIND: Yes. Good point.
18 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I was going
19 through, marking it all up.
20 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. Thank you.
21 MR. LIND: Thank you.
22 MR. SIREN: Thank you.
23 MS. BEST JOHNSON: And it's 11:41. So at
24 this point in time, I don't think there's anything else
25 that we can discuss in four minutes. So I'm happy to
88
1 let you all talk about how you'd like to proceed.
2 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Back to the Board
3 here and (unintelligible).
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I just have a
5 question of Anne. I have a question. I just want to
6 make sure and clear it for the record, though, that
7 while we limited the time to 90 minutes, is there
8 anything of the rebuttal that Simon did not get to put
9 on record that you feel needs to be put on record?
10 MS. BEST JOHNSON: I guess I'd like
11 clarification that if you all should deliberate and
12 decide that you want us to come back on the 5th, will
13 there be any time for additional discussion or this is
14 absolutely it?
15 UNKNOWN MALE: That's it.
16 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
17 Kirkmeyer.
18 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So I was
19 anticipating that our hearing would proceed in the same
20 consistent manner as all hearings. I was merely trying
21 to limit the rebuttal and then also limit -- that we
22 don't get any more information between now and whatever
23 date this gets continued to.
24 So at the date that it's continued to, we
25 would carry on in our normal manner, which would be
89
1 discussion then with regard to -- typically -- or not
2 typically. There are times where commissioners will
3 make comments in advance of discussing conditions of
4 approval or development standards, so I would anticipate
5 that happening.
6 And I would anticipate that there would be
7 discussion about the conditions and the development
8 standards, at which time we would have -- as a board, we
9 typically engage the applicant or their representative,
10 and we also would engage our own staff with regard to
11 that.
12 My goal was to give me and the rest of the
13 Board enough time to really read through everything, go
14 back and look at the previous hearings' comments as
15 well. I mean, I've got pages of notes from that one
16 that I need to look at so that I can form questions for
17 staff and for the applicant or their representative, you
18 know, at the next hearing. And that would be to me the
19 stage that we're in. I just -- we need to have a
20 stopping point of information coming into the Board.
21 MS. BEST JOHNSON: That sounds great for
22 us too. There are items that we wish that we could
23 have -- to discuss with you. Of course, the drainage,
24 we'd like to show you how that has been modified. And
25 that goes hand in hand with the discussion that we just
90
1 did have.
2 Because of time constraints and wanting to
3 have folks that came from out of town, I wanted to get
4 them here first. And of course I wanted to be able to
5 go through each condition of approval and development
6 standard and tell you how it will be met, if not
7 exceeded. Some of those -- some of that discussion
8 really is indicating that has been acknowledged for
9 probably about 40 percent of the development standards.
10 So that part of the presentation could go fairly
11 quickly.
12 I think that the largest part of what
13 didn't get discussed is the drainage component. So
14 that's -- that's the only thing I wish that we could
15 discuss, and then as well as just putting on record how
16 we plan to meet, if not exceed, the other conditions of
17 approval and development standards.
18 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
19 Kirkmeyer.
20 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I would think at
21 the next hearing you would have the opportunity to put
22 on record how you can meet or exceed the conditions of
23 approval or development standards. I guess my question
24 to you would be is -- how long do you think it would
25 take for you to put any comments today on with regard to
91
1 your drainage?
2 MS. BEST JOHNSON: May I take a quick
3 moment to confer with engineers?
4 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Sure.
5 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Thanks.
6 COMMISSIONER MORENO: We're going to --
7 Anne, we're going to take a five-minute recess at 11:45.
8 We need to take a little break for the Commissioners
9 here and then --
10 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Thank you.
11 COMMISSIONER MORENO: -- and then that
12 gives you a little bit of time too.
13 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Okay.
14 COMMISSIONER MORENO: So we'll recess a•t
15 11:45.
16 (Recess taken.)
17 COMMISSIONER MORENO: If everybody can
18 please take a seat, we're going to reconvene. Hello.
19 We're going to reconvene. It's 11:51, so just six
20 minutes.
21 Anne, we're going to bring you back up.
22 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Hello. Thank you. Our
23 engineers would like one hour. And in that one hour,
24 they would like to talk about drainage, proposed road
25 improvements, and traffic. And then after that, knowing
92
1 what I've heard, is that I will then have the ability to
2 go through all of the other conditions of approval on
3 development standards --
4 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Please silence the
5 phones.
6 MS. BEST JOHNSON: -- and just indicate
7 items that are either being modified by staff, those two
8 development standards that we're asking to be modified
9 for hours of operation, and then other than
10 acknowledge -- acknowledgment.
11 And then -- then that's all that's left.
12 So if we have one hour for drainage, to wrap up
13 drainage, road improvements, what's being proposed for
14 road improvements, and traffic -- because those were
15 also big topics of discussion on November 8th -- we can
16 wrap that up, and then just have the other be other
17 development standards and conditions of approval at the
18 proposed February 5, if we can do that.
19 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I would --
20 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner.
21 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I would suggest
22 we give them that hour on February 5.
23 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. Commissioner
24 Cozad.
25 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Because then we can
93
1 read also the supporting documents and maybe it really
2 won't take an hour.
3 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Mr. Freeman?
4 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: I would agree with
5 that.
6 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. We've got
7 approval for that, then.
8 MS. BEST JOHNSON: So an hour for the
9 engineering part, but then we'd have extra time to --
10 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Finish up the
11 hearing with (unintelligible) --
12 MS. BEST JOHNSON: All right.
13 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: -- discussions.
14 COMMISSIONER MORENO:• I'll bring it back
15 to the Board. Commissioner Kirkmeyer.
16 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: With that,
17 Mr. Chairman, I would move -- let me make sure my
18 microphone -- with that, Mr. Chairman, I would move that
19 we continue this matter until February 5, 2018, at
20 10:00 a.m., again, as I mentioned before, to give the
21 Board the opportunity to review and read all the
22 documents and review from previous hearings as well.
23 Also, that it is considered that no more
24 information or documents would be received by the public
25 or the applicant, and that we would consider the public
94
1 record closed, again, for both the public and the
2 applicant. And, again, that would give us enough time
3 to go through and read everything that we need to read.
4 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Second.
5 COMMISSIONER MORENO: We have a motion on
6 the floor to continue this until February 5th by
7 Commissioner Kirkmeyer, seconded by Commissioner Conway.
8 But before we go for a vote, I know there was comments
9 from Commissioner Conway about the public being present
10 here.
11 So if there's any comment about the
12 continuance to February 5th at 10:00 a.m., that the
13 public would like to address the board on, please come
14 forward -and state your name and address, please; and
15 sign in too also. Christian.
16 MR. SCHULTE: Christian Schulte. I'm an
17 attorney in Greeley at 1812 56th Avenue, Second Floor.
18 With respect to the continuance, I mean,
19 there's been a record made that you haven't had a chance
20 to read everything that's been submitted. I understand
21 that.
22 I do have two requests. One is following
23 up on Commissioner Cozad's comments that given the
24 passage of time, that I would urge you to also use this
25 opportunity to review the materials from the public to
95
1 put everything in proper context. I think given the
2 passage of time -- otherwise, there's kind of an unfair
3 recency effect where if all you're remembering is the --
4 the one pony show at this hearing, that that's not
5 giving everybody a fair shake to be heard.
6 I also would ask you to reconsider the
7 part of the motion with respect to additional materials.
8 What I would request, to the extent that there is
9 material in the December 27th or the January books that
10 can fairly be characterized as new information that goes
11 beyond rebuttal, that the commissioners allow the
12 submission of additional materials from the public, but
13 set a fuse on it so that there's none of this
14 last-minute information being presented to you where
15 it's -- there's no time to get it bound. Maybe ten days
16 so that then there's 20 days to get that information
17 collated and prepared and submitted to you for review as
18 well.
19 It seems that given the volume of
20 information at the December 27th materials that there
21 should be a chance to respond to (unintelligible)
22 characterized as not -- not -- as pushing the boundaries
23 of rebuttal. That would be my two requests on behalf of
24 my client. And for the record, I represent the
25 neighboring (unintelligible) up there.
96
1 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Christian, I know --
2 before I go to the rest of the board, I -- I think
3 that's a great suggestion, especially about going back
4 to the public comment and the emails that have come in
5 since then.
6 I, myself, personally, have taken the time
7 to go and try to listen to the audio again, because we
8 do have access to the audio from that hearing. That
9 might be something that the other commissioners might
10 take consideration too just -- because you're right,
11 this started back in October, and here we are now in
12 January, and now we're going to push it one more month
13 out.
14 So with that, I'll bring it back,
15 Commissioner Conway.
16 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I would just say as
17 a seconder to the motion, I'm very open to that. I
18 don't know what the motion -maker feels.
19 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I guess I want to
20 hear from my fellow commissioners because that would not
21 be consistent with how we normally carry on with regard
22 to a public hearing. I mean, once the public comment
23 period is closed, the public comment period is closed.
24 We don't typically open it back up again four months
25 later.
97
1 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Conway.
2 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I think the request
3 and one of the concerns I had -- and I asked when we
4 started this hearing -- was in terms of how the public
5 is going to get to respond to what might be, as the
6 (unintelligible) is describing right now, stretching the
7 bounds of rebuttal.
8 I haven't had a chance to review all this
9 stuff. I haven't had a chance to review the other
10 stuff. That's why we're looking at continuing this.
11 But if we go through here and we find stuff that goes
12 above and beyond rebuttal, I agree with you on rebuttal
13 and the documents that we received in the
14 370 -and -some -odd pages --because Commissioner Cozad
15 printed it off, I think -- is that right?
16 COMMISSIONER COZAD: My stack's over here.
17 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yeah. As we go
18 through this, I think it's not an unreasonable request
19 if we find that there is new information in here that
20 requires some -- that we don't afford the public that
21 opportunity. But that's where I'm at in terms of the
22 seconder of the motion.
23 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Mr. Chair.
24 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
25 Kirkmeyer.
98
1 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: That's kind of a
2 bit of a different request, so -- from Commissioner
3 Conway. So, typically within a public hearing process
4 when we've closed public comment and the applicant gets
5 back up and makes comments that the Board feels there's
6 someone else in the audience that they wish to ask a
7 question of or get additional information from, the
8 Board has every opportunity to -- it's not necessarily
9 opening up the public hearing again, but it's allowing
10 the Board to get their questions answered by someone
11 other than the applicant. And we always have that
12 discretion and that ability to do that.
13 But I don't believe that we open up public
14 comment again. That's not typical or consistent with
15 our public hearing process. And I think then we would
16 have a due process issue with the applicant where we
17 would have to open it up for them to yet again submit
18 more information or submit more rebuttal. I don't think
19 that would be fair either way.
20 COMMISSIONER MORENO: I -- you know,
21 Commissioner, I was thinking that myself, just -- and
22 I'm looking at the applicant right now and seeing the
23 concern with that.
24 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Well, I have a
25 concern over due process for everyone.
99
1 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Right. Commissioner
2 Cozad.
3 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I don't have any
4 comments, but I think Commissioner Freeman did.
5 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
6 Freeman.
7 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: No, I guess I was
8 just asking -- I was going to ask for clarification. So
9 I don't think he was -- I'm not sure you were asking to
10 open it back up for essentially public comment. You
11 were asking to be able to send more information in. But
12 I think that essentially does the same thing as open it
13 up for public comment because it's more new information.
14 MR. SCHULTE: Well -- are you asking me to
15 respond?
16 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Yeah, I think I'm
17 wanting to know for sure what your intent was.
18 MR. SCHULTE: What I'm saying is that if
19 you open up a window that allows the timely submission
20 of additional written materials from the public in
21 response to information that is new and is not fairly
22 rebuttal, that addresses the concerns that would arise
23 from -- from just opening up the floor at the February
24 hearing.
25 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Okay. So --
100
1 MR. SCHULTE: It would be a more contained
2 process.
3 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: So let me follow up
4 with that question now. Who is it that's going to make
5 the determination whether it is new material or rebuttal
6 or where that gray fine line is between rebuttal and new
7 material?
8 MR. SCHULTE: Well, you do, of course.
9 Anything that you receive that you believe is not a fair
10 surrebuttal -- which it's called in court -- you would,
11 as the fact finders, feel free to disregard.
12 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: We would just not
13 include it as part of the record?
14 MR. SCHULTE: No, you would -- it may be
15 part of the record, but it -- to the extent it was part
16 of your deliberations, you would say, "I'm not
17 considering this. It's not a fair response to new
18 information. It's just piling on more of the same."
19 That would be a determination you would have to make in
20 your deliberative process.
21 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
22 Kirkmeyer.
23 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So I'm going back
24 to what I'm going to call due process and consistency of
25 how we do our hearings. So, in our hearings, we allow
101
1 for -•- we have staff make their comments and their
2 recommendations, and they have to represent what the
3 Planning Commission's recommendation was. Then we allow
4 the applicant to make their opening comments, which we
5 only have time -- where we -- in both of those
6 instances, we as a Board only ask clarifying questions.
7 We don't ask questions with regard to everything,
8 because we wait to hold off on that until after public
9 hearing.
10 Then we have a public hearing process that
11 we allow any person in the public to make any
12 comments that they wish to make with regard to the
13 application. We then close public hearing, which means
14 it's closed, which means the public's portion is
15 completed, and we've met our requirements under the
16 statute to have a public hearing.
17 Then we allow the applicant the
18 opportunity to rebut. Then we allow the Board to have
19 discussion -- both amongst themselves, with the
20 applicant, and with the (unintelligible) -- before any
21 kind of motions are made. That's how our process works.
22 At no time do we open up again for public hearing.
23 So if we are going to open up for
24 essentially additional public comment -- whether it's
25 written or verbalized -- we would then have to reopen up
102
1 again for rebuttal, and I think we could find ourselves
2 on February 5th right back in the situation where we were
3 today with getting a whole bunch of information.
4 Regardless if we deem the information as something that
5 we would use in our deliberation, once it's submitted,
6 it becomes part of the public record, and we have to
7 consider it.
8 So, again, we would be -- opening up the
9 public hearing and due process would require that we
10 allow the applicant to have a rebuttal period. So, we
11 would be looking at on February 5th essentially a rebuttal
12 period --
13 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: That was my concern,
14 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: -- for any new
15 information comes into the public hearing.
16 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Starting over.
17 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Yes. You'd be
18 opening up the whole public hearing process.
19 MR. SCHULTE: If I may, it seems that
20 could be solved (unintelligible) logistical matter by
21 setting two deadlines, both sufficiently in advance of
22 the hearing to receive additional written materials.
23 And in my experience -- more in a court setting than
24 this sort of quasi-judicial setting -- but -- is that it
25 gets shorter each time. You know, (unintelligible), you
103
1 get a response. Those are both very lengthy. Rebuttal
2 is usually shorter. Surrebuttal is typically shorter
3 than that.
4 To the extent that what you're raising is
5 a practical issue, a logistical issue, a timing issue, I
6 think you can -- you can control that by setting
7 deadlines for surrebuttal and any further response to
8 that so that it gets here and you're still within your
9 original timeframe.
10 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Conway.
11 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Do we have a
12 suggested date?
13 MR. SCHULTE: The hearing that is --
14 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: We're discussing
15 February 5TH.
16 MR. SCHULTE: So ten days and ten days.
17 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
18 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I'm sitting here
19 listening to all the discussion and, you know, I think
20 if we take additional comments, it is opening up the
21 public -- the public comment period, and it is going
22 outside of our normal hearing process.
23 I think this hearing is not -- has not
24 really been following a normal hearing process because
25 it's been continued over and over, but I agree with
104
1 Commissioner Kirkmeyer on the due process part for the
2 applicant. I think if there's -- and I -- and like I
3 said earlier, in reviewing all the materials, I actually
4 have gone through pretty much all of it.
5 There's a few things that I haven't had a
6 chance to go through. But in general, I have not -- I
7 have not seen new information. I think everything that
8 I have reviewed is in response to the public comment
9 during the hearing when we met in November.
10 I think the risk that we take, if we take
11 additional information, is that -- I think that we need
12 to have -- open it up back up to the public, because I
13 think we do end up in a catch -22 back and forth, back
14 and forth, back and forth, and that is not our normal
15 process for our land use hearings.
16 So I just have a concern about that. I
17 don't think that it prohibits anybody from submitting
18 documents. It just doesn't become a part of the
19 deliberation and public process. People can still
20 submit things to the Planning Department or Public Works
21 or the Health Department even after an application is
22 approved. We still get additional information from the
23 public, especially if they're not following conditions
24 of approval or development standards. So, I guess I'd
25 like to hear from the rest of the Board, but --
105
1 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Before we go there,
2 I --
3 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Sure.
4 COMMISSIONER MORENO: -- just because our
5 Assistant County Attorney has been listening to our
6 conversation here, I'd just kind of like to hear.
7 Because I also agree with there's (unintelligible)
8 thinking out of the process of what we normally do.
9 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I think the other
10 major concern is if we're going to open it up for more
11 public comment, we will need to republish because it's
12 not just the public in this room that gets to make
13 comment; it's any public. So --
14 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Start all over.
15 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: -- we'd have to
16 republish.
17 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Mr. Choate.
18 MR. CHOATE: So I think that it's within
19 your discretion to do so, but I definitely believe that
20 if you are going to open it up to public comment,
21 whether that be allowing additional public comment in
22 the record or at the next hearing, that you need to --
23 you're going to need to allow the applicant to have an
24 opportunity to reply in writing, but also to have some
25 time at the next hearing to respond to those comments,
106
1 because right now you have limited their ability to
2 respond very specifically at the next hearing to the
3 engineering concerns described by Ms. Johnson --
4 Ms. Best Johnson, and as well as for their wrap up on
5 conditions of approval and development standards.
6 If there are other issues that come up
7 from public records or are submitted into the record or
8 public comment, they're going to need to have an
9 opportunity to address those as well.
10 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
11 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Just a question for
12 Mr. Choate. If there is somebody that is not here today
13 or would -- if this motion is modified or amended to
14 allow us a short period of time to address anything that
15 is beyond rebuttal and then an additional short period
16 of time for the applicant to come back and respond -- if
17 somebody is not here today and they say, Well, I missed
18 the deadline, but I still have information that I'd like
19 to submit, at that point how do we not allow somebody to
20 make additional comments or open it up to the public?
21 Is there a concern that you would have on that?
22 MR. CHOATE: Well, we -- we did receive a
23 limited amount of information from the public after
24 November 8th, and we didn't put it in the record. And I
25 had a conversation specifically with Ms. Doyle to
107
1 explain that, and she understood. But we didn't put it
2 in the record because the Board made very clear that
3 their direction was not to accept any further public
4 records.
5 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
6 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So as a follow-up,
7 that's kind of what I'm getting to. There were -- if
8 there was information that was submitted and we already
9 told people, No, this is not a part of the public
10 record, are we going to go ahead and take -- are we
11 going to go ahead and take any public comment, or is it
12 going to be specific to the supplemental information
13 that's been provided that's outside of rebuttal?
14 MR. CHOATE: And, again, I'd say this is
15 definitely not your typical process, and so it would be
16 up to you what you want to do. But I would request that
17 if you are going to do that, that you make it very, very
18 clear what your expectations are, because we have
19 documents -- a small amount of documents that were not
20 in the record. And so, if you're going to do this, I
21 would request you let staff know whether we need to put
22 those into the record, and if you -- you know, if
23 there's a hard deadline to respond to those.
24 I mean, it's not the way you typically do
25 a quasi-judicial public land use hearing, and so any --
108
1 any change from that needs to comply with the Weld
2 County Code. There's nothing here I see that is in
3 contravention to that, but you need to be very, very
4 clear on what your expectations are.
5 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay.
6 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Mr. Chairman?
7 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
8 Kirkmeyer.
9 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Before we decide
10 these questions, I'd like to hear from Mr. Lind.
11 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Well, before we go
12 there, there might be others in the public that might
13 come up. Should we --
14 UNKNOWN MALE: Let's open this to the
15 public right now.
16 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Sure.
17 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Finish the public
18 first? Okay.
19 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Yes, we would
20 have to.
21 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Thanks. Anybody
22 else in the public, please come forward.
23 MR. MOORE: Hi, I'm Tom Moore, Post
24 Office Box 340, Fort Collins, Colorado. I would like to
25 ask that this continuance not be granted and you go
109
1 ahead and just wrap this thing up. If you're not going
2 to allow any more public comment, I just ask you go
3 ahead and vote on this and to deny this.
4 They've shown no compatibility with the
5 neighborhood. This is going to cost my property a
6 million bucks and everybody else similar. Their
7 appraiser was brand new here. New information has been
8 brought in. No matter how much lipstick you put on this
9 pig, it's not a good sight. Thank you.
10 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Any questions?
11 COMMISSIONER COZAD: No.
12 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Anyone else in the
13 public? Please come forward. This is on the
14 continuance, please.
15 MR. STEIDL: Eric Steidl, 9750 County
16 Road 78, Fort Collins. It's just to me as an
17 observation that the Board received a large notebook on
18 December 27th and another addendum here this week, that
19 nobody in the public has a chance to review it or read
20 it to see if there was something in there that is
21 outside what we were able to comment on initially. So,
22 if the Board is going to consider all of that, I would
23 ask that the Board allow the public to review it and
24 provide our comments as well. Thank you.
25 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Thank you. Anyone
110
1 else in the public? All right. I'm going to close the
2 public and we'll bring up Mr. Lind.
3 MR. LIND: Thank you. Kenneth Lind on
4 behalf of the applicant. It would definitely be a
5 problem for the applicant if you opened this back up for
6 additional public comment. I -- I would absolutely have
7 to require or request a surrebuttal time because we
8 don't know what is there.
9 What we attempted to do -- in fact, we had
10 several meetings over the past few weeks in relation to
11 all of this, and I said, It's got to be rebuttal or
12 mitigation. It can't go beyond. And I think Ms. Cozad
13 caught that, we kept to that, and it should not be
14 reopened.
15 I mean, otherwise, for how long? If you
16 set a time limit, five days, then do we have five days
17 to do rebuttal? It just goes on and on. It would be
18 highly unorthodox to change your procedures. And it
19 does raise a due process issue. So, I think we've got to
20 limit it to what has been discussed. Thank you.
21 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Anne?
22 MS. BEST JOHNSON: I wanted to make --
23 make a statement on record that the only items we
24 submitted were direct response to the questions you
25 asked us and told us to be prepared to answer from
111
1 November 8th.
2 The other items that were submitted are in
3 direct relationship to the conditions of approval and
4 the development standards. Nothing has been changed,
5 nothing has been suggested to be different than what was
6 originally submitted with the application materials. It
7 was all in response to your questions.
8 The items that came in on January 5th were
9 direct response to questions that staff asked as well as
10 supplemental materials that augmented what was submitted
11 on the 27th of December. So, nothing -- no new
12 information was submitted beyond that.
13 So if you do decide to open it up, I'd
14 like to do a reverse engineering project with you all
15 and look at February 5th as your hearing date. When is
16 your hard deadline that you need rebuttal -- surrebuttal
17 items from us? We need adequate time to pull all of our
18 folks together to compile that information for you.
19 So then when is the deadline for the
20 public to provide that so that then we can then review
21 it, have adequate time to not only review, but then
22 provide the documentation to you, and adequate time for
23 then you to have time to review?
24 So it's not just that February 5th deadline
25 we're looking at, but it's your review time that you
112
1 need, our preparation time, our review time, their
2 review time. So, we have to look at this
3 comprehensively, and it's not just the February 5th
4 deadline that we have to review.
5 And then also, who's going to be making
6 the determination that it's beyond a rebuttal? So that
7 question, if you do make that decision to open this up,
8 I would like to know who's making that determination and
9 who will be taking that responsibility.
10 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Any questions for
11 Anne?
12 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: No, but I would
13 answer that question.
14 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
15 Kirkmeyer.
16 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: The only entity
17 that can make that decision is the Board of County
18 Commissioners. So, we would have to meet to make a
19 decision if it was outside rebuttal or not.
20 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
21 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Well, you know, I
22 think Anne makes -- makes a very good point. If we
23 do -- if we do decide to take additional comments from
24 the public, the February 5th date is not going to work,
25 I'm just going to tell you. Because if we -- if we take
113
1 additional comments from the public, the applicant needs
2 adequate time to review all those documents and respond,
3 and then we need time to be able to review all those
9 documents, which what we have seen over the past two
5 months is substantial.
6 And so I'm just going to tell you right
7 now, if we gave the public ten days and then a rebuttal
8 time for ten days, that takes us to the week before this
9 hearing, and now we're right back in the same spot.
10 One thing that I do want to make a comment
11 about is the comment from Mr. Moore that, you know, we
12 just need to move on today. Well --
13 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: We can't.
14 COMMISSIONER COZAD: -- it's not -- we
15 cannot -- exactly. That's exactly what I was going to
16 say. We cannot move forward today because we have not
17 reviewed all the documents that we have already. So
18 that just can't happen. We're going to have to continue
19 this.
20 So -- you know, I've already said my
21 statements about, you know, as far as the additional
22 information. You know -- and I think Anne on the record
23 actually stated that the information that they provided
24 is really in response to staff questions and in response
25 to the information that they already provided. And then
114
1 direct responses to the questions we had in the public
2 comment as well as development standards and conditions,
3 which is our normal process.
4 COMMISSIONER MORENO: We've already -- we
5 have a motion and we've had discussion on this, and it
6 doesn't look like we're going to have any --
7 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: There's one more
8 person.
9 UNKNOWN MALE: We already closed public
10 input.
11 UNKNOWN FEMALE: I have a --
12 COMMISSIONER MORENO: All right. We did
13 close public, but it looks like we have one individual
14 in the public who would like to address the board. So
15 please state your name and address.
16 MS. LAKE: Susan Lake, 9112 Weld County
17 Road 78. I have one question for you. Since there's
18 been all of this discussion about the monitoring of the
19 water and the air, the whatever, who is going to monitor
20 it, and how will the public know that it's properly
21 monitored?
22 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Ma'am, this is about
23 the continuance.
24 MS. LAKE: That's all I want you all to
25 answer to the public. Who's going to do the monitoring?
115
1 How will we know that it's monitored properly, that
2 there's no leakage of the water, the air, not one drop
3 gets in that ditch? Thank you.
4 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. Thanks.
5 All right. Well, we do have a motion on
6 the floor. Unless we have any other comments, I'm going
7 to -- unless we need a roll call vote.
8 COMMISSION. REEMAN: So ---
9 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
10 Freeman, go ahead.
11 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: So the motion is to
12 continue --
13 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Continue to
14 February 5 with no further public comment, with the
15 applicant being present and going over development
16 standards and conditions, and the rebuttal has already
17 been given to us and we'll review our books and have
18 time to go back and look at all the public comment.
19 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Question.
20 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner.
21 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: My understanding is
22 that the applicant or the public, it's closed. There's
23 no new information. What we have is what we have.
24 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Correct.
25 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: And that will be
116
1 discussed on whatever date -- you said February 5th; is
2 that correct, Commissioner?
3 COMMISSIONER MORENO: It's a Monday.
4 Commissioner Kirkmeyer.
5 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Point of
6 clarification. The public record would be closed for
7 the applicant and the public with the exception that we
8 did allow for the applicant to make their presentation
9 for their engineering with regard to the drainage and
10 water and transportation -- I think there was something
11 else in there -- but their engineers present and then
12 also their wrap-up statements.
13 So essentially that's all part of their
14 wrap-up statement with regard also then to conditions of
15 approval and development standards. So we would pick up
16 our hearing on February 5th at the stage that we normally
17 do, which is wrap-up.
18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: And the applicant
19 would present those things that she's asking.
20 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Yes, yes.
21 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: They've asked for an
22 hour to do that.
23 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I just want to be
24 perfectly clear --
25 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yeah, that's why
117
1 I'm --
2 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: -- I am not
3 looking for any more documents to come in, because -- I
4 understand the importance of this. We can't -- we can't
5 make a decision today because we haven't read all of the
6 information that was presented to us.
7 I mean, I've gotten through probably most
8 of it until I got the stuff yesterday. But -- and I --
9 and as I stated earlier, I want to be able to go back
10 and review all my notes and the record from November so
11 that we have it all, so we have the opportunity to
12 review it all, get our questions formed, put our
13 comments together, that kind of thing.
14 You know, I can appreciate that we have
15 land use hearings and that we have responsibilities that
16 we have to meet. I would hope everybody would
17 appreciate that we have a lot of other responsibilities
18 that we have to meet.
19 Including for me, I'm on a child welfare
20 allocation committee that I'm thinking I've got like
21 three or four hours worth of work to do today. I've got
22 work on it tomorrow. I've got work on it on Friday.
23 And it won't be done until June 15 of this year, and
24 that then it starts all over again. So it's not like
25 this is the only thing that is on my plate, but it's
118
1 taking and consuming a huge amount of my time. So
2 that's where I'm at.
3 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner, go
4 ahead, Conway.
5 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So the public today
6 has asked about this documentation. Can staff please,
7 once again, tell the public how they -- is this on our
8 web page or can they ascertain it through -- so the
9 public can look at this large document that we're --
10 since we're going to be spending the next three weeks
11 going through this, maybe they want to read it too.
12 It's sure -- they -- if they've got
13 insomnia, you can sit up and -- so Kim, can you please,
14 for the record, tell the public how they can ascertain
15 these rebuttal arguments that have been presented since
16 we're closing the public record?
17 MS. OGLE: Sure. The documents are on
18 record, and they're available through the Commissioner's
19 web page --
20 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay.
21 MS. OGLE: -- under this USR application
22 number, USR17-0043.
23 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: And they just need
24 to sign in with that -- with that number, and all of
25 this documentation with all the other information that's
119
1 been presented to us, they can pull up and look at it?
2 MS. OGLE: That's correct, yes.
3 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you. I just
4 wanted to get that --
5 COMMISSIONER MORENO: With that, I'm going
6 to call for the vote on the continuance to February 5th at
7 10:00 a.m. on USR17-0043. All in favor, Aye.
8 MULTIPLE SPEAKERS: Aye.
9 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Opposed?
10 Motion passes.
11 We will adjourn this land use at 12:22.
12 Thank you, everyone.
13 (End of audio recording.)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 10, 2018
TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATE
I, Rebecca J. Collings, a Colorado
Realtime Certified Reporter, Registered Professional
Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of
Colorado, do hereby certify that I prepared the
foregoing transcript from an audio recording of the
proceedings.
I further certify that the transcript is
accurate to the best of my ability to hear and
understand the proceedings.
I further certify that I am not an
attorney, nor counsel, nor in any way connected with any
attorney or counsel for any of the parties to said
action, nor otherwise interested in the outcome of this
action.
My commission expires September 14, 2021.
REBECCA J COLL]N E
REBECCA J. COLLINGS
Registered Professional Reporter
Colorado Realtime Certified Reporter
Notary Public
DausteriMurphy 303-522-1604
CERTIFICATE
STATE OF COLORADO)
ss
COUNTY OF WELD)
I, Esther E. Gesick, Clerk to the Board of Weld County Commissioner and Notary Public
within and for the State of Colorado, certify the foregoing transcript of the digitally recorded
proceedings, In re: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT, USR17-0043, FOR MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING ASPHALT
AND CONCRETE BATCH PLANTS, MATERIALS PROCESSING (CRUSHING AND
SCREENING), MATERIAL STOCK PILES, AN OFFICE, A SHOP, AND OUTDOOR TRUCK AND
EMPLOYEE PARKING IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT - CACTUS HILL RANCH
COMPANY, C/O SIMON CONTRACTORS, INC., before the Weld County Board of County
Commissioners, on Wednesday, January 10, 2018, and as further set forth on page one. The
transcription, dependent upon recording clarity, is true and accurate with special exceptions(s) of
any or all precise identification of speakers, and/or correct spelling or any given/spoken proper
name or acronym.
Dated this 30th day of April, 2018.
‘,,-,.4
Esther E. Gesick, Notary
Weld County Clerk to the Board
ESTHER E. GESICK
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF COLORADO
NOTARY ID 19974016478
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT. 29, 2021
ORIGINAL (�)
CERTIFIED COPY ( )
Hello