[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:07] Good morning, everyone. I think we've worked out some of the technical difficulties. I would like to call our meeting for the GCC energy.
[0:16] King to coal mine class to project 2-012-0089 to order.
[0:26] For the record, please note that all three commissioners are Commissioner Lackolt, Commissioner Westendorf and myself Commissioner Blake.
[0:35] As preliminary matter, we request that you remove your hats and turn off your cellphones.
[0:43] We would also like to request that anyone wishing to speak on any matter on today's agenda.
[0:50] Please fill out one of the pink slips.
[0:52] They are available usually right back here by the sink.
[0:57] And give those to Jeannie here to my right.
[1:05] If you would please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance
[1:20] and to repout like for which it stands
[1:23] One nation under God in the physical with liberty and justice for all
[1:40] You'll please bear with me for a minute. I have a few notes that I need to relate to everyone here
[1:50] Oh first I need a motion for the agenda. I move the way approved the agenda all in favor
[1:56] I. I. I. Thank you.
[2:01] This will be the format of the hearing the planning department applicant and neighbors represented by council will each have one hour in which to present their.
[2:11] The project or their concerns with the project at the conclusion of those three presentations if time allows the board may have questions.
[2:20] We will take one hour for lunch break from noon to 1 o'clock at 1 o'clock and at 6 o'clock tonight we will accept public testimony on the project.
[2:35] Public comment will be limited to three minutes per speaker.
[2:40] It is our intent to accept public testimony until everyone has been heard.
[2:44] At the conclusion of the public testimony the board will likely have questions for select parties or experts.
[2:52] At the conclusion of the public comment portion tonight, I will close the public comment period.
[2:58] The parties will then be allowed to an opportunity for rebuttal, the county and the represented neighbors will have five minutes each,
[3:07] because GCC bears the burden of demonstrating compliance with the code GCC.
[3:13] will be allocated 10 minutes for rebuttal. Finally the board will
[3:18] deliberate and make a decision. Time keeping the clerk to the board will
[3:24] time each party or speaker so you will hear a beep. Go off at the conclusion
[3:30] of your time. Please conclude your remarks on or before the beeper. Rules of
[3:36] the House speak directly into the microphone if the red light is not
[3:41] You are not being recorded because there is a court reporter here today, please be sure that only one person at a time speaks and that you say yes or no as opposed to nodding your head.
[3:57] If you would like to speak, please complete the pink slip as I mentioned earlier.
[4:04] I will call three speakers at a time, sort of be kind of like being batter up and on deck so that we can hear more public comment in a more timely fashion.
[4:19] If your name is called, please move to the front of the room and speak at the podium.
[4:25] We value and respect every opinion and ask the audience to do the same by refraining from
[4:33] applause or outbursts or disruptions. I would now like to ask the county attorney to describe
[4:39] what is to form the record for purposes of this hearing.
[4:45] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[4:46] Cheryl Rogers, the Plata County Attorney. With respect to the formal record for this hearing,
[4:51] it will consist of the staff report and the 77 attachments that are listed on pages 47 through 49 of the staff report.
[5:01] We will also accept written public comment received through 4 p.m. today.
[5:07] There are total of five power points.
[5:11] The first is from Laplada County and that will be designated then as attachment and exhibit 78.
[5:20] Attachment 79 will be GCC's PowerPoint.
[5:26] Exhibit 80 will be the PowerPoint by a Cross Creek Ranch LLC.
[5:31] 81 is the PowerPoint with the logo of Goldman Robbins and Rogers representing Southwest Colorado advocates.
[5:42] And 82 will be a PowerPoint by Southwest Colorado advocates.
[5:49] those are the formal documents for the record. Since Friday, I have received six additional
[5:58] documents. I want to describe those and then as the parties, if they have any objections
[6:04] to the admission of those documents, the first three were submitted by GCC and all relate
[6:10] to water supply. One is the January 28th, 2015 letter from Harris Water Engineering to Emily
[6:18] of CDPH, regarding a request for information.
[6:23] Number two is the February 26 letter from the Colorado Department
[6:26] of Natural Resources, the Division of Water Resources
[6:29] to Jeff Craig, attorney for GCC, regarding the GCC Energy,
[6:34] LLC, Substitute Water Supply Plan.
[6:37] And the third one is a document dated November 16, 2015.
[6:42] Title GCC, Energy, Mind, Water Supply,
[6:45] safe yield analysis drafted by Harris Water Engineering.
[6:50] So Mr. Smith does the county consent or agree or have comments or concerns with the
[6:56] admission of those?
[6:57] Ms. Adams, the Plot of County Attorney's Office, I'm Council for County Staff in these
[7:02] proceedings.
[7:03] We have no objection.
[7:05] We would note that we fully support the three water documents being on the record, however
[7:09] I'd like to briefly make a record on one issue relating to one of those water documents.
[7:14] We could certainly discuss these matters later, but for now I'd like to just make a record of an issue
[7:20] specifically speaking about the
[7:23] Harris water engineering letter dated January 28th, directed to CBPAG
[7:30] paragraph 8 of that letter request that GCCB allowed to only have one pumping unit instead of redundant systems
[7:37] and they're proposing that if the pumping unit
[7:40] goes offline that they can simply haul potable water until the equipment is fixed.
[7:46] That would likely contradict with least-staffs proposed condition number six, which prohibits
[7:52] water hauling after September 30th, 2016.
[7:57] Then that issue, at least with the three water documents, we support them going on the record.
[8:02] We have no objections to the other documents, but frankly, we don't see the relevance
[8:07] of all the documents that today is hearing.
[8:10] Danielson and Robbins, the three water documents, can you come to the mic please?
[8:15] I'm sorry, sorry.
[8:16] I knew Danielson, a attorney representing Cross Creek ring.
[8:21] We haven't even read all of the documents that came in over the weekend.
[8:27] Our initial conclusion is they're very incomplete to make a complete picture on these.
[8:34] We would then have to come back and give
[8:36] counter-doctoral documents, so we do object to the last minute receipt of these documents.
[8:43] That's why.
[8:45] Mr. Chairman, County Attorney, Carolyn White, Council for the applicant.
[8:49] I would just note that these are documents that have already been in the record for a very long time, more than a year on some cases.
[8:56] And the only reason for us submitting them at this time was that they were not listed by staff as being attachments to the staff report
[9:03] and in the event that issues addressed in those documents were arose at the time of this hearing today we wanted them to be handy and easily available.
[9:12] But as a practical matter all of the documents which have been submitted to the county over the many years of this application process are technically part of the record.
[9:20] These documents are not new and counsel for the opponents certainly would have had the opportunity to review them in the record had they so chosen over the last several years.
[9:29] So we would urge you to accept them for today, but even if they aren't part of today's record,
[9:35] they are still part of the record for the application.
[9:41] Mr. Chair, what I would recommend is that the board discuss and decide on these three documents,
[9:45] and then we can talk about the other three.
[9:47] Did Mr. Albans have any comment?
[9:54] Yes, for Albans for the record, and I integrate with Mr. Danielson's comments.
[10:06] Discussion?
[10:07] I have a question as it relates to these documents, is what you indicated that these were already
[10:13] part of the file, but that they hadn't been included with the staff report, are they among
[10:20] the exhibits that were in the, you know, is it, is there a currently labeled exhibit that,
[10:27] that there were, there were 77 initial exhibits. Are you saying these were among those 77
[10:33] original exhibits? Herman, Commissioner Carolyn White again, no, they were not among the 77 exhibits,
[10:40] And that was why we thought it appropriate to have them convenient for you.
[10:44] There are hundreds of documents which are not among the 77 exhibits because this application is voluminous and complex and has been going on for some time.
[10:53] And staff understandably had to select those documents which they felt most relevant for your review to attach today or else the record would have been too long for you to review today.
[11:03] So, all we were doing was just bringing them forward from where they were in the record to have him handy and convenient for today's hearing.
[11:13] To chair for me? Yes.
[11:15] Adam Smith County Attorney's Office.
[11:17] We would like to clarify that some of these documents were certainly in the planning file,
[11:20] but it is not our position that they were ever made part of the record.
[11:24] I e presented to the Board of County Commissioners for your review as part of hearing this latest application this morning.
[11:34] Mr. Chair, I would like the GCC Attorney to state for the record the relevance of
[11:41] these materials to this hearing.
[11:46] Chairman, Commissioner Carolyn White again.
[11:49] Given our understanding that the opponent is intended to raise some questions specifically
[11:53] related to water quality and availability to serve the project and that these documents
[11:59] contain some facts relevant to that point. We felt it appropriate to include them today so
[12:05] that we could refer to them and answering those questions if they arise.
[12:10] Thank you.
[12:12] So, commissioners, one option that you have given Ms. White's responses to not necessarily
[12:20] add them to the record now, but wait and see if, in fact, the other parties do discuss
[12:26] these topics and then at that point in time is why could indicate their relevance and then you could accept them.
[12:36] I'm not inclined to accept these documents onto the record.
[12:43] What was contained and what would be contained in this record, though 77, I believe it was 77 exhibits, has been available for a long time to get these supplemental documents.
[12:56] literally the day before the hearing, I think, is not timely, and I think that the applicant
[13:04] had a lot of time to review those to figure out how the important documents been included.
[13:10] The arguments raised by the opponents of the project.
[13:13] I think have been clear for a number of years, and I think for purposes of rebuttal, which is kind
[13:20] But Ms. Rogers was just talking about, they may be relevant at that time, but at this
[13:26] point I think they were not timely filed, and I would not support having them included
[13:30] in the record.
[13:33] Mr. Chair, question for the county attorney, how much time did the applicant have?
[13:39] The staff report for this hearing was released to the public two weeks ago, so that is
[13:47] And we were very formal with the number of attachments.
[13:51] I think it's substantially similar to what was at the PC level.
[13:56] But what was the exact date, Daniel?
[13:58] 18th of November, thank you.
[14:10] If I may, the opponents have not had a reasonable period of time
[14:14] to review the documents, just to fortify the justification for my position.
[14:24] Thank you.
[14:26] In reviewing the documents which I had the opportunity to review,
[14:29] they all were older and time period.
[14:33] Therefore, I am inclined to accept them on the record today,
[14:37] but I guess I will entertain a motion and see where we go with it.
[14:48] I have a motion for the...
[14:54] I guess we don't have a motion to admit them.
[14:57] Which case they will not be admitted.
[14:59] Thank you.
[14:59] Thank you.
[15:00] Back up a motion. Correct. That this juncture. Again, if for bubble purposes, they become relevant, then that's a different question.
[15:08] Okay. So, Mr. Chair, the fourth letter is dated May 27, 2016. It's from Gina Nance, GCC Vice President, Environment and Energy to Daniel Murray,
[15:18] of a Platte County senior planner regarding wild earth guardian citizens complain submitted
[15:24] to the office of surface mining reclamation and enforcement dated May 19, 2016.
[15:31] I would like to note that the complaint filed by wild earth guardian citizens is not part
[15:38] of the record and so if you agree to add item four, it will probably be necessary to also
[15:47] So add that document, which I believe is about 80 pages or so with exhibits.
[15:55] So Mr. Smith, do you have a position on this one?
[15:58] Mr. Aft is not a jack to we question the relevance of the document though.
[16:02] Danielson and Robbins?
[16:05] Yes, I just say we don't think this is relevant and we therefore would suggest not putting
[16:13] it in the record because we have to put all this other material in the record.
[16:16] We aren't going to say anything about it during the hearing.
[16:21] That's right.
[16:23] Mr. Chairman County Attorney Carolyn White again.
[16:27] Our reason for considering it necessary was our understanding that it was the intention of the council for the opponents to introduce that information.
[16:34] So if, in fact, they don't, then we would agree that it's not relevant and it's not necessary.
[16:38] If the wilder's guardian's complaint is referenced as part of the opposition to the application, then we would...
[16:45] reserve and request the opportunity to reiterate our suggestion that this document ought to be included in the record.
[16:53] Mr. Chair, if you may hear from Council Robbins.
[16:56] It's a case deferring to Mr. Danielson. You'll let me know if you're not.
[17:01] Mr. Chair, again, for the record and for the listening public, can you state the subject matter of the wilder guardians?
[17:11] It relates to its citizens' complaint that relates to the Office of Service Mining Reclamation
[17:19] and Enforcement, the federal process related to BLM, least with GCC.
[17:29] That's not overly elaborate, but if I may follow it, Mr. Chair,
[17:37] does it in any way relate
[17:38] to the use of the county road?
[17:43] I'm trying to remember. It does reference the
[17:47] Plata County in a few sections.
[17:51] Adam, do you recall?
[17:52] Does the wilder citizens complain
[17:57] reference the county road?
[18:00] Yes, it does.
[18:06] Yeah.
[18:06] Mr. Chairman, if I may.
[18:11] My, I believe it's appropriate to not accept this exhibit onto the record either.
[18:19] Wilder with Guardians, if they have a complaint, can be here today and make public comment
[18:23] or otherwise submit public comment and I've heard no party saying they support introduction
[18:29] over to this time as long as there's an opportunity to bring it up as what I'm going to call
[18:36] a bottle of evidence again. Is that correct? Fair characterization is white? Yes.
[18:41] Okay, so that would be my view on this is not to admit this into the record at this time.
[18:47] Thank you.
[18:48] Mr. Chair, I would support Commissioner Wessondorf's suggestion.
[18:53] Thank you.
[18:54] Hey, last round. There is a May 27, 2016 letter from Trump Peterson.
[19:00] Vice President, GCC Energy, the Daniel Murray, LePlatta County, Senior Planner,
[19:04] regarding GCC information on King 1.
[19:09] Once that letter was distributed, I did receive a response
[19:13] for a Mr. Danielson dated May 30th, 2016,
[19:19] regarding GCC King 1 discussing Mr. Peterson's letter
[19:22] of May 27 on King 1.
[19:25] If I may, if the board allows the letter for Mr. Peterson
[19:31] to become part of the record, then the letter for Mr. Danielson
[19:34] should be admitted as well.
[19:36] So, Mr. Smith, do you have a position on these?
[19:38] Mr. Smith, does object to the inclusion of these documents
[19:41] because they specifically contradict
[19:43] a proposed finding that would be funding number seven,
[19:46] which knows that this class delay needs permit
[19:49] for the King II coal mines specifically does not consider
[19:52] or include any land uses associated with King I coal mine?
[19:55] I believe both documents are in their entirety
[19:58] dealing with separate land use from county staff's position.
[20:02] Dr. Danielson's in Robins?
[20:05] Yes, we received Mr. Peterson's letter Friday evening after working hours.
[20:11] We don't object to it being part of the record as long as my reply of yesterday is also
[20:16] part of the record.
[20:18] Why?
[20:20] We agree with county staff that these are documents which are not relevant because it's for
[20:24] a separate land use.
[20:25] However, if that is an issue in the hearing today, which we understand that the opponents
[20:29] and time to make it, then we feel that both documents ought to be included.
[20:36] Brad, the rebuttal issue yet again.
[20:38] That's how it looks to me.
[20:40] Thank you.
[20:42] We'll wait for that time then.
[20:44] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think we're done.
[21:05] Thank you, Mr. Danjeson.
[21:08] I mean, sorry.
[21:11] Thank you.
[21:14] Please proceed.
[21:16] Thank you.
[21:16] Daniel Murray County Planning Department all introduced the county staff before I begin.
[21:22] June Davis is the Public Works Director, Damian Pruduto, is the Planning Department, Community
[21:28] Development Services Director, Adam Smith is the Assistant Accounting Attorney,
[21:36] I'll get
[21:37] underway.
[21:39] Do you mind switching the screens?
[21:45] Chairman Blake, very clearly outlined a format for today.
[21:48] I'll give you a quick overview of my presentation.
[21:51] I'll speak to background.
[21:52] are analysis areas of concern and as with most projects or all projects I will provide a recommendation.
[21:59] Our discussion today, our presentation will be both big picture as well as very detailed at times.
[22:06] So we're going to be transitioning between those lines of thinking.
[22:10] And I'm going to be doing all the presenting for the county so you get to hear me for the next hour or so.
[22:15] But I am assured that during Q&A you will hear from all of staff at some point.
[22:22] Just to give us some context, King II is in the western portion of the county.
[22:29] Zooming in further, it is in an area west of State Highway 140.
[22:34] It's behind Hespers Mountain.
[22:37] And I think one of the values of this slide, which we can return to, is the network of county roads.
[22:43] You see county road north 120 in green.
[22:45] You see county road 120 south, which cuts roughly halfway in this image.
[22:51] and then county road 1119, which travels all the way to county with 140 at the
[22:59] township of Klein.
[23:03] So this is an image of the king to site. It's in a drainage to
[23:07] hay gulch. It's roughly 26 acres, and there are 416 acres of below ground mining activity.
[23:15] And I'm going to elaborate on the below ground just a moment, but this is the aerial of the site.
[23:23] So, some brief history on this project. In 2006, the county determined that we did not have jurisdiction over the mine, given its location on state land board land.
[23:33] In 2010, that determination was reversed, and GCC was notified of the need for a Class II land use permit. In 2012, GCC submitted their application, and that has been the subject to review today.
[23:45] It's been referenced at previous meetings that there are roughly 43 technical studies.
[23:51] That number has only grown since the Planning Commission.
[23:55] These studies touch upon all aspects of the project.
[23:58] There have been six neighborhood meetings.
[24:00] There has been formation of various citizen groups.
[24:03] A abundant public notice and engagement with landowners.
[24:06] And seven Planning Commission meetings since the fall of 2014, and including one up until
[24:12] just a month ago.
[24:14] A pivotal moment in this process occurred at the March 3rd Planning Commission hearing, where
[24:20] the Planning Department's recommendation was for denial.
[24:23] This was based upon disagreement on several areas.
[24:27] One was the maximum number of trucks.
[24:30] At which time the phase road improvements would be completed.
[24:34] We can refer to that as the 80 versus 100.
[24:37] I think the conversation is now shifted to the 80 versus 55, but nevertheless the number
[24:41] of trucks was an outstanding item between the county and the applicant and that was the basis
[24:47] for our recommendation two months ago. Second was the absence of date specifics for road improvements.
[24:53] The applicant wanted the road improvements to be contingent upon actions of other agencies,
[24:59] specifically the BLM. Our recommendation was for those phases to be date specific and we have
[25:05] achieve that outcome.
[25:07] There are other items that we're outstanding at the time,
[25:10] such as word languages in terms of the RIA,
[25:13] which have all been addressed.
[25:16] Ultimately, the Planning Commission provided direction
[25:19] to staff and GCC to go and resolve these issues.
[25:23] The parties were a lot of two weeks for that discussion
[25:26] and to return to the Planning Commission on April 14th.
[25:29] We did successfully come to terms on the road improvement
[25:31] agreement, the RIA, at the April 14th hearing staff was able to report GCC's agreement
[25:38] to the 80 trucks, as well as those dates specific improvements.
[25:43] This does not altogether satisfy the public concerns which were heard in April and they
[25:46] will be heard again today.
[25:52] So the board, you're very familiar with the Class 2 Land Use Permit.
[25:56] I'm going to take a moment and explain what the road improvement agreement does, the RIA, and
[26:02] why we're utilizing that mechanism.
[26:04] GCC is an existing use, and therefore it's necessary to bring GCC into compliance with the
[26:12] land use code through a series of phases. These phases require road improvements with corresponding
[26:18] truck limits. Unlike other proposals where the development is only on paper when we approve
[26:24] it or act on it, GCC exists today and it is an operation today, and therefore the RIA is the
[26:34] Although the RI is a flexible tool when it comes to timing, we are upholding the standards
[26:39] of the land use code, specifically the road standards, those standards are being met.
[26:45] The only variation here, the only variable we have to work with is timing, because they
[26:50] are in fact in existing use, the timing, in this case, is not the norm.
[26:58] Distant with a typical project, I'm going to touch upon water sewer access and other elements
[27:02] On the left side of the screen, if going through my presentation on the right side, these are topics you would like to be addressed, we're happy to do so, but they are not slides specifically, waste water parking, hydrogeology, subsidence, as well as the 12 cents maintenance fee of the RIA, but I'm happy to elaborate on those and any other items that you have.
[27:24] So I'm using this slide again to actually orient us.
[27:27] This is the red square surrounding the state land board land.
[27:32] It's the 26 acres.
[27:34] It's much bigger, but 26 acres is what GCC occupies.
[27:38] So keep that image in mind.
[27:40] And I've intentionally put a very busy slide up in front of you
[27:44] to demonstrate that this is an example of the different jurisdictions
[27:49] at play. In red, you see the Colorado Division of Reclamation and Mining Safety, as it relates
[27:57] to King 1, on the southern portion of the road, and on the northern portion of 120, we see
[28:03] this is that same red square that's King 2. In blue, you see GCCs existing mining area, and that is
[28:14] the Office of Service Mining Reclamation and Enforcement is the blue outline, and then green
[28:21] is the Bureau of Land Management Area, which GCC is currently exploring lease modification.
[28:27] What's not shown here up to the north would be the 24 locations at which GCC is also doing
[28:33] exploratory boring. They are drilling to analyze the composition of the ground in any available
[28:41] call. If that exploration is successful, GCC will have to go through what's known as a
[28:47] least by application, which is a whole new need for process. The purpose of this slide
[28:51] is to focus us in terms of what we are discussing and what we're not discussing. Although the
[28:56] county does have cooperating agency status with the BLM relative to their lease modification,
[29:01] the areas in green, that is not the subject of today's review. We are not here to talk about
[29:06] or the need of a process.
[29:08] We are focused almost entirely on the surface impacts as it relates to this mind and the
[29:13] road.
[29:14] Areas where we have some overlapping review for below ground have to do with groundwater
[29:19] and vibration.
[29:27] Moving on to proof of water, as with all projects, the demand has been estimated by GCC to be roughly
[29:33] two and a half acre feet for domestic use, that's for employees, and dust suppression within
[29:38] the mine accounts for roughly 28 acre feet. So the total is 40 acre feet is what's been proposed
[29:45] as GCC water demand. Their supply comes from three sources. First being the Plata River
[29:50] diversion, that is not a water use that's being put to use by GCC. They do have that option,
[29:57] but it is a very junior right and it's not our understanding that they're actually such a...
[30:01] Ground water wells are also part of their – we're part of the proposal, however, they have not been constructed and therefore they have not been analyzed as part of the proof of water.
[30:10] The proof of water is coming from the Huntington Aglant Dryup.
[30:16] It is comprised of two different water rights.
[30:20] One is 11 acre feet in a 2007 water right and there is a additional 40 acre feet in
[30:28] a 2015 water right case which is pending water court.
[30:33] The total 44 acres of agland dry up and the substitute water supply plan because but GCC currently has secured to allow them to utilize these two water rights.
[30:46] Specifically, the 44 acre feet is the subject of the substitute water supply plan just this last February was approved.
[30:53] So the total water supply is 51 acres and those are of acre feet and those are the only approved water sources for this use.
[31:02] Delivery in storage is via the hay-gold ditch and the Huntington lateral.
[31:08] GCCC is currently constructing a new reservoir for roughly 40 acre feet of water.
[31:13] This is three and a half acres of surface area, 10 to 15 feet deep.
[31:18] It's a gravity fed system through a six inch pipe from the mesa down to King 2.
[31:25] This is probably as a good time as any to speak to Ag Dry Up,
[31:29] and concerns that may be associated with that.
[31:31] One document that we have is the Fort Lewis Mesa Planning Group,
[31:37] speaks to concerns with Ag Dry Up.
[31:39] And in that sense, I would also offer the alternatives.
[31:45] If they're not going to do Ag Drive, it would either be water hauling, which is not
[31:49] an accepted long-term option for the land use code or well-water.
[31:53] Well, water, GCC has chosen not to pursue because it was their understanding, I can't speak
[31:59] for GCC, but it was commented during the last year and a half that there was a lot of public
[32:05] and siren with drying down that much water from wells.
[32:09] So they elect to not choose to go that route
[32:12] and is utilizing the irrigation water.
[32:16] This is least water, so there's the potential
[32:18] that it could ultimately return back to.
[32:21] Ag irrigation use in the future.
[32:23] The currently use machine is drying upon that 51 acre feet
[32:27] as their proof of water.
[32:30] It is a water, it will be a water decreed water
[32:34] right through water court.
[32:37] Moving on to roads.
[32:39] This is an image that shows the current road.
[32:43] It's known to be a farm to market road.
[32:45] There is no mistaking that it is a substandard road
[32:48] for the 66.4-mile segment of County Road 120 North.
[32:53] As it exists today, it serves the general public,
[32:56] as well as GCC.
[32:59] Given GCC's impacts, they are required
[33:02] to improve the road to county standards.
[33:03] In 2014, GCC traffic accounted for approximately 99% of the loading on the road by weight and about 67% of the volume of the road.
[33:15] To mitigate these impacts, GCC has interim measures in place which all elaborate on until they fulfill their responsibility to improve the road to county standards.
[33:25] This includes watering of the road to suppress dust, as evident in this photo, as well as reduce speeds, shown on the right-hand side of the photo.
[33:32] Background traffic, 35, truck traffic, 25.
[33:40] Road standard, which the road will be improved, is typical for projects of this traffic
[33:47] count.
[33:47] That includes two 12-foot travel lanes, so a 24-foot wide road chaved, three-foot shoulders
[33:53] on either side.
[33:55] They can be gravel.
[33:56] This image here shows paved shoulders.
[33:58] It would be a 60-foot ride of way and the horizontal and vertical alignment would meet county
[34:03] road standards.
[34:04] that is essentially the tightness of the turns in your village down the road.
[34:11] Most of the road, it's an example of a road built to county standard and also in challenging
[34:16] terrain.
[34:22] I'm making a good time, so I might have been on a little, or we're going to spend the
[34:26] oak of our conversation today.
[34:28] This is a table that we created.
[34:31] It is the road improvement agreement schedule and the truck limits.
[34:35] I'm going to go line by line.
[34:36] What I've done is take, take in that same schedule and we've tried to do some color coordination here and show what the proposed
[34:45] Road improvement schedule looks like.
[34:48] Phase one would be temporary pavement adjacent to two residences on counter road 120.
[34:53] This is approximately one mile, it's shown in pink.
[34:56] It's just the line of pink.
[35:02] During this time, the truck limit would be 80 trucks, so that's 160 trips.
[35:06] We are, for the most part, we will refer to a number of trucks, but that number is
[35:09] electronically doubled when the truck goes in and leaves.
[35:13] There are two key aspects to phase one. First is dust mitigation.
[35:17] Our focus is on controlling dust.
[35:20] Contrary to what's been stated, the county is not avoiding dust monitoring due to its complexities.
[35:26] The fact of the matter is, it is a very complex matter, which is why there are
[35:29] dualing professional recommendations surrounding air quality modeling.
[35:34] But we believe in focusing on treating the dust, not monitoring the dust.
[35:39] Treatment includes paving the one-mile stretch to significantly reduce dust as the first
[35:44] road improvement.
[35:46] This is scheduled to occur in 2016, and it's been communicated to me that could occur
[35:50] as soon as June 1st.
[35:53] Another way of stating this is by the time that the modeling equipment is in place the
[35:57] road will be paved.
[35:58] The specifications for the road paving include geotechnical boring and grading, application of a 3-inch hot mix pavement, 24 feet wide, in the existing road alignment, you'll be striped as well, for the remaining 3-mile portion, so from the pink line to king 2.
[36:19] The road will remain gravel, however there are no residences on that portion of the road, and there will be continued application of water, as well as MagCloride as needed to manage dust.
[36:31] Visual monitoring and the application of water and items as MagCloride is an accepted practice of CDPHG air quality control commission.
[36:43] This application of the temporary paving is entirely different than the application in this
[36:48] past fall.
[36:49] That was known as recycled asphalt.
[36:51] It did not perform as intended due to the time of year, possibly even due to the application.
[36:57] But this treatment is a three inch layer of asphalt.
[37:02] It's my understanding that that can, as being designed to last up to a three-year period,
[37:08] although that's not its intended.
[37:11] life time. So it is a much higher standard than what was applied in the last fall.
[37:17] The second aspect of this first phase is the availability of buffering to two residences
[37:22] along the road. The wave engineering report documents the ability for a four to seven
[37:30] decibel reduction of noise after the introduction of a buffering wall. These buffering walls,
[37:37] the two of them would be located on private property and should a landowner wish to have that
[37:42] buffering wall constructed sooner. That is available to them. It can also be constructed to coincide
[37:47] with phase two, which I'll get to next.
[37:59] November 2017 is the conclusion of phase two. That is
[38:03] to permanently reconstruct the two-mile section here shown in blue. The temporary asphalt comes
[38:10] up, and the road will be reconstructed to county standards.
[38:15] That is a two-mile stretch from the bottom of the hill all the way to King 1.
[38:20] This improves the road adjacent to three residences.
[38:23] The potential for better alignment of Roberts Ridge Road, which serves additional properties
[38:28] up on higher points, improved line of sight, and turning movements
[38:32] at constrained corners such as Wilsey's corner.
[38:35] Phase 2 also includes the widening down here.
[38:38] This is a small section of blue.
[38:41] This area is known as the Narrows.
[38:43] We've targeted these areas as areas that specifically need improvements at a high priority.
[38:50] Phase 3, also 2017, next year, includes the reconstruction of the 90 degree corner.
[38:58] This would be for improved alignment and turning movements.
[39:01] It's about a two-tenths of a mile section of road.
[39:04] So, once phases two and three are completed to full county standards, these are not temporary or interim,
[39:11] with the completion of those improvements, seven out of eight constrained areas on this road
[39:16] will have been improved to county standards.
[39:20] At that time, the GCC would be allowed to increase up to 100 trucks per day.
[39:30] The question has been raised, why not limit any increase in trucks until all the improvements are made?
[39:36] And the RRA is a significant commitment for GCC.
[39:41] This schedule demonstrates compliance with the land use code.
[39:44] It's reasonable to allow an increase of trucks proportional to the road improvements.
[39:49] Furthermore, it's an incentive-based schedule.
[39:51] If GCC wants to achieve the higher number of trucks, the 120, they can expedite this schedule to do that.
[39:58] The question has also been raised, why is there a gap in 2018?
[40:02] Why not require all the improvements be done sooner even as soon as 2020? Could it technically
[40:08] be done faster possibly? However, the county believes this is a reasonable time frame
[40:13] to bring an existing use into compliance. I'll also note what is perceived to be a gap in
[40:19] 2018 is actually an accomplishment because if you recall there was significant impacts between
[40:26] the county in GCC. And what was offered by GCC was to move phase 3 up to 2017. That was
[40:33] originally parked in 2018. But in order to achieve this agreement, they offered to move
[40:41] that phase up. And as I state, that is a highly constrained corner and a high priority
[40:46] for improvement.
[40:51] Phase 4. By the end of 2020, this includes full reconstruction, full depth
[40:58] reconstruction as is known for the first 2.3 miles, and that's this area here, a shade
[41:04] of red, depending on what's mean. This would be the full length of the road that is paved
[41:12] today minus the 90 degree corner because that would have already been improved the year before
[41:16] two years before, and the truck limit during this time would be 100 trucks.
[41:24] Final phase to be
[41:25] completed by 2022, results in the widening and regrating and paving of the last two miles
[41:29] shown in green.
[41:31] Upon completion, the mind can achieve an average of 120 trucks,
[41:34] that's 240 ADT.
[41:37] Truck limits are monthly averages, and with all stages,
[41:40] there's a 20% allowance to increase trucks to account for weather.
[41:44] So there will be higher days, there'll be lower days,
[41:46] on average they have to equal either the 80 to the 100 or the 120.
[41:51] It's also based on a six-day week, no hauling on Sundays.
[41:58] I'm going to move on, but I'm happy to return to this slide
[42:01] in any of these if you have questions about the phasing.
[42:06] So with respect to compatibility, there are six criteria in which we evaluate four of which
[42:10] applies specifically to the importance of these date specifics for the road improvements.
[42:16] Traffic will not create a safety hazard criterion A. The road is substandard with respect to
[42:21] with and surface in alignment that's been explained even and shown visually with the slides.
[42:27] These road standards are very prescriptive. They are intended to achieve safety.
[42:32] This is also a compatibility criteria, with dates specific road improvements and corresponding
[42:37] truck limits, the project now satisfies not only the road standards, but our compatibility
[42:42] standard for safety.
[42:45] Criterion B, the development will not have a negative impact on neighbors.
[42:51] Similarly, having put forth known dates, the satisfies two areas, because back to the ability
[42:58] to mitigate dust in a very timely manner on the 3.9-mile section of gravel, as I mentioned
[43:06] the best remedy for dust is to pave it.
[43:09] We now have certainty as to when those improvements will occur, including the summer and
[43:13] the subsequent phases.
[43:15] Secondly, noise.
[43:17] The paved road cuts down on noise that's evident in the consultant reports.
[43:21] This is a primary quality of life issue and can occur on a timely and now predictable basis.
[43:27] There is a condition that road noise will not exceed 86 decibels as measured 50 feet from the edge of the road.
[43:33] And that is in reference to what we have been able to draw from state statutes as a noise level.
[43:43] Criterion C and F, I'll speak together and that's to protect views as well as privacy.
[43:50] The road improvement schedule that I just walk through, it does include the ability for noise
[43:56] and visual buffering to be introduced at two residences.
[43:59] This is a key component of compatibility and what's changed since March is that we now
[44:04] know the exact date at which those improvements will begin and they're going to be available
[44:10] up until and through phase five.
[44:12] So a landowner can elect to have that buffering wall introduced sooner or later.
[44:18] Criterion E, with respect to character of the neighborhood, mining has existed in the
[44:23] haygulch since 1941, clearly in established use and part of the area.
[44:29] At the same time, the current use is at a scale not seen before, and the objective of this
[44:33] land use permit is to mitigate those impacts.
[44:37] These mitigation measures are intended to achieve compatibility.
[44:41] These include the reduction of speed, as I've mentioned, for safety, that the trucks will
[44:45] Monday through Saturday, the 80% of trucking will occur between daylight hours, 6 am to 10 pm
[44:52] to allow our reprieve at night and they'll be no hauling on Sundays.
[44:57] We now achieved an agreement.
[45:00] Upon the schedule of road improvements and the mitigation measures which enable the determination of compatibility.
[45:09] One criteria I didn't get to was D and that was protection of groundwater. This will be a requirement. It is also a requirement of CDR on S.
[45:19] And given this overlap between county and the state, the county is referring to state regulations and the monitoring of groundwater impacts through what's known as technical revision 26.
[45:29] That is, a document that the state is currently reviewing and speaks to the water quality or groundwater monitoring plan.
[45:40] A summary of this monitoring plan includes four groundwater monitoring locations and there's three wells at each location.
[45:47] The well clusters consist of one well drilled in the manifold formation, above the coal seam, one well drilled into the coal seam and one drilled below the coal seam.
[45:57] The monitoring will collect data for a full set of analysts, both upstream and downstream of the mind.
[46:05] Today, the hydrologic studies have concluded that there are no linkages between the mining activity and groundwater pollution.
[46:12] Nevertheless, monitoring will continue as regulated by CDRMS.
[46:18] Should the board have additional concerns on groundwater monitoring, or the hydrologic conditions,
[46:24] The consultants are here to speak to that matter in more detail.
[46:35] Arguably the most debated portion of the project, and that is the truck limits on the road.
[46:42] So a couple of clarifications before I get into this.
[46:45] This is GCC's chosen route to use the Northern 120.
[46:48] Should GCC have or decide in the future to put forth an alternative road, such as a hall road, or even a loop route,
[46:55] we would revisit these numbers, that would be a major amendment to the project.
[47:02] But we are basing our analysis based on what GCC has chosen as their route.
[47:07] Second, these are trucks, as I mentioned, and they are based on a monthly average with a 20% maximum.
[47:15] So I'm going to begin by looking at the 120.
[47:17] That's the upper limit. Once all road improvements are completed and worked down to the 180.
[47:21] in the 80.
[47:24] I'm going to lay out the factors that we use to arrive with these numbers.
[47:27] Why we support the 120.
[47:29] Here you see data points on the left.
[47:32] 2006, GCC was at 55 trucks, 2010-59 and so on, that number increased up until 2014-15
[47:39] around 94 trucks, average.
[47:44] These proposal, originally on the right side of your screen, was for 156.
[47:48] So now we see our spectrum being framed out for us.
[47:51] Fortunately, the 156 is actually off the table.
[47:54] That is not GCC's proposal, although it was what we use to arrive at our conclusion, our recommendation.
[48:02] The next data point I'll introduce would be the 100.
[48:05] This is the number that's been recommended by the North 120 group as the long-term level.
[48:12] The hay gulch, citizen advisory panel, cap, as it's known, recommends 144 as the long-term
[48:20] max.
[48:22] GCC's 2012 proposal, as we received it originally, was for 120.
[48:29] This was the original number, and this is the number that we remain at in terms of what
[48:33] is an appropriate long-term level of trucks.
[48:38] We remain consistent with that number from throughout the entire process.
[48:44] The road, once improved, can accommodate this volume of truck safely with respect to the road standards.
[48:50] To say that differently is, is the road will be engineered to accommodate the road,
[48:55] this number of trucks, and the answer is yes.
[48:59] The number keeps a balance of an industrial use in a rural setting.
[49:02] Both uses have existed historically.
[49:05] Two last points with respect to the 120.
[49:08] This is allowed once all road improvements are in place.
[49:11] So that means issues of dust, the 90 degree corner, the narrow lines of sight have all been resolved.
[49:17] And the 120 must be considered in the context of all mitigation measures.
[49:22] I've touched upon them before, but I'll just recap.
[49:24] No hauling on Sundays, 20% daily limit, 8% of the trucks during 6am to 10pm.
[49:30] The noise limitation of 86 decibels speed limit of 25 and 35 on the respective surface of gravel and pavement
[49:39] 10 mile an hour at residences where there is currently gravel
[49:43] Engine mufflering on all vehicles a direct dial phone number for unsafe driving. It's posted on the back of
[49:50] All vehicle numbers are posted on the back so to allow there to be easy reporting
[49:55] There is continued dust suppression
[49:58] And there are other improvements that will be made through the course of the phase road improvements.
[50:04] As I mentioned, no stopping along the roadway to ensure conflict between.
[50:14] Given the compatibility standards, this is what the planning staff determines to be an appropriate maximum level of trucks.
[50:22] So now, why is 80 so important?
[50:26] This is the lower number.
[50:28] This number is lower than both the 2015 and GCC's 2016 levels.
[50:33] So it does represent a scaling back of existing operations.
[50:37] Keep in mind, even as of March, early March,
[50:41] GCC was adamant that the numbers should be 100.
[50:44] The county did not agree and that was the basis of our denial of time.
[50:49] Holding at 80 until phases one, two and three are complete as I said addresses seven out of eight constrained areas on the road.
[50:56] That is the 90-degree corner, that's pavement at three residences,
[51:00] Wilty's barn and the Narrows, two blind corners.
[51:04] All of this combined with metamate is combined with mitigation measures I just mentioned.
[51:11] The county arrived at 80 trucks as a baseline from 2013.
[51:15] This is the point that we recommend the project returned to until the phases 1, 2, and 3 are complete.
[51:23] This is derived at based upon the planning process itself.
[51:27] In 2014, the planning process changed significantly.
[51:31] This is evident by the level of public engagement which ensued.
[51:36] During the course of dialogue, it was expressed that a year ago was tolerable.
[51:41] Therefore, the logical baseline is the period before 2014 to return to 2013 where there are approximately 80 trucks and use that is the baseline.
[51:53] Looking at this a different way, let's compare 80 to 55 as proposed by others.
[51:59] I would like to offer that 55 also correlates to a point in time.
[52:02] It's no different than our identification of a point in time.
[52:05] We've identified 80, which is 2013, based on what the record shows occurred in 2014.
[52:11] This is very clearly in 2014, a change in the planning process.
[52:16] It's arguably where the scales of compatibility tipped.
[52:21] The county recommends going back to the level before that change occurred.
[52:26] This has been a four year planning process.
[52:29] The past two years are quite different than the first two years.
[52:32] That distinction, that change that occurred in 2014 has informed our recommendation, and that is why we recommend the baseline of 2013.
[52:45] The second component of the 80 is analysis of safety.
[52:49] The public works director has concluded the road is safe at this level, with the mitigation measures in place.
[52:55] This is a memo 50 attachment number 58 in your packet.
[52:59] The county and the public via their consultant are also evaluating the same data we are.
[53:05] We're looking at the same substandard road analyzing the same accident data.
[53:10] The result is two different interpretations of that data.
[53:14] The same factual basis exists for 80 as it does 55.
[53:19] Once we've established the 120 in the 80, it's actually just a very logical middle point for the 100.
[53:26] There's actually not much more science to the 100 than that.
[53:30] It is the point in between the phases and it's a point in which GCC can increase trucks
[53:37] proportionate to road improvements.
[53:41] So keep in mind, GCC does control the timing of these road improvements and if they want
[53:44] to advance a phase, they can achieve that through expediting road improvements.
[53:50] In conclusion, the road improvement agreement now includes GCC's agreement to these limits
[53:56] that correspond with phased road improvements.
[53:59] The project is considered to meet the standards for compatibility,
[54:04] not concluding.
[54:08] Getting close though, so what I'm going to do actually is wrap up
[54:12] in the last two slides, talking about areas of concern.
[54:15] These are areas I suspect that we're going to revisit during the course of this hearing.
[54:19] The first one being final road design.
[54:22] What we have in the file in your packet is a conceptual level of plans.
[54:27] The county engineer has determined that the road is feasible, and that is that it can be built.
[54:33] The county does not recommend waiting six months or more to develop preliminary plans,
[54:38] or go out and secure right away for the entire 6.4 mile length of road.
[54:44] Our recommendation is due to the fact that the mind is existing.
[54:47] The county, the public, and GCC are all better served if there is a land use permit in place,
[54:53] in which we can regulate this use.
[54:54] That is what we are missing at this time.
[54:57] It creates clarity, creates predictability,
[55:03] except in this case,
[55:09] a second area of concern
[55:10] would be the use of condemnation for right-of-way.
[55:13] There are several points to make.
[55:15] First is that this is the last option.
[55:18] Once good-faith negotiations are unsuccessful,
[55:21] then right-of-way condemnation for some supply.
[55:34] Second, the RIA captures compliance with the Uniform Act.
[55:37] requires compliance with the Uniform Act, which is above and beyond the county's code.
[55:43] This will be substantial. There will be substantial discussions with the property owners,
[55:47] and we are providing the highest level of support for property owners through the application of the Uniform Act.
[55:55] The Uniform Act ensures that due process rights are protected.
[55:59] Third, we, the county, planning, staff, do not earn public works, do not take condemnation lightly.
[56:06] The county has only used condemnation once in the last 20 years, but when you have a project that must make road improvements in order to satisfy the code, you have to ensure there is a mechanism to achieve the necessary right of way.
[56:20] To put it differently, without the option for condemnation, there is no way to guarantee the road can be built to county standards, and therefore they would not be in compliance with their land use.
[56:30] Moving on, the buffering design, as I mentioned, the engineering reports documents the merit of buffering along the road, this is available to landowners immediately.
[56:44] Provided there is a land use permit GCC is prepared to work with landowners with their consent to introduce these buffering improvements.
[56:52] The design will be based upon professional engineering as well as landscape architect recommendations.
[56:57] We're not trying to shift the burden to the landowner in terms of what the final design should be.
[57:02] Determing the adequacy of mitigation measures is a key function of the planning department.
[57:08] And since the planning commission in April, we've actually introduced a new condition,
[57:14] number 22, that allows the county to retain a third party, so not GCC and not the county,
[57:21] but a third party to comment on the adequacy
[57:25] and efficacy of the buffering plan that would be at GCC's expense.
[57:32] Second, or fourth, how should I say?
[57:35] Looking at routing traffic to the south.
[57:39] This has been analyzed both in a short and long-term perspective.
[57:43] GCC is going to speak to the analysis of all the options
[57:47] of which the southern roads were analyzed.
[57:50] The county has also analyzed that option.
[57:52] And we've concluded that the southern route is not the preferred long-term or even short-term option.
[57:58] This is due to the density of affected residences.
[58:02] There are roughly 20 driveways along the northern route,
[58:06] 70 driveways along the southern route.
[58:08] If you were to choose a loop route now you're impacting 90 driveways.
[58:12] There are also five intersections along the southern road.
[58:16] There are no intersections on Canada Road 120 North.
[58:18] There's an even steeper grade than the hill at which has already been granted variants.
[58:25] And the Southern Route is a school bus route. Combined with fire department comments, our recommendation
[58:31] and conclusion is that the Southern Route is not advantageous and the Northern Route is preferred.
[58:38] If there's consideration to do this in a short term, we've also analyzed it and come to the same conclusion.
[58:44] it's not desired for whole, whole trucks, but we have introduced a new condition since the planning
[58:51] commission that would require employees to be routed to the South during construction. So
[58:57] it does remove some of the traffic loading on the road during the construction phases. There's
[59:04] a certain fairness to sending trucks to the South that is acknowledged, but the concept
[59:09] of concentrating impacts is an established planning principle. One that's also embedded in
[59:14] land you go to international gas regulations. For example, when drilling, it is required to concentrate
[59:22] up to four wells per section, rather than disperse them and build different roads and disperse
[59:27] the impacts. The rationale of being when you concentrate impacts, you can also have concentrated
[59:32] improvements.
[59:35] Moving on, instruction impacts. There will be impacts during construction. It is
[59:42] that there will be coal hauling as well as road construction occurring at the same time.
[59:48] This has to be managed.
[59:50] We're open to ideas on how to do that, such as riding employees to the south.
[59:55] There will be, and there is a condition for the construction traffic control.
[1:00:00] Full plans to be approved by the public works director to ensure that the most is being done.
[1:00:06] Second to last item is discussion of King 1, and it's disposal of rock from King 2.
[1:00:12] The question is, why are we not considering King 1?
[1:00:15] The land use code permits are specific to a location, it is very clear. King 1 is a separate land use permit regardless.
[1:00:24] This permitting process for King 2 is not intended to address waste material on another piece of property.
[1:00:31] Doing so would be inconsistent with the land use code and is beyond our current scope.
[1:00:36] That said, we put forth a finding that clearly clarifies that King 1 is not part of King 2, this land use permit.
[1:00:44] There's also a proposed condition that requires DCC to report the nature of what is occurring at the King 1 site.
[1:00:52] I'm sorry, yes, keen to say.
[1:00:55] The ability for a cease and cease disorder or establishment of a deadline to submit this forthcoming
[1:01:01] class two lanes permit for King one, it all exists.
[1:01:05] We do not need to condition that.
[1:01:07] That is a code enforcement action.
[1:01:08] We have all the ability to address that concern through a separate lane use permit.
[1:01:15] The concerns about toxicity and water quality monitoring, we're not minimizing any of that,
[1:01:19] But we are recognizing that needs to be addressed in a different land use permit with a corresponding public process.
[1:01:27] And lastly, the emergency response plan, I would actually offer to you that since the Planning Commission,
[1:01:32] and since the publication of the staff report, we have a new condition and additional condition number 29,
[1:01:39] in which the parties, GCC, the county and our EMS entities, as well as the public,
[1:01:45] convene meeting to discuss the emergency response plan.
[1:01:50] This was one of the seven items that has been revised since the planning commission, however,
[1:01:56] not to the satisfaction of the public.
[1:01:58] And so we have introduced, if the Board so chooses, we can put forth a new mission that
[1:02:03] requires the parties to convene a meeting and continue to refine the emergency response plan.
[1:02:15] So now I look at good.
[1:02:18] Compliance with the land use code is both quantitative and qualitative.
[1:02:21] And one hand, you have prescribed standards, for example, the road.
[1:02:27] XADT equals x standards.
[1:02:29] And this proposal meets those specifications.
[1:02:32] We also have qualitative standards in evaluating if a use is considered to be compatible.
[1:02:38] In this case, the main question is, what is an appropriate number of trucks?
[1:02:43] This is not prescribed.
[1:02:44] If it were easy enough for an engineer to look at our code and say,
[1:02:47] This number of trucks, this is what you should do, and that's not how it works.
[1:02:52] We know what standard to build the road.
[1:02:54] However, the planning process has vetted what we feel is the appropriate number of trucks.
[1:03:01] This process has unfolded over the last four years, inclusive of today.
[1:03:06] In March of this year, there was no agreement on the terms of the RRA,
[1:03:10] due to differences on those truck limits and the absence of day specific road improvements.
[1:03:14] at that time, the county was compelled to recommend denial.
[1:03:18] Now, having achieved agreement on base-specific road improvements,
[1:03:21] the corresponding truck limits, and the host of mitigation measures,
[1:03:25] the project has been determined to be a complaint with the county code.
[1:03:28] That was the basis of the planning commission's recommendations for approval.
[1:03:34] Similarly, that was the basis of the planning commission's recommendation for approval.
[1:03:37] And similarly, we recommend the board also approve of the project based on the findings and commissions in the staff report.
[1:03:46] Can
[1:03:49] I
[1:03:53] have a question for you, Mr. Murray, with a staff like the, we've established the record,
[1:04:02] but we typically have a, you typically request that, how we adequately established a record of your
[1:04:08] for your findings and conditions?
[1:04:11] Probably feel the need.
[1:04:13] Bring materials on.
[1:04:15] Well, I believe we did that at the beginning.
[1:04:17] I
[1:04:21] expect a lot of these questions,
[1:04:30] and I can scroll through any of these slides if it helps.
[1:04:36] Thank you, Mr. Murray.
[1:04:40] Questions for staff?
[1:04:48] I'll jump in there.
[1:04:51] I've got a lot of questions.
[1:04:54] Some are clarification, some you've answered,
[1:05:00] but some of these will be pretty focused.
[1:05:03] But on your staff report talks about GCC agreement to monitor subsidence, though that's not required.
[1:05:12] Is that true?
[1:05:15] It's correct.
[1:05:17] The annual rate for the record.
[1:05:18] It's being addressed in two ways when it comes to monitoring.
[1:05:23] And that is through the ground water levels, which was a recommendation of one of our consultants.
[1:05:29] So ground water levels that the TR26 I mentioned will be reported.
[1:05:33] And it also be a compliance with the CDRMS regulations for surveyed monuments.
[1:05:44] What is included is essentially a blanket condition in which GCC needs to comply with CDRMS
[1:05:51] regulations at a greater distance to ensure that subsidence doesn't occur as it do to
[1:05:57] of the mining. And so the GCC is not required to do it under DRMS requirements, but for
[1:06:07] purposes of compatibility and mitigating impacts, that's what the thousand feet was introduced
[1:06:16] by the Vista de Oral subdivision. CDR MS requires only a 300 foot distance and GCC can speak
[1:06:24] to the subtleties of this.
[1:06:26] That's measured horizontally when mining activity occurs below ground.
[1:06:32] Ultimately, it often resulted
[1:06:34] at 600 foot distance because it occurs horizontally diagonally.
[1:06:39] So 600 feet would have been one initial threshold.
[1:06:42] GCC has agreed to honor the same 1000 foot recommendation
[1:06:46] of the Vistador group to apply CDRMS standards
[1:06:50] to that much higher of a setback distance.
[1:06:53] Okay, then I guess I don't ask the county attorney to help me make this record correct, but I want to make sure that it's clear that thousand feet is tied to compatibility and it's not voluntarily being done by GCC.
[1:07:11] I'm a Smith County attorney's office, that is correct, because of compatibility concerns
[1:07:17] where basically piggybacking CDRMS regulations, applying those regulations to dwell in
[1:07:23] units all the way out to a thousand feet instead of CDRMS's lower standard.
[1:07:29] Thank you.
[1:07:30] I want to talk about noise a little bit, that we got certainly got different types of noise
[1:07:36] information in the reports and different recommended standards.
[1:07:40] It sounds like from the county's perspective, 86 decibels, 50 feet from the road is the
[1:07:46] one we're operating off of.
[1:07:48] Is that correct?
[1:07:49] That is the condition in the recommended condition.
[1:07:52] So from a compatibility standpoint, 86 decibels, my understanding is when you're not being
[1:07:58] injured by the sound.
[1:07:59] Is that, is there a sound person I should hold off on this question with?
[1:08:04] Certainly is and so what we go ahead. I'll go ahead and get it. I'll tell you what my concern is
[1:08:12] If 86 decibels is the measure from when damage occurs. I don't think that's the right measure for someone's home
[1:08:22] so
[1:08:23] There are other things the HUD standard of 50 decibels and they're a company and things about average
[1:08:29] Daytime averages and all these things that are way outside of my league
[1:08:33] But just from my own observations and kind of looking at comparative scales of noise and so on,
[1:08:44] I can't imagine that 86 is the definition of compatible.
[1:08:49] So I'm interested down the line of hearing from people about that issue as what level of decibels is a compatible, is compatible for residential exposure.
[1:09:01] Similarly, on the buffering plan, this is a more general question, but both the buffering
[1:09:07] and the dust and maybe other things had to do with modeling.
[1:09:13] What happens at the modeling wasn't right.
[1:09:16] We put in place conditions that say, hey, if you do this type of buffering, you have
[1:09:22] implied, but in the end, it seemed to me reading the different reports that buffering,
[1:09:28] there's some variation or some range of error, so to speak, in predicting what the buffering
[1:09:42] would do, or what the error quality, or what the dust mitigation, how it would occur.
[1:09:48] So what happens if we miss and it turns out that gosh, we thought this would work, but it
[1:09:55] didn't.
[1:09:56] Commissioner Damien Paduto, I just wanted to reference that number one, the applicants
[1:10:02] professional wave engineering which performed a thorough analysis on this will be communicating
[1:10:10] I'm presuming for the applicant, but the county also hired a professional to evaluate that study
[1:10:15] and those models, a moaning martin was the county's professional who we hired specialist and that
[1:10:26] report is also connected and they concurred with the wave engineering report analysis.
[1:10:31] And I hope I know that doesn't directly answer all the details of your question, but it should
[1:10:37] address the modeling concern.
[1:11:13] Thank you.
[1:11:18] And has everything been done with respect to the, there were some outstanding issues that
[1:11:22] GCC was required to do between the BOC, the planning commission meeting and our meeting
[1:11:29] today have all of those been done.
[1:11:34] Mike is working.
[1:11:35] So there were seven conditions that the applicant needed to satisfy before the board today.
[1:11:40] And yes, those items have been reviewed and determined to be compliant.
[1:11:45] Nevertheless, three items, which I'll explain, still carry over as conditions.
[1:11:52] For example, we introduced the third party consultant option for the buffering wall.
[1:11:57] That was a new development from one of those prior to BOSCCs.
[1:12:02] The emergency response plan, I mentioned we there's a new condition there.
[1:12:07] So, although we received information on the emergency response plan, it didn't satisfy entirely the public concerns, and so that one carried over.
[1:12:15] And then another example is San Juan Basin Health.
[1:12:19] They have provided an update as to the status of how they're improving their wastewater treatment,
[1:12:25] but there's also a condition that carries over that they need to continue to be in compliance with San Juan Basin Health Standards.
[1:12:31] Is there a general condition that might have been stuck in different places but they be compliant with all their permits whether it's DRMS or with BLM or other regulatory bodies?
[1:12:47] I'm Smith County Attorney's Office.
[1:12:49] No, there is not a condition that is requiring compliance with the hierarchy, the other layers of permits that the GCC is required to obtain.
[1:12:59] We are trusting those other agencies to enforce and determine when GCC may or may not be in compliance with their own permits.
[1:13:09] Okay.
[1:13:10] That might be a point of discussion later.
[1:13:12] There are other situations where we make a condition of compliance in our permit, one of compliance with other jurisdictions.
[1:13:19] We do it right now with San Juan Basin Health.
[1:13:22] As Daniel just said, we also require with respect to marijuana because we don't we know the other agencies may not take action as quickly as as we would like so just a heads up that that's something that I
[1:13:37] assumed we had in there and be prepared to address that
[1:13:43] That coming back again
[1:13:52] Are we going to hear from the Fort Lewis-Mesa Fire District, or how is that going to...
[1:14:02] You indicated that there was not agreement on the emergency response plan, and I'm trying to figure out
[1:14:07] is there agreement between the Fire Districts and GCC and the county on the emergency response plan?
[1:14:16] There will be an opportunity for the Fire Department to speak through in public comment.
[1:14:20] Okay. And that can be addressed. So my understanding is, yes, GCC consulted with, at the
[1:14:28] Direction of the Planning Commission, DFRA, Fort Lewis Fire, as well as the county emergency
[1:14:36] butch, essentially. And all those parties were found to be their concern satisfied. Nevertheless,
[1:14:45] the public did not feel that revised document was satisfactory. So that is the nature
[1:14:50] of the additional condition to convene a meeting and include the public in the discussion
[1:14:55] to resolve the matter.
[1:15:01] From our perspective,
[1:15:04] one of the conditions is that GCC will have a website with traffic numbers, logs, etc on it. Are we anticipating actively monitoring that or how is that anticipated being used?
[1:15:20] A breaks into two different categories.
[1:15:23] Speed and traffic will be posted on the website as required in the condition and we will
[1:15:28] monitor those as needed.
[1:15:29] If we don't feel the need for additional counts, the county has all the ability to go and
[1:15:36] lay counters and count traffic.
[1:15:38] So we'll always have the option to do double checking of what they're posting with respect
[1:15:42] to counts.
[1:15:44] What our quality, as I mentioned, will be also posted on the website.
[1:15:48] So we will be monitoring, with respect to those three topics.
[1:15:52] Dust is one that's not required to be formally monitored, as I mentioned,
[1:15:57] it's one that is best just mitigated from the onset through paving.
[1:16:03] But that is a condition that allows there to be some enforceability of dust is too high,
[1:16:09] and that's based off a visual test.
[1:16:11] It might seem low-tech, but sometimes those are the best solutions.
[1:16:16] The photographing and observation of dust higher than wheel well constitutes violation of the
[1:16:23] condition.
[1:16:23] It will be something that GCC would need to remedy in order to remain in compliance with
[1:16:28] the code and their land use permit.
[1:16:31] And the other one is noise.
[1:16:32] There's not currently a requirement for monitoring or posting results for noise.
[1:16:37] that could be something that we return to.
[1:16:39] It sounds like a topic of discussion once we've heard from all the parties.
[1:16:46] Okay, I have a couple of questions for Mr. Davis.
[1:16:48] If I could, Jim, excuse me, Mr. Davis, there's going to be,
[1:16:54] there's going to be at least, I think,
[1:16:56] by the Hansager property under the proposed temporary paving.
[1:17:01] There will be some point where traffic will be moving from gravel
[1:17:05] on to pavement and the track on of mud that creates dust and so on, will that be added?
[1:17:15] Will the pavement occur far enough west that track on of mud won't be an issue for that
[1:17:23] particular residents?
[1:17:28] That's a reasonable question.
[1:17:29] I think for the most part, the end of the pavement will be far enough to where it will
[1:17:33] mitigate most of that, but I mean, it's inevitable that you do get from side driveways
[1:17:38] all on all of our paper roads you do on occasion get some tracking of dirt on vehicle wheels
[1:17:45] from side roads so excuse me to think you're going to eliminate 100% of the dust paving any
[1:17:52] road is not realistic. But we will consider an adequate section beyond the home to ensure that
[1:18:01] track on mud will be minimized. That is correct. I hope to minimize that to the extent
[1:18:07] And how do we come up with 12 cents per ton on the maintenance fee?
[1:18:16] It was based on the current cost and the long-term cost of maintenance, future chip seals, future overlays.
[1:18:23] The road will initially be designed.
[1:18:25] The pavement life will be a 20-year life that typically maintain that.
[1:18:30] You come in and do interim maintenance on any paved roads,
[1:18:34] So that was the basis for that fee.
[1:18:39] And my understanding is reading the road.
[1:18:42] Agreement is that there is an escalator built into that
[1:18:45] to address inflation type things.
[1:18:49] That is correct.
[1:18:52] All right.
[1:18:53] And then lastly, with respect to the right of way
[1:18:56] acquisition and actually the route of the road,
[1:18:59] we have some conceptual plans of where the road will go.
[1:19:03] Is that correct?
[1:19:04] That is correct.
[1:19:05] And then, you know, I think I'll ask, is there going to be a road person testifying later?
[1:19:12] I'll say it's another question for the road person.
[1:19:15] Thank you.
[1:19:16] I've been wrapped up.
[1:19:23] Mr. Chair, I have a few questions.
[1:19:25] Thank you, Mr. Marie, for your presentation.
[1:19:30] I question, we spent quite a bit of time talking about the number of trucks.
[1:19:34] I'd like to talk a bit about the timing of the truck traffic in the negotiations with GCC.
[1:19:46] Was there discussion about further limiting the hauling hours from 6 to 10 and is it currently 24 hours a day hauling?
[1:20:01] There is a graphic that shows the breakdown of a day, so that will be presented if you'd
[1:20:08] like by the GCC and the 6 to 10 was a recommendation that came from the citizen advisory
[1:20:14] panel.
[1:20:16] So that's where we incorporated that compatibility mitigation measure.
[1:20:20] Was there discussion about avoiding school bus hours in the morning or afternoon?
[1:20:31] Generally, and there is a school bus stop at North 120 and 140.
[1:20:37] It's not a bus route.
[1:20:41] And that specific item I can't recollect if it came up, it could be something that when we look at the breakdown of how trucks typically
[1:20:52] We run during the day, may naturally address the concern, but let's return to that if
[1:20:59] there's the need to adjust or create some specificity on avoiding school drop-off times.
[1:21:07] Thank you.
[1:21:10] I'm just going to look through my notes and lots of questions
[1:21:18] regarding Commissioner West
[1:21:20] doors, line of questioning on subsidence, have there been any documented incidents of subsidence
[1:21:30] occurring in this area?
[1:21:32] I'd like to defer to GCC on that, I don't want to miss speak.
[1:21:36] Do we know if there is any, are there any coal mine operations under private service?
[1:21:46] Presently.
[1:21:46] It's all BLM lease area, but again, let's defer to GCC on the specifics.
[1:21:58] There are tribal lands, let's let GCC clarify the composition of coal.
[1:22:04] Thank you.
[1:22:10] Regarding your statement about condemnation necessary for
[1:22:19] building the road, ultimately,
[1:22:21] to county standards.
[1:22:26] Can you give specific examples of what condemnation proceedings would be necessary?
[1:22:38] I believe Jim Davis director of public works. So that goes to the Uniform Act, which is a federal
[1:22:44] guidelines for the acquisition of public property for public projects. You know, above and beyond
[1:22:51] that the county public works on any road project we typically reach out to the adjacent property owners
[1:22:57] that are impacted with any construction project like this.
[1:23:02] So I guess to minimize the potential that we get into that position, we start
[1:23:06] early on in the process within a reason to see what we can do to mitigate those impacts.
[1:23:11] As it relates to the alignment of the road, the acquisition of the land, all of those issues.
[1:23:18] And then through the uniform act, there is an initial value finding a...
[1:23:24] potentially a dual appraisal process and then negotiations from there, you can look at damages
[1:23:29] and some cases if that comes into the situation as well, but it's a fairly extensive process
[1:23:35] and is pointed out I've been with the county since 2001 and as long as I've been here we've
[1:23:40] never had to use condemnation of an eminent domain. I think it might have been back in the late 90s
[1:23:45] on a project on a floreater road, but I think a lot of it goes to the process and we do our best
[1:23:52] to the extent possible to work with the adjacent property owners.
[1:23:56] OK, so for the record, we don't have specific examples today.
[1:24:00] Well, I would almost refer to the county attorney to Cheryl
[1:24:04] as to that one instant that was 20 years ago.
[1:24:07] How much you're looking for is one for this project?
[1:24:12] Examples of condemnation for this project.
[1:24:16] Are you asking how many parcels are would potentially
[1:24:19] be condemned, okay, for road improvements.
[1:24:24] I can't recall that number, Jim. We have an estimate. Don't we? It kind of, that the alignment
[1:24:33] isn't completely determined, but what's the estimate?
[1:24:36] I don't know, real bad, I'm sorry.
[1:24:41] If you use the number of driveway driveways as an approximation, there's roughly 20 parcels
[1:24:47] on that corridor?
[1:24:51] That could potentially be
[1:24:52] condemned for the road.
[1:25:02] Missioners, I also,
[1:25:04] it's important to staff that we also
[1:25:08] make it clear to the board that
[1:25:11] in addition to the private
[1:25:14] property owners when it comes to condemnation.
[1:25:16] There is also a ditch that may well be impacted
[1:25:20] and that some of the property
[1:25:23] involved with the expansion of the width of the road is also owned by the
[1:25:30] youth Mountain Newt, and it is not owned in trust. It is a special type of
[1:25:37] ownership, which is, we would still, it's like a stewardship parcel, and our
[1:25:48] Our condemnation authority is likely limited when it comes to both the ditch company and
[1:25:57] the youth mountain youth parcel.
[1:26:00] Okay.
[1:26:02] Thank you.
[1:26:03] Andrew.
[1:26:04] Andrew.
[1:26:04] Andrew.
[1:26:06] Andrew.
[1:26:10] Andrew.
[1:26:14] Andrew.
[1:26:15] For this project, the county is not required to follow the uniform act we are doing so to
[1:26:19] go above and beyond to protect the neighbor's interests.
[1:26:24] It is a process driven requirement and ensuring that we're following the uniform act as
[1:26:31] a state that goes above and beyond and being respectful of the issues related to the road
[1:26:36] and the neighbor's property rights.
[1:26:38] Second, in terms of if we're able to state how many properties may or may not be condemned
[1:26:44] at this time are intent as to avoid condemnation.
[1:26:48] And at this point, we only have conceptual level
[1:26:51] drawings for the road, and that is specifically
[1:26:54] because of the right-away issues.
[1:26:55] This is an iterative process.
[1:26:58] And if our intent is to avoid condemnation
[1:27:00] to negotiate right-away to use every other mechanism
[1:27:03] other than condemnation, then that certainly
[1:27:05] will have an impact on where the final roadmap may go.
[1:27:10] As stated, it's iterative, it's a bit of a feedback loop.
[1:27:12] Once we, once GCC with the county's final approval goes through the right away acquisition process,
[1:27:20] if it is not feasible to obtain right away on one side of the road, for example, and that would force
[1:27:26] condensation.
[1:27:27] That's certainly would be an opportunity to shift the road to avoid condensation.
[1:27:32] So that's why we can say with certainty how many parcels will be condemned at this time.
[1:27:38] It's impossible to say.
[1:27:41] Thank you, and Mr. Chair, one final question.
[1:27:45] This is relating to enforcement and enforcing this permit.
[1:27:52] Can staff speak to how we will ensure that this permit is enforced and complied with?
[1:28:01] I'm Smith County Attorney's Office.
[1:28:04] Well, code enforcement is a complaint driven process,
[1:28:08] and I'd actually like to circle back to the earlier question about county staff monitoring
[1:28:13] the website, part of the, or part of the reason, the primary reason for ensuring that
[1:28:19] that information is public is because code enforcement is complaint driven. So we certainly
[1:28:25] will be monitoring that website, but the reason is being made public is because we anticipate
[1:28:29] very much that the public will be monitoring that website as well. So this, Laney's permit
[1:28:36] If approved will be handled just any other and that it's a complaint driven process and we will have the same tools that we have within the other land use permit if the conditions are not complied with.
[1:28:49] I would note that the conditions are numerous as you can see and they've been drafted in a very particular manner to try and provide clarity both for the applicant for the county and for
[1:29:03] citizens to aid enforcement and hopefully to avoid enforcement actions going forward.
[1:29:10] So I think a significant feature that should be noted differing from a lot of their
[1:29:14] land use permits are the number and style of those conditions.
[1:29:18] Last, it is I think well-known at this point between the applicant and the county that it
[1:29:24] is the county's intent if the terms and conditions of the road improvement agreement and
[1:29:29] specifically or not comply with that the county will consider could consider bringing a contract
[1:29:35] enforcement action. That is a unique feature that we rarely have with Lainew's permits that
[1:29:42] violation of the key elements of the Lainew's permit are also a violation of a contract.
[1:29:50] Thank you. No further questions.
[1:29:54] Thank you.
[1:29:57] Thank you, Mr. Murray. Can you speak to
[1:30:00] The water monitoring wells, the number, the number proposed general information about the water monitoring wells.
[1:30:15] I can't. It's captured in TR26, but if I also may allow GCC to speak to that report, because they essentially put forth that plan to the state.
[1:30:27] in the state approves that plan. It's well beyond my expertise. So I'll just, if you're willing to let me defer to their consultant and if we still have questions we can revisit the matter.
[1:30:42] I will ask them the question then. Thank you. That concludes my questions.
[1:30:48] Mr. Chair, if I could, just for a minute, go back to Commissioner Weston Gervs questions about noise and just provide an explanation about the statutes.
[1:30:59] There are two separate statutes on noise one would pertain to the site itself.
[1:31:04] And there are industrial and residential standards with that.
[1:31:08] And then there is a statute which is 20 CRS 2512106, which actually speaks to the amount of noise.
[1:31:18] that vehicles can create on a road.
[1:31:24] And it a subsequent statute allows a county to adopt
[1:31:27] a resolution limiting the decibels on the road and what you see in your report are the
[1:31:33] decibels that are established by that section. If that helps you when you're listening to
[1:31:40] subsequent reports it is it depends on the year and make well the year of the vehicle in the speed limit
[1:31:51] but for a speed limit of 35 miles per hour less it's for vehicles before January
[1:31:57] 1773 it's 88 decibels and on or after January 1773 it's 86 that applies to the vehicle itself
[1:32:06] but doesn't apply to, it, the section applies to the total noise from a vehicle or a combination
[1:32:14] of vehicles on a road.
[1:32:19] If I may, this Adam Smith County Attorney's Office, that statute is informing staffs
[1:32:24] recommendation, the authority for the county to impose that limit is derived from compatibility.
[1:32:32] So, the statute is providing us a data point to consider, but the authority to getting
[1:32:36] there is our compatibility in the 80, chapter 82 of the land use code.
[1:32:44] You don't have to accept the 86.
[1:32:51] Thank you.
[1:32:54] How much time does the county have left?
[1:32:57] Does the county actually have 18 minutes and one second left?
[1:33:02] Before questions started, would this be a time for Chief Anderson to report on the emergency response?
[1:33:10] Chief, would you have anything that you'd like to add in regards to that?
[1:33:21] If Chris Anderson for the list makes a fire protection district, I did consult with the
[1:33:27] mine at their request on their emergency response plan for an event on the road, make some
[1:33:34] recommendations and they incorporate it in their plan.
[1:33:41] Thank you.
[1:33:47] You're efficient with your time.
[1:33:51] All right.
[1:33:51] We are past our 1030 break time.
[1:33:55] And do we want to have a break at this point in, uh, well, 1035, huh, we're right over here.
[1:34:03] We're going to take it after GCC, see, made their presentation, but our technical difficulties.
[1:34:09] My question is, do we want to take a break before GCC?
[1:34:14] We will have a five minute break.
[1:34:16] Thank you.
[1:34:32] Thank you.
[1:43:17] Thank you.
[1:43:22] Thank you for coming to order. We'd like to go ahead and continue on with our
[1:43:34] agenda.
[1:43:35] It's a little out of whack right?
[1:43:42] Presentation by GCC.
[1:43:50] Thank you.
[1:44:20] Testing them out.
[1:44:45] Thank you, Mr. Paraman and Commissioners. Members of County staff, members of the
[1:44:49] public. My name is Carolyn White. I'm Landy's Council for the applicant.
[1:44:55] As we have numerous
[1:44:56] folks to present to you if you don't mind, we'll stay seated here at this table.
[1:45:00] Well, and rather than popping up and down to the podium.
[1:45:05] As you know, mining has been an integral part of the culture, economy, and lifeblood of Laplad Accounting for decades. Since the 1940s, GCCN, its predecessors, have employed generations of families throughout the county.
[1:45:21] Here before you, we were here before you today seeking this class two landies permit for the existing mine.
[1:45:27] While this permitting process is obviously taken longer than anyone wanted or would have desired or probably would have predicted when the initial application was filed, this extensive process occurred because of both GCC and the county's desire to get it right.
[1:45:43] And every time that a new issue or concern was raised, the additional time was taken to study and analyze and understand that concern.
[1:45:51] And in response, either proposed mitigation measures, conditions of approval or in some cases,
[1:45:56] change the very activity of, in terms of what would actually be permitted if the pending
[1:46:01] permit application were approved.
[1:46:04] Additionally, as has been referenced, there's always been this added layer of other state
[1:46:09] federal and local permitting that controls what happens in and at the mind.
[1:46:15] This process, you should know, has forced DCC to make some very difficult decisions about
[1:46:20] the very operation of the mine itself.
[1:46:23] How they conduct their business, what type of business to conduct, and what their production
[1:46:27] levels will be, and what their business will look like going forward.
[1:46:30] And you'll have a little more information about that as this presentation progresses.
[1:46:35] The application before you, as presented with the conditions of approval, with the mitigations
[1:46:40] that are already taking place, with the mitigations that are proposed, and with the ongoing
[1:46:44] monitoring is a successful compromise for a compatible operation.
[1:46:51] This will result in a $10 million brand new county road.
[1:46:55] A long-term maintenance fee for the county's benefit for the continued upkeep of that road
[1:46:59] as long as the life of the mine is for the entire life of the mine.
[1:47:04] Both short and long-term reductions in truck numbers from what is there today and from what
[1:47:10] CDC would otherwise be allowed to do under its state and federal permits.
[1:47:15] While there are obviously still residents who have concerns, and I'm sure you'll have
[1:47:19] the opportunity here from them today what their concerns are,
[1:47:23] GCC has achieved significant consensus with the county staff recommendations in the
[1:47:28] larger community by making a variety of concessions and agreeing to a number of conditions
[1:47:32] of approval restricting the way that they operate this mind going forward.
[1:47:37] I'd like to now introduce the rest of the team who will be presenting to you today and other members of the team who are available for your questions even though they may not be part of our formal presentation.
[1:47:52] I have with me Gina Nance, Vice President of Energy and Environment.
[1:47:57] Trent Peterson, Vice President of GCC Energy.
[1:47:59] Wait, why more GCC plant super-intended?
[1:48:04] We also have all of our experts who provide a report to you here that includes road engineering
[1:48:09] traffic, water, air quality, noise, and vibration.
[1:48:12] Mike Olson seated to my far right, PE, a road runner engineering who addressed road design,
[1:48:18] cost, traffic, and pac assessment and evaluated the alternative routes for the hall road.
[1:48:23] Seed Harris, PE of Harris Water Engineering,
[1:48:28] who's behind me, land and back, resource hydrogeologic
[1:48:32] services who address the groundwater issues, the neat Masuraha of Trinity consultants,
[1:48:38] addressing air quality, which includes specifically dust.
[1:48:41] Jeff Qualkowski, with the way of engineering, who can answer your questions about noise
[1:48:45] and vibration.
[1:48:46] Rob Johnston, with Johnston Land Company, he is the rightaway agent that was hired by GCC
[1:48:51] to handle the rightaway acquisition.
[1:48:53] and Joe Bowden PhD with CDS Environmental Services LLC.
[1:48:58] All of these folks will be available to answer your questions
[1:49:00] at your convenience following our formal presentation.
[1:49:06] The brief summary of our, of our, how we're going to conduct our presentation today.
[1:49:10] We'll have some generic information about the background of GCC in this particular operation.
[1:49:15] We will add to what staff is presented to you already regarding the road improvement agreement,
[1:49:20] which is a condition of approval of this application if it's approved,
[1:49:23] And which DCC has already executed, so if it is approved,
[1:49:28] the board would simply sign it for it to become effective.
[1:49:31] We'll also address our concurrence with the staff report,
[1:49:34] which does recommend approval,
[1:49:36] finding that the proposal with mitigation and conditions is
[1:49:39] compliant, compatible, and consistent with the code and the long range plans.
[1:49:44] And we will also go through all of the criteria in the code
[1:49:48] that you are required to consider in class 2 land use application
[1:49:52] and explain why it meets all of those criteria.
[1:49:56] To begin this, I'd like to introduce Trent Peterson to my right, who's going to give
[1:50:00] you the brief, excuse me, the brief history of this process on the mind.
[1:50:15] Thank you.
[1:50:17] Peterson, Vice President,
[1:50:22] would like to begin by thanking the planning staff for input and
[1:50:25] expertise as we respond to the inquiries and develop this application throughout this process,
[1:50:30] the application that's now presented for your consideration.
[1:50:33] I would like to thank the county administration and county attorney as we work diligently
[1:50:39] through the road improvement agreement over the last few months.
[1:50:45] And special thanks to the county's public works for maintaining the county roadways that
[1:50:49] are really the infrastructure that make possible and, finally, I want to thank and acknowledge
[1:50:56] the members of the community for their involvement and feedback through this process.
[1:51:02] And a number of people in the audience here I recognize have been engaged since the very beginning.
[1:51:09] A lot of tough conversations over the last few years, but as a result, we have reached a better conclusion.
[1:51:17] And in the true nature of compromise, this is something that hasn't satisfied all parties,
[1:51:22] but we were able to achieve a consensus with a broad spectrum of the community.
[1:51:27] answer a number of questions that have come up over the last few years.
[1:51:35] I want to thank you for taking the time to visit the mine a couple of weeks ago.
[1:51:38] I'm sorry I was able to be there with an unification which had planned a long time before.
[1:51:46] You've seen this already, but just to point out where some of the things are for members of the public
[1:51:51] that may not be familiar with it.
[1:51:53] Towards the left-hand side of the picture is a stock pile with a conveyor stacker.
[1:51:59] That's the conveyor that comes out of the out of the mind.
[1:52:03] We're looking essentially do north from the county road.
[1:52:06] That conveyor extends approximately a mile into the mind.
[1:52:11] That stockpile there holds about 10,000 tons of coal and live storage up to about 20,000 of necessary.
[1:52:19] Off to the right side of the picture.
[1:52:24] question and screen operation, where coal is sized for distribution to customers, and then
[1:52:31] behind that in the background is another stock pile of finished coal that would be for distribution.
[1:52:38] Approximately in the center of the photo are two truck bins where trucks are loaded live, as
[1:52:45] you may have seen during the visit, tip of the loading time on a truck is about five minutes.
[1:52:51] Something that is worth pointing out here is that what you see in this picture is essentially what you will always see.
[1:53:00] The operations here that are visible are the operations that are on the surface essentially everything else is underground.
[1:53:08] The operation is no mountain top removal, no steep slope mining, no disturbance of prime hay gulch farmland, there are no blasting operations associated with this.
[1:53:20] Finally, it's a dry mine.
[1:53:23] The water table is below the coal scene.
[1:53:26] No water is encountered in the mining operation and something that makes this just about
[1:53:31] a perfect spot for a coal miner as there's no methane either.
[1:53:36] Right now we have about 120 employees,
[1:53:48] both use almost strictly for cement production.
[1:53:51] We also serve the Durango and Silverton railroads and several other historic railroads
[1:53:56] around the Western United States, and then during use for home heating coal, serving about
[1:54:02] 1,500 households across the four corners.
[1:54:07] The coal from the King II mine is almost ideally
[1:54:09] suited for cement production. I won't go over the years. The cement industry is recognized
[1:54:20] the low ash content, low sulfur content, low chlorine and mercury content, and seen that this
[1:54:27] coal provides an almost perfect fuel for a cement plant.
[1:54:32] All cement plants use coal as a primary fuel source. This coal is not used to serve the electric
[1:54:38] power industry.
[1:54:45] In a spite of not having obtained a county land use permit yet, it's not as
[1:54:49] if the mine isn't regulated. The mine is regulated by a number of different state and federal
[1:54:54] agencies. And it looked proud of its compliance and safety record. Right now, as of today,
[1:55:02] the mine is operated for 592 days without an injury, and recently learned that we were
[1:55:07] again selected to receive a safety award from Rocky Mountain coal mining institute.
[1:55:19] I've been asked many times by G.C. didn't get a class to land use permit before
[1:55:24] king to open. I think it's been stated plenty of times that there was a determination
[1:55:31] that the county didn't have jurisdiction in 2007, so GCC obtained all the necessary state
[1:55:38] and federal permits to begin operations at that time.
[1:55:41] It subsequently, when the county did determine jurisdiction, GCC did submit the application
[1:55:49] for a permit.
[1:55:55] The question also is why this application has taken so long, and lots of times I wake up
[1:56:01] morning and wondered the same thing myself.
[1:56:07] But this timeline here points out what some of the
[1:56:11] major milestones in here have been beginning in August 2010 when the county submitted a letter
[1:56:18] of GCC saying the company was out of compliance with its land use code. So, over the next
[1:56:25] several months there was ongoing deliberation in the county of that statement and the context
[1:56:30] of its earlier determinations of no jurisdiction, and then in 2011, a definitive determination
[1:56:36] that, indeed, the county did have jurisdiction, which is a determination that she had
[1:56:43] no disagree.
[1:56:46] The next several months, GCCC started working on assembling the required documentation for
[1:56:59] And as we'll further illustrate, it's not a simple application.
[1:57:04] It took a lot of time to conduct the required studies,
[1:57:07] develop the background information and assemble the package into what was at that time,
[1:57:12] thought to be a complete application.
[1:57:15] After that, there were several neighborhood compatibility meetings held,
[1:57:19] and as a result of those meetings and the questions that came up,
[1:57:23] There were a number of additional studies that GCC conducted to address groundwater, noise, and vibration.
[1:57:34] And as I mentioned earlier, a lot of this is not simple.
[1:57:38] Some of these are very complex studies.
[1:57:40] For example, the groundwater study was one that the scope was determined and vetted by a combination of GCC,
[1:57:48] We'll plot a county, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado Division of Reclamation,
[1:57:52] Mining and Safety, and Office of Service, Mining, and Reclamation.
[1:57:57] Really, a multi-agency cooperation to determine what kind of study needed to be done.
[1:58:03] Many of the studies that have been conducted have not been any kind of off-the-shelf studies.
[1:58:09] But in that one, for example, even after the scope of the study was determined it wasn't one
[1:58:15] could be completed in days or even weeks, and took literally months, finally conclude.
[1:58:24] Sober of 2014, December of 2014,
[1:58:32] we intended to go to a planning commission hearing
[1:58:34] with a recommendation for approval. Shortly before that time, there was a new
[1:58:41] great deal of public input primarily around traffic at that point and it was the county and GCC
[1:58:48] determined then to to continue that hearing until we could hear more public input and further study the
[1:58:57] concerns that were being brought up. Spring and summer of 2015 we convened the Hague-Alchid
[1:59:06] advisory panel. It was made up of three primary constituent groups, one residents along the north
[1:59:14] part of County Road 120, another from Vista de Loro subdivision off to the west of the
[1:59:20] mine and another from County Road 120, 116 and 119 south of the mine. By the middle of the
[1:59:29] summer, the Hague Elch Citizens Advisory Panel had issued 21 recommendations at this point
[1:59:36] over half of those either have been adopted by GCC or will be adopted.
[1:59:44] A number of others were outside of the scope of this application.
[1:59:49] July of last year, July 31, GCC submitted supplemental information to the application
[1:59:56] and updated studies at this point studies that number.
[2:00:00] 43 in total.
[2:00:04] And on September 2nd of 2015, got a board of adjustment approval for an increase from the standard 8.8% grade to 8.8%
[2:00:15] Over a limited distance on the steep hill at approximately mile 2.2 on county road 120.
[2:00:23] October 8 of 2015, there was a request for continuance for two reasons, one, provided additional information requested by the county and two, resolved and unexpected necessary change to the water plan.
[2:00:42] I think it's worth bringing up there that the change of the water plan resulted from changes in enforcement patterns and regulation from the mind safety and health administration when the first irrigation water was obtained in 2006 the estimated long-term usage for water at the mind was less than five gallons per every ton of coal mined.
[2:01:11] changes in federal enforcement patterns have now put that number and closer to 11 gallons
[2:01:16] per toned mind. So nearly double the required water.
[2:01:24] Our second and third, at April 14th of 2016, additional planning commission hearings
[2:01:30] and finally a recommendation of approval by a 4-1 vote.
[2:01:35] The bottom line of that is that the community process has taken time.
[2:01:40] We received feedback, a lot of questions, and engaged number of experts to study the issues
[2:01:47] that have been brought up.
[2:01:50] And as I said before, over the course of this, engaged 43 separate studies to better answer
[2:01:56] those questions.
[2:01:57] A lot of tough conversations in the last few years, but ultimately we've reached a better
[2:02:02] result.
[2:02:03] I'd like to turn this back over to Carolyn.
[2:02:05] Thank
[2:02:15] you again, Carolyn Whitelandy's Council for the applicant.
[2:02:19] As has been discussed, it's worth noting that if this permit is approved, it will not allow
[2:02:24] GCC to engage in any new activity or operations, but rather only allow them to continue their
[2:02:30] existing activity and operations.
[2:02:32] In fact, it will also require them to reduce their existing activity and operations down to that
[2:02:39] 80 truck level that was discussed earlier.
[2:02:41] and we'll talk in more detail in a moment about the varying truck levels.
[2:02:44] But that's an important factor, and it is the reason why a staff has noted that we're discussing
[2:02:50] a phased construction of road improvements rather than the typical requirement you might see
[2:02:55] for new undertaking in the county for the entirety of the road improvements required to be conducted
[2:03:00] before the operation commences.
[2:03:03] If the permit is approved, GCC will be improving county road on 20 north.
[2:03:08] They will be constructing approximately $10 million worth of total road improvements for the benefit of the community in county road 120 North, although not all of the improvements are physically on 120 North.
[2:03:19] Additionally, some of the most urgent and most important road improvements will be conducted first, very soon in fact this summer, and will go in a more detail on the phasing and a moment with Mike Olson.
[2:03:29] This also includes the maintenance fee of 12 cents per ton with escalation as has already been discussed.
[2:03:35] Noise buffer walls, if the neighbors choose to have those implemented, they can have that option without the entire life of the five year phasing.
[2:03:45] There will also be short-term and long-term limits on truck numbers as well as a host of other mitigation measures that have already been undertaken despite the fact that no permit has yet been granted.
[2:03:55] GCC has undertaken those voluntarily on faith and in the hopes that eventually this permit
[2:04:00] will be granted and will be allowed to continue operations.
[2:04:04] As noted, this required some very difficult conversations and fundamental restructuring
[2:04:09] of the business conducted here at this mine.
[2:04:11] And what I mean by that is, GCC had to decide to produce less coal here than what their
[2:04:19] otherwise allowed to do in order to meet those reduced truck numbers.
[2:04:22] And that requires a awful lot of internal evaluation at the highest levels of the corporate structure.
[2:04:29] Approval of this permit would allow this longstanding issue to be resolved,
[2:04:32] and put the both GCCN and the neighbors in a better position than they are today.
[2:04:37] I'd like to briefly summarize the road improvement agreement and some of the key provisions of it.
[2:04:41] I'll try not to be duplicative of what Mr. Murray presented earlier,
[2:04:45] but some of the points that we want to emphasize is that the most important thing is the initial reduction
[2:04:51] down to 80 trucks per day on average, and that will be in place that will be the limit in
[2:04:56] place for phases 1, 2, and 3. All of that construction. No additional trucks above the
[2:05:02] 80 with the 20% allowance in the average calculation that was mentioned can occur until the
[2:05:07] completion of phases 1, 2, and 3. And the phases 1, 2, and 3 address the most urgent needs
[2:05:14] in those which have generated the most concerned comments and questions from the neighbors.
[2:05:19] So, at the conclusion of phase three, the entirety of county road 120 North will be paved from the intersection with 140, all the way to the end of the blue line, which is approximately 500 yards past the last private residence on that road.
[2:05:35] So, the question was asked earlier about the tracking and there is a little bit of a distance allowed there. I'm told it's about 500 feet, but if we want to get precise, we can ask our traffic expert on that a little bit later.
[2:05:46] So, until all of those improvements are complete, no increase over the 80 trucks will be allowed.
[2:05:51] And the reason for that in our understanding and discussions with county staff and based on our experts analysis is that,
[2:05:59] once those phases 1, 2 and 3 are complete,
[2:06:04] it is certain that the road will be able to safely and comparatively accommodate the next proposed increase in trucks from 80 to 100 trucks per day on average.
[2:06:14] The other point I want to mention, and we can address this in more detail later, as well, is that when
[2:06:19] staff showed you that historic graph of the calculation of truck numbers, the average
[2:06:23] truck numbers, 55, 90, and so on, increasing per day, those were based on seven-day averages.
[2:06:30] The numbers that are being committed to as part of the road improvement agreement and this
[2:06:33] permit, if it's approved, are based on six-day averages due to GCC's agreement to
[2:06:39] to see falling on site. That means it is not only reducing the total
[2:06:43] trucks, but distributing them over a shorter period of time, which further
[2:06:47] reduces the total number of trucks that will be allowed to use this
[2:06:50] road.
[2:06:55] A little other key points about the Road Improvement Agreement that I'd like to
[2:06:57] mention that weren't previously highlighted. Questions were asked about how
[2:07:01] the county will enforce the requirement that GCC construct these
[2:07:04] improvements. The Road Improvement Agreement contains a provision requiring that
[2:07:08] financial security be posted with the county in the amount of 120
[2:07:12] percent of the estimated cost of the road improvements.
[2:07:15] That cost estimate has to be submitted by GCC and approved by county staff.
[2:07:20] And the county will have the ability to draw on those funds in the event that GCC fails
[2:07:24] to complete the road improvements within the specified time.
[2:07:27] So the county has that enforcement mechanism.
[2:07:30] The county also has the additional enforcement mechanism through the contract to the
[2:07:34] road improvement agreement and addition to the condition of approval, which was mentioned
[2:07:38] by Mr. Smith earlier, and as a land use attorney who specializes in this, I can tell you that it is
[2:07:45] exceedingly rare for any of my applicant clients to voluntarily agree to that additional
[2:07:50] enforcement mechanism by contract as well as through the county code enforcement powers,
[2:07:54] and so that is a unique feature of this and its additional belt and suspenders that the county has
[2:08:00] to enforce the provisions of the road improvement agreement.
[2:08:07] As a result of this analysis, discussion,
[2:08:09] conditions of approval, ongoing mitigation measures, and future planned mitigation measures
[2:08:15] if the permit is approved, this application meets all of the required criteria in the county
[2:08:21] code for approval of a Class II land use permit. We'll go through each of these in a little bit
[2:08:27] greater detail. I'll bring the appropriate expert where we plan that and we're also happy to
[2:08:33] bring them up later if we didn't address your questions and as much detail as you would like.
[2:08:40] The other point we'd like to make here is that when we're talking about compatibility, which as noted by staff is a qualitative standard, not a quantitative standard, there certainly can be differences opinion of opinion about whether or not compatibility is achieved in a given circumstance.
[2:08:55] But what we're not trying to do here and what compatibility doesn't mean is to try to make this operation exactly the same as everything around it.
[2:09:04] that's not compatibility, that's uniformity.
[2:09:07] Well, we're talking about here is the process by which things which may be different
[2:09:10] can be nonetheless rendered compatible with each other,
[2:09:14] able to exist together without trouble or conflict by virtue of the various mitigation measures
[2:09:19] that will be undertaken in order to address any impacts that might be created by one of the activities.
[2:09:26] In order to understand what that might look like for the purposes of this application,
[2:09:31] We did, as was noted, engage all these different experts and conduct all these various studies.
[2:09:37] We have them sitting there and binders on the end of the table in case we need to refer to them.
[2:09:41] And this might be a good opportunity for me to mention that not all of those studies are in the 77 attachments to your packet.
[2:09:49] Nor is every single document that is in the planning file.
[2:09:52] That would as a result be, you know, way too voluminous for you to reasonably review and a preparation for this hearing.
[2:09:57] If litigation were to commence, as I understand is being referenced by the opponents and their presentation later today,
[2:10:07] and there were to be a discussion with the court over what constitutes the record.
[2:10:11] That would be defined by a colorless civil procedure 106A4, and we can engage in a debate about that at the appropriate time,
[2:10:18] point being that all of these studies are part of the record, even though they may not have been attached to your packet today as one of the 77,
[2:10:26] And if you'd like us to refer to them, we're happy to do so, and we have all the experts here to answer any questions about them.
[2:10:34] Finally, we'd like to note that after lengthy discussion and conversation, we are in alignment with county staff.
[2:10:40] We concur with the county staff report with their finding of a recommendation of approval of consistency and compatibility.
[2:10:47] And we're also in alignment with all of the conditions of approval that were recommended by county staff in the staff report,
[2:10:54] which I will also tell you in my experience with this many conditions of approval is not very common.
[2:11:01] So with that I'd like to turn it over to our traffic expert to discuss the first criterion related to traffic.
[2:11:25] All right, my name is Mike Olson.
[2:11:28] I'm with Rotterdam Engineering.
[2:11:30] My address is 1315.
[2:11:33] I mean Avenue on Durango Suite 221.
[2:11:38] been working with GCC for a number of years now on addressing traffic issues.
[2:11:44] In this particular, for the presentation, I want to focus on this particular first slide
[2:11:50] here, which talks about the county's code requirement and section 82-193-C2A.
[2:11:57] And that's really the traffic generated by development will not create safety hazards,
[2:12:02] create traffic which is beyond the capacity of the effective roads or results in substantial
[2:12:07] increases over existing traffic visors.
[2:12:11] The first thing I'd like to address is safety.
[2:12:16] And when I work, I work with policies and guidelines that are
[2:12:21] accepted by the engineering field along with raw data.
[2:12:26] And raw data is reflected here on this particular site.
[2:12:28] slide. The this particular graph or the this this this comms here give a
[2:12:34] detail by year on the average average trucks loaded trucks per day. And as
[2:12:42] you can see from 2011 you had 69 trucks and they've increased by year to
[2:12:49] 72, 2013 as 84, 2014 had average of 110 trucks and this past year had an average
[2:12:58] of 93 trucks. What is of interest is the accidents on
[2:13:03] Canada at 1.20 North. As you, the corresponding levels go from three
[2:13:09] accidents involving the or three accidents on 1.20 North,
[2:13:13] action involving GCC is zero and they increase and as they increase,
[2:13:20] GCC started putting in interim measures to address traffic impacts.
[2:13:26] In 2014, we had 110 trucks per day, accidents on 1,20 North, there are 4.
[2:13:36] Axe and Volum GCC was 1.
[2:13:40] Most of the existing interim measures were in place now as reflected here in 2015.
[2:13:46] there are 93 trucks a day. Axis on 22 north zero. Axis and Bobby GCC zero. That's a significant
[2:13:57] improvement there and then actually reflects directly on the involvement and GCC has been
[2:14:03] with the trucking. Most of the information that I evaluated is combining our report for traffic
[2:14:12] impact assessment they didn't November 18, 2015.
[2:14:18] With that, it identifies the improvements and identifies impacts of the mind and the corresponding
[2:14:24] improvements.
[2:14:26] What GCSE's committed to is approximately $10 million in road improvements, this includes
[2:14:32] the highway at one intersection at the state intersection 140 and counter at 120.
[2:14:40] It also reflects the agreed to reduction of haul truckloads to 80 trucks per day, and that's
[2:14:47] considered based on the RA and that RA was a agreement that was worked through between
[2:14:55] the county and GCC, and then also includes the maintenance phase.
[2:15:00] We have 12 sets of time with escalation, and correctly noted by Jim Davis of that reflects maintenance
[2:15:06] levels. Also, the includes ship ceiling of the asphalt roadways. It does not – this
[2:15:16] separate 10 million actually addresses the actual roadway improvements.
[2:15:27] So we've talked
[2:15:28] It's just briefly the stark use of 120 that's, we've been on using the trans, it's been
[2:15:34] used for transporting coal in and out, and at periodic times they've tried using the southern
[2:15:40] approach, which is 119, 116 up to 12 south, pass a mine, and then out on 12 north.
[2:15:49] Also been looked at as using just strictly 120, the north and south.
[2:15:54] Each, they try twice, and each time based on internal policies and also discussions with
[2:16:03] local representation representatives of agencies such as Dranglefin Rescue, they have
[2:16:09] concluded that using the Southern approaches is, they have multiple incidents, and that
[2:16:15] was part of the decision was made to use the 120 North solely.
[2:16:26] And I just want to make a note here, 120 south and 119 specifically going into the intersection
[2:16:34] of 120, excuse the 119 and state highway 140, if you use it, that but to go into intersection.
[2:16:44] It said a skew and actually got deposited into adjacent to the Fortless Mason School.
[2:16:51] That's one of the areas that was addressed, and it was, you try not to have a particular
[2:16:58] situation where you create a safety concern at a school district along with other places,
[2:17:04] but this was one of the reasons that we, there was made to move trucks to the north that
[2:17:09] would eliminate some of the safety concerns that would exist at the school.
[2:17:15] So we looked at six different options.
[2:17:20] The option is being staying on 120 north.
[2:17:24] Second option was making a loop system where you'd use 120 south to 120 north.
[2:17:30] The second loop system was evaluated based on using 120 north.
[2:17:34] 116, 119 loop.
[2:17:39] The third, I mean, a fourth option would be a data located hall route that would actually go
[2:17:44] that would run a classical across the state landboard lands and then deposit approximately
[2:17:49] the location of the King one site and then proceed onto the section of the county road
[2:17:56] one twenty north that's west of the existing residences. The fifth was putting in a
[2:18:05] dedicated hall route which matches the across the state landboard across private lands and
[2:18:11] Then it would actually be to a conveyor point, which would take the product and move it from
[2:18:16] the facility up to the top of the ridge and then it would actually be brought on to
[2:18:22] co-trucks at that time and co-trucks and move out.
[2:18:25] And the last option would be using a conveyor from the mine site to approximately intersection
[2:18:31] of kind of a 120 state highway 140 at that point, it would actually be loaded on to trucks
[2:18:41] and distributed on the public ways.
[2:18:49] Right here, that we focused on were population road geometry, accident records, and time.
[2:19:01] The cost was also played on the role, but that was not the governing factor.
[2:19:06] It was these four factors that were evaluated as part of this.
[2:19:12] So population.
[2:19:18] This map is a great representation of where the population exists out in this 120 area.
[2:19:25] As you can see by the, there's a sort of a beige, yellowish tinge square.
[2:19:31] And that's the location of the mind itself.
[2:19:38] South of the mind is approximately three times as many residents as north and west of the mind.
[2:19:52] But the road geometry, and this is simplified, but with it, it reflects, we've identified places that, with dots, and those dot representations are intersections with county roads.
[2:20:06] corners of the excess of 8%, 90-degree corners.
[2:20:12] The reason those particular points from noted is as there are typically areas that you
[2:20:17] have concerns with safety.
[2:20:21] On this, with this evaluation, as you can see, the Robe Geometry 120 North in Simplified
[2:20:28] Again, as seven dots, one twenty-south has eleven dots, one nineteen one sixty-one twenty-south has eleven dots.
[2:20:38] So in effect, with this rotary joul adjustment, you have a safer road going to the north.
[2:20:53] Looked at exit records, identified some locations that were then needed to be addressed as part of any
[2:21:01] profits, with that, through the summary criteria, is that I'm going to go back to
[2:21:10] a bit, the action records showed locations of high action rates.
[2:21:16] I'm going to ignore that's two locations of 90-degree corner, and that's what it's
[2:21:20] far.
[2:21:21] I'm going to tell you, South, you've got two locations there at that are 90-degree
[2:21:26] I think that as part of your tour of the site out there on the county road system that may have been
[2:21:34] identified with Jim Davis noting either excessive grade or 90 quarters or places where you've got intersections with existing kind of roads.
[2:21:47] One thing I didn't mention was the permitting time.
[2:21:51] By having a dedicated hall route, you're looking at the environmental requirements,
[2:21:55] the archeological requirements, the assessments on what, in fact, that in establishing a roadway,
[2:22:05] and that takes time, it takes a significant amount of time, and that, and using a
[2:22:10] hollowed across the state landboard lands, though they agreed to allow us to, by the way,
[2:22:17] just briefly as part of our option assessment, they are not supportive of it.
[2:22:22] So with that, you're looking just to get in place in any type of a whole route, you know,
[2:22:29] we've noted here, greater than five years. That's probably right. And so that you're,
[2:22:35] we're looking to try to make an immediate, medium impact, immediate improvements to address
[2:22:41] the king to trucking. So on this also, this particular slide, we've made a note here
[2:22:50] that as part of the Fort Lewis Mace of Fire District letter data 1-15 or January 15, 2016,
[2:22:59] an alternate route of Canterbury, 12 South, North Loop, and 121-161-19 Loop,
[2:23:06] are less safe, that's due to lower visibility, more intersections, hills, greater populations,
[2:23:11] actions schools, their assessment is consistent with my assessment that that is less
[2:23:19] desirable than using a 120-north.
[2:23:25] So, so this is, again, the road improvement of the
[2:23:33] truck limits that Daniel provided to us and that does a great job on actor and
[2:23:40] electing what in fact is going to happen based on the timing. One question was, this inter-paving,
[2:23:49] that's extending the paving from the end of the existing paving, which is approximately
[2:23:54] miles opposed to 2.5, to approximately 5,000 feet close to a mile west. Where does that
[2:24:02] actually, where does that stop? It's intended to stop west of the Huntsinger Park, partial.
[2:24:09] Well, the reason for that is that there is a corner in the corner in the existing alignment
[2:24:16] of the road is the wind runs from west to east and we want to capture, we want to
[2:24:25] pave beyond that corner so that you don't generate dust as trucks go around that corner
[2:24:32] and actually proceeds down the big gulps, and that's where the existing dust problems occur.
[2:24:40] So by paving around the corner, that should address the dust that is airborne, that
[2:24:47] actually is captured and proceeds each bound.
[2:24:54] The phasing has been addressed with the also, I'm going to miss that back.
[2:25:02] So that's the inter-paving.
[2:25:03] It's a three-inch mat.
[2:25:04] That's when I say mat, that's a, on the thickness of the asphalt.
[2:25:08] It's supposed to be 24-foot wide.
[2:25:10] It's intended to be wide in some places where they currently have some tight corners, and
[2:25:14] also be tight and wide, so that it allows for some parking air at the hunting or
[2:25:21] I will address drainage.
[2:25:24] There was a recommendation from LSC.
[2:25:28] I was a traffic soldier that put signing flashing signs there at the
[2:25:33] Narrows and also at the ulti-smart as an interim measure.
[2:25:38] That is great.
[2:25:40] So that's part of the interim measure.
[2:25:41] The things one is to put in flashing signs that will allow for people
[2:25:46] traveling on one choice, that will note that if there's another vehicle within that section
[2:25:52] and road section, so it's because of sight distances as are limited.
[2:25:57] And so at the WillTee's part, I'm going to use the term WillTee's part because that's generally
[2:26:01] what it's discussed.
[2:26:03] But that area, along with the narrowes, will be installing flashing warning signs for approaching
[2:26:09] vehicles.
[2:26:15] That term, I'd like to turn back over to Carolyn.
[2:26:17] The
[2:26:27] next portion of our presentation, we'd like to briefly give you a high level overview of each of the criteria and how the studies demonstrate that these criteria are met.
[2:26:35] Now, necessarily, there's a lot of detail and we're not going to be able to cover all of it within the time allotted.
[2:26:41] These slides are admittedly full of a lot of text and a little crowded.
[2:26:45] I'm going to give you just a quick summary and then we can come back to this and engage in as much detail as you'd care to during the question and answer period.
[2:26:53] The next criteria we're addressing is the one referenced by staff in their table and that is that
[2:27:00] any one of the following will not disturb the neighbor's noise, odor smoke, dust vibration, et cetera.
[2:27:06] The ones that have been focused on the most in this criterion are noise dust and vibration and that's where we'll spend the most time, obviously.
[2:27:13] The first four bullets on this slide, all reference studies which relate to noise and vibration
[2:27:21] at the mind. So these are on the site of the mind, not along the roadway. And all of these
[2:27:27] studies concluded that there was no measurable noise or vibration exceeding appropriate standards
[2:27:33] at the mind itself. Really, the majority of the conversation is focused on the roadway, and that's where
[2:27:43] related to noise and vibration at the mine our attachment 12 in your packet.
[2:27:48] The other studies that were conducted and that are summarized on this slide address really
[2:27:52] the issue of truck traffic, the noise dust and vibration emanating from trucks traveling
[2:27:56] along county road 12 north.
[2:28:00] In addition to the study performed by GCC's consultant wave engineering, the county then retained
[2:28:05] Dr. A. Minimarton to perform a third party analysis of GCC's noise study, that analysis
[2:28:11] This is an attachment 15 to the staff report.
[2:28:15] And although Dr. Martin did recommend certain additional measures and certain additional
[2:28:19] studies we conducted, they did not fundamentally disagree with certain other conclusions
[2:28:24] in GCC's study for example, the 86DBA that was discussed earlier, being used as the appropriate
[2:28:30] standard to measure the noise emanating from truck traffic along county road 12 north.
[2:28:36] Way of engineering then performed a follow-up study in January 2016 to address the additional areas of study recommended by Dr.
[2:28:44] A. Minimarten. That study is attachment 13 to the staff report and all of these studies concluded that the trucks along
[2:28:52] 120 North will meet the state standard of 86 DBA measured at 50 feet from the center line at the highway.
[2:28:57] So when we talk about the proposal that additional buffering be installed in certain locations to protect individual private residences,
[2:29:06] these are additional measures being recommended by the county and agreed to by GCC in order to further reduce the noise experience at those properties below the 86 which it already will meet even without the buffering.
[2:29:21] So I want to be real clear on that. The buffering is proposed to further reduce the noise experience below the standard,
[2:29:27] which is already met without the buffering measures.
[2:29:30] The modeling indicates that that would be somewhere
[2:29:32] as was mentioned in the neighborhood of 4 to 9 DBA,
[2:29:35] depending on the situation.
[2:29:37] The question was asked commissioner about what would happen
[2:29:40] if actual situation on the ground
[2:29:43] turned not to be the case if the buffering war installed
[2:29:45] and it didn't further mitigate.
[2:29:47] That obviously would be a situation where
[2:29:50] pursuant to your normal code enforcement
[2:29:51] you would have the ability to that property owner
[2:29:54] would notify the county that they were experiencing
[2:29:57] noise levels, which they felt succeeded the standard, the cap...
[2:30:00] And they would probably send someone out to take a measurement. And if it did exceed the standard, then you
[2:30:04] could,
[2:30:08] through your normal code enforcement. Process.
[2:30:15] I'd like to move on to dust.
[2:30:19] All of the studies
[2:30:20] concluded that the dust that is generated both at the mine site and along County Road 120 North
[2:30:25] does not exceed the applicable standards. We understand that the neighbors have submitted a study
[2:30:30] which modeled that those standards would, in fact, be exceeded, our expert disagrees with
[2:30:36] some of the methodologies used by their expert, and we can get into that detail if you
[2:30:40] would like.
[2:30:41] But one of the key and most important factors here is that the principle reason for dust to
[2:30:46] be experienced along County Road 12 North is, of course, the fact that that road is not
[2:30:50] paved at present.
[2:30:51] And if this permanent is approved, the immediate obligation on GCC is to pave that stretch
[2:30:57] road that was highlighted in blue on the prior slide, and that paving will virtually eliminate
[2:31:02] the dust situation in that stretch. And so, yes, it is true that the situation can
[2:31:07] be continued to be monitored, and if additional dust which violates the standard is noticed,
[2:31:13] and demonstrated by the county, then additional enforcement can be taken. But the reason
[2:31:17] that situation exists today is because of the fact that this road is not paved, and GCCC is already
[2:31:23] engaging in significant interim mitigation measures to address that and they will continue
[2:31:29] to engage in those interim mitigation measures up to and through the date when the
[2:31:33] paving is complete and those mitigation measures include watering up to four times a day
[2:31:38] when it's necessary based on weather conditions. Right now that paving is scheduled to start
[2:31:45] in June if this permit is approved.
[2:31:49] I'd like to briefly also address the buffering options.
[2:31:53] It was suggested in the one of the various studies that, for the noise reduction, could be achieved by the installation of buffering visual and noise buffering along certain of the affected properties.
[2:32:04] GCC has agreed as a condition of approval to make that available.
[2:32:08] I want to be clear that this is solely at the election of the affected property owners if they choose not to have buffers installed along their property, then no buffers will be installed.
[2:32:17] it is purely optional for them, if they like to have the buffers installed, GCC will do so at their own expense,
[2:32:26] and the window during which they have to elect that is from the approval of the permit up through and concluding the completion of the very last phase of construction.
[2:32:35] In other words, they have the ability to change their mind later in the process if they would prefer not to have the buffering installed today, but want to wait and see whether they're paving in the other measures.
[2:32:46] suitably address their concerns or whether they would like to then add the buffering later on in the process.
[2:32:56] In addition, I'll just mention this new condition of approval that was added since the planning commission to which GCC has agreed,
[2:33:02] which is that if the county determines its necessary and appropriate, it may retain an additional expert at GCC's expense to assist the county in evaluating the efficacy of the various buffering options being considered.
[2:33:16] Here's a sample of some of the potential types of buffering which are available, and these
[2:33:21] are attachment 61 in your staff report if you'd like to look at them in further detail.
[2:33:32] The last one on that list about none of the following shall effect the neighbors was hours
[2:33:38] of operation.
[2:33:39] This slide briefly summarizes the reductions in hours of operation that GCC has agreed
[2:33:43] to as conditions of approval.
[2:33:45] This affects, principally, the use of county road 12 north and no truck traffic on Sundays and
[2:33:53] clustering of truck traffic, 80% of the truck traffic, traffic during daylight hours with only 20% distributed through the evening hours.
[2:34:01] And those are the proposed mitigations in order to ensure that the hours of operation of this facility will not disturb the neighbors.
[2:34:08] Next
[2:34:13] criteria and addresses adverse and unsightly views.
[2:34:16] The mine operation itself, you saw a photograph of it earlier, and you saw it in your site
[2:34:20] visit as well.
[2:34:21] It's located up a drainage.
[2:34:23] It's really not visible, certainly from any private residences and barely visible from
[2:34:28] county road 120 north.
[2:34:29] We're really mostly, as with the rest of this application, talking about the truck traffic
[2:34:33] on county road 120 north, not the mine operation itself.
[2:34:37] If the individual affected neighbors who may have some visual impacts from truck traffic so
[2:34:43] it lacked, they could have a buffering as an additional option to mitigate this impact.
[2:34:51] Another criterion is that the development will not cause pollution of ground or surface waters.
[2:34:59] As was noted by Mr. Peterson at the beginning of our presentation, unlike many coal mines,
[2:35:04] the water table in this case is below the coal seam and therefore no water is encountered in the process of mining.
[2:35:09] This greatly reduces the potential for there to be ground water contamination just in the first place as a practical matter.
[2:35:17] But additionally, this slide summarizes many of these studies that were conducted, which also reads the same conclusion,
[2:35:23] namely that there is no negative impact on groundwater as a result of the mining operation.
[2:35:28] Further, as was explained by staff, as part of the other permit requirements,
[2:35:33] GCCC will be engaging in ongoing groundwater monitoring through the drilling of a number of ground
[2:35:39] monitor groundwater monitoring wells, and if you'd like to ask some more questions or
[2:35:45] have more detail about exactly how that ongoing groundwater monitoring will work, we have the
[2:35:51] appropriate person here to answer those questions. But the data that has been collected so far
[2:35:58] demonstrates that there is no negative operation on groundwater quality today as a result of
[2:36:03] operations and that report is attachment 22 to the staff report.
[2:36:11] The next criterion is that the development will not adversely change the character of the
[2:36:16] neighborhood.
[2:36:18] This is something which obviously is a more qualitative type of standard for you to review,
[2:36:24] but it should be noted that resource distraction is inherently compatible with the rural character
[2:36:28] of the area and so far as it's been occurring in this location, depending on who you ask
[2:36:33] at least 41, if not 1939, it's been here for a very, very long time.
[2:36:41] It's been compatible with ranching since the late 1800s when both of these uses were existing
[2:36:47] compatible together in this location and have been ever since then.
[2:36:51] If there is a recent change, it's really that this area has become slightly more residential
[2:36:56] with additional folks choosing to make this area their home as well as an area for ranching and mining.
[2:37:02] and other similar resource extraction operations.
[2:37:08] The next criteria is privacy.
[2:37:10] This is a similar analysis to views, and I won't repeat what we've already said,
[2:37:15] other than to note that the mine operation itself has virtually no impact on the privacy
[2:37:19] of any individual property owners.
[2:37:21] It's not visible from their property.
[2:37:22] They can't see if they can't hear it.
[2:37:25] And we've already talked about the mitigation measures that are proposed to address any
[2:37:29] concerns about privacy resulting from the use of county road 120 North as the
[2:37:33] possible hall road for the truck traffic.
[2:37:38] In conclusion, we believe that we have demonstrated
[2:37:40] and the expert reports conclusively demonstrate that all of these criteria are met and that
[2:37:46] the application meets the requirements for a class 2 land use permit. In addition, mitigation
[2:37:53] is an appropriate measure for furthering compatibility and for determining whether or not
[2:37:58] these criteria are met and we'd like to spend some time highlighting some of the mitigation
[2:38:02] measures that have already been undertaken and are currently ongoing by GCC, as well as the
[2:38:08] additional mitigation that will be engaged in as conditions of approval if this permit
[2:38:12] is approved.
[2:38:14] And to do that, I will hand the microphone back over to Trent Peterson.
[2:38:35] Thank you.
[2:38:40] Over the last several years, and a number of them just in the last year or two, there have been
[2:38:46] a number of mitigation measures already completed at the responsive, also the community.
[2:38:54] We've committed not to develop groundwater wells as it was stated earlier in response to a
[2:38:59] concern about potential groundwater depletion.
[2:39:02] Reduce truck speeds to 10 miles per hour in front of key residences on unpaid sections
[2:39:08] of the road to further mitigate.
[2:39:20] That's a limitation which we intend to keep in place over the long term.
[2:39:26] Several years ago prohibited the use of Jake Briggs on County Road 120.
[2:39:30] Just over a year ago stopped all coal-holing on Sunday, so I think it's important to
[2:39:35] point out there that the average daily truck trips or truck loads that Daniel Murray presented
[2:39:42] earlier were based on seven day hauling.
[2:39:46] So, in terms of scale, the largest volume in 2014 is comparable to the 120 day truck,
[2:39:55] or 120 truck per day average that we're contemplating in the long term.
[2:40:03] A doctor written policies on trucks being used to the road, conduct speed monitoring and management,
[2:40:10] conduct in-person training, required numbers on trucks for rapid identification,
[2:40:18] installed the direct dial hotline for people to report concerns.
[2:40:22] Since it was installed there have been 25 calls received 7 of those from residents, 18 from GCC employees or from other truck drivers, all of those calls were followed up on.
[2:40:37] Install trucks entering highway signs and county road 1 are in highway 140.
[2:40:43] Reduced posted speed limits.
[2:40:46] Installed a fan silencing device on the ventilation fan at the mine and I understand you were able to see that during the tour from the mezzanine on the east side.
[2:40:54] of the main building, second floor,
[2:41:00] completed the extension of the big stick ditch
[2:41:02] culvert, last year, widen the pavement at the 90 degree corner going in. This was on
[2:41:09] the first stop of your tour two weeks ago. The cars that vary where you're parked would
[2:41:14] have actually been the truck lane for the incoming trucks.
[2:41:22] I agreed not to stage trucks
[2:41:24] at the 1-21-40 intersection, expanded the holding area at the mine, adopted a section
[2:41:30] of County Road 120, and suspended trucking during snow events.
[2:41:36] We've been watering the road up to four times a day to suppress dust, trim foliage to improve
[2:41:43] site distance, and several of other mitigation measures here since 2015.
[2:41:56] Beginning now, this summer there will be new flashing warning signs installed, no increase
[2:42:03] in the 80 truck limit until the road is paved and several ongoing mitigation measures.
[2:42:18] What I emphasize that GCCC is a responsible part of the community.
[2:42:24] It's our mission to operate at the highest levels of safety and integrity, provide jobs
[2:42:28] employees and economic benefits to the county. So I mentioned earlier, we have an excellent
[2:42:33] safety record. We've worked cooperatively with the county and the neighbors and paid experts to
[2:42:39] analyze a number of areas of concern and put a number of mitigation measures in place already.
[2:42:52] Since statistics, in addition to approximately $390,000 in county taxes paid in 2014,
[2:43:00] about half of the $3.5 million in cool royalties has come back to the state of Colorado.
[2:43:06] The bulk of that goes to the public schools of portion of it will go to the county.
[2:43:16] In addition, we spend about $20 million dollars a year on transportation services locally
[2:43:21] and about a million dollars a year to pay the low plot of electric.
[2:43:26] We focused on truck traffic so far in truck counts,
[2:43:30] but I think those are really important nexus to point out here that
[2:43:33] We're not just talking about trucks, we're talking about jobs, and if there's a pretty clear
[2:43:38] equivalence, see that one truck per day equals about three jobs.
[2:43:42] One employee, one truck driver, one indirect community jobs, that basic number of 80 trucks per
[2:43:50] day is what's required to pay for road improvements and continue to operate the mine.
[2:44:17] In conclusion, we would just like to note that this application does meet all of the county
[2:44:23] requirements for a class 2 land use permit.
[2:44:25] If this application is approved, all of these bulleted items on this slide will occur.
[2:44:32] $10 million a new road improvements on going maintenance fee permanent cap on the truck
[2:44:37] numbers.
[2:44:38] We believe we have demonstrated that all of the criteria are met and we ask for your favorable
[2:44:42] approval of the class 2 land use permit.
[2:44:45] As a matter of just process, I would also like to request that if the Board of County Commissioners
[2:44:51] considers imposing additional conditions of approval beyond those which were addressed in the staff report we request the opportunity to address them later at that time
[2:45:00] Thank you for your time and attention today.
[2:45:10] Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Commissioners, questions?
[2:45:25] Thank you. I have a couple of questions. One is related to some.
[2:45:32] There were a couple of things that were supposed to have happened by today.
[2:45:36] And I was doing a check-in to see if they happened. One, I believe, had to do with design
[2:45:43] designs being given to Seedot, and I think that's related to the 140 kind of room 120 intersection.
[2:45:51] Can anybody have talk about that?
[2:45:53] Commissioner Mr. Chairman, if I may, what we'll do is I'll just try to field them and get the right person to answer your question.
[2:46:00] The short answer to that is yes, all of the things that we're required to have happened by today have happened.
[2:46:05] Specifically as to the Seedot permit question, I would like to ask Mr. Olson to answer that.
[2:46:12] I go Mike also with voter engineering, we're currently, they have not the final plans for review.
[2:46:20] We're working with CDOT right now. We're addressing environmental to make sure that there's some in compliance.
[2:46:27] This is part of interim process when they go through it.
[2:46:31] We're working through the month of June to make that happen.
[2:46:35] We had a day of June first to have everything in there, but we're working with CDOT right now.
[2:46:42] And with the access permit, it has a termination date of July 4th, I think, and that was part
[2:46:52] of working with C-DOT as they can comply with everything that they were requesting.
[2:46:57] So it's not a black and white.
[2:46:58] When you work with C-DOT, it's not black and white.
[2:47:00] So you go through and you give information and they come back and so we are on task for meeting the requirements of the access permit.
[2:47:16] I'll ask you, Mr. Olsen, you might be the best person to answer, with respect to where the conceptual plans are for the roadway, road improvements, why it's going to require.
[2:47:31] We talked a little bit earlier about what a condemnation procedure would look like, but I think from my perspective, it's really right of way.
[2:47:42] position is the first step and we would be looking at right away acquisition because the road
[2:47:49] would be widened pretty much its entire length and in some places extra widened so to speak
[2:47:57] I think to accommodate curves and other considerations. Is that a fair statement what I just said?
[2:48:04] being clarified what you're currently the county is set up for a 60-foot right away.
[2:48:12] And the way that the canner at 120 north is set up is that it's prescriptive views,
[2:48:19] which means that there is not necessarily a document that says this is the right
[2:48:25] way of the road, but it is, in effect, it's, from femsline to femsline. And a significant portion
[2:48:33] of the existing road has 60 feet. And it's the intent that we would try to keep the alignment
[2:48:40] on the final alignment as close to the existing alignment as we can. There will be areas of
[2:48:48] that the alignment required, the desire required, some acquisition of additional width.
[2:48:57] That being said, it's not intended that a full parcel, unless it's deemed that the parcel
[2:49:01] is no longer usable, but it's intended that slivers will be acquired.
[2:49:07] As with that, GCC, you know, for the, just being sort of simplified, GCC is going to pay
[2:49:14] the bill, the county is going to go ahead on any type of right away this acquired or any
[2:49:18] of a documentation.
[2:49:19] It will be, in effect, for the county.
[2:49:21] It will be a GCC will be, in effect, working for as an agent for the county.
[2:49:25] So the intent being is, when we finally get this done, is that what currently have maybe
[2:49:30] seven hundred feet of right away actually doesn't need right away out there for six
[2:49:34] half miles, is intended that the county will have documentation that supports the right
[2:49:40] whether it be permanent easement or or an actual right away fee deed for that full six and
[2:49:47] half miles. Does that answer your question there?
[2:49:52] Yeah, I mean that's I think you clarified the topic. What is is there any room and you might
[2:50:03] not be right at the right person for this answer, but certainly at least the two of the
[2:50:10] specific to the residences along the road that would be affected by this.
[2:50:15] The proximity of the road exes it exists now.
[2:50:19] To those residents certainly complicates things,
[2:50:23] aggravates exacerbates negative impacts,
[2:50:26] whether it's the dust or the noise.
[2:50:29] Based on what you've done,
[2:50:31] is there anything that makes you think that it would be possible to
[2:50:37] have the new alignment even 20 feet further away from those
[2:50:42] resonances.
[2:50:45] The mic also again.
[2:50:46] And what I can say now that the alignment will be in
[2:50:51] closer that currently exists.
[2:50:55] There is part of the next phase of analysis,
[2:50:59] specifically at the end of the asphalt, starting at the
[2:51:03] aggregate section of the roadway, it's intended to evaluate
[2:51:06] an alternate alignment in that vicinity to improve the distance,
[2:51:15] the separation between the
[2:51:16] partial owner along with improve the geometry or the alignment of the vertical alignment
[2:51:21] of the road going up to Robert's ridge. That will be part of the evaluation that's creating
[2:51:27] a set of preliminary plans. The other resonance that's west of that location is difficult
[2:51:34] because you've got a total slope that's right there adjacent, so it's anticipated that the actual
[2:51:42] alignment will be no closer than it currently is, but to incorporate, it's probably going
[2:51:50] to get into the hillside just a little bit there. And then with respect to the Roberts Ridge
[2:51:55] vertical alignment, I don't know what that means. I'm sorry. What it means is they have a steep driveway.
[2:52:02] I notice.
[2:52:04] And they have very limited landing room when you come down the out the hill and so by evaluating
[2:52:12] an alternate where you move the alignment of the county road to the south, that might
[2:52:19] provide for additional landing zone for them to come down off the hill.
[2:52:23] I thank you.
[2:52:24] That was another aspect of my question you got to before I did.
[2:52:29] I think that's it for my questions for you.
[2:52:33] I did have a question for your sound person.
[2:52:36] And this is a technical question.
[2:52:39] I don't remember who the sound person was.
[2:52:41] Okay, you're going to have to come up to my question.
[2:52:42] I'm going to ask you, Wave Engineering.
[2:52:43] We'll bring him up.
[2:52:45] Thank you.
[2:52:47] Yeah, sure.
[2:52:53] You were my question earlier about the appropriate standard
[2:52:56] for deciding compatibility.
[2:52:59] And I'd need clarification.
[2:53:00] the 86 decibels that are contemplated in this tap report versus the 50 that is the
[2:53:12] HUD standard. Is the 86 an instant? Sound measurement or is it the average? It appeared to
[2:53:21] mean reading the information that the HUD standard is an average over, I believe, daylight
[2:53:27] or possibly over a period of hours, and is the 86 also an average of or a period of hours?
[2:53:37] Commissioner Garmin, Jeff Kolkowski, Wave Engineering, 1100 West Littleton,
[2:53:44] Boulevard, number 420, Littleton, Colorado, 8012.
[2:53:51] The 86 of the B.A. standard that is in the
[2:53:54] statute is essentially an instantaneous value that would be measured 50 feet from the
[2:54:01] center line of the road as the vehicle passes by. So it's a very short duration
[2:54:07] standard. You alluded to some research where you had seen that that was roughly about
[2:54:17] the same as where you might get hearing damage or something. And that comes from OSHA,
[2:54:24] the occupational safety and health administration has regulations on occupational noise and
[2:54:31] there are threshold of 85 deaths, DBA or decibels, but that is an eight-hour time-weighted
[2:54:39] average.
[2:54:39] So that's the noise exposure of an employee over an eight-hour shift and that is just the
[2:54:46] point at which they begin to look at mitigation or hearing conservation program or things
[2:54:50] like that, that's not necessarily where hearing damage automatically occurs.
[2:54:56] So the 86 DBA level is a very short term level.
[2:55:00] So it's far from any kind of hearing damage threshold.
[2:55:03] And just to let you know, we've measured during our study,
[2:55:08] quite a few truck pass-bys along the road
[2:55:11] at distances of 50 feet from the center line.
[2:55:15] We did not measure any trucks that were over 80 DBA.
[2:55:19] So, that is the state statute limit, the majority of the trucks are already well below that.
[2:55:45] You want my trustee, Mike?
[2:55:49] What speed were those trucks moving at approximately?
[2:55:54] Was it before the rule to slow down really a lot in front of those houses?
[2:56:01] Or was it when they were maintaining regular speeds?
[2:56:03] Well, we measured under a variety of conditions.
[2:56:07] So we measured on, along both the paved and the gravel portions of the road.
[2:56:12] We measured on the paved road where the trucks were going at the post of speed limit,
[2:56:21] which was already less than the same limit for cars on the same road.
[2:56:26] So it was at the limits as they are now and as they would be going forward.
[2:56:31] On the gravel road, we measured both near homes where the trucks were under the voluntary
[2:56:37] limit of GCC's voluntary limit of 10 miles an hour near the homes, but we also measured
[2:56:43] at other portions of the gravel road away from the homes where the truck limit was 25 miles
[2:56:50] an hour.
[2:56:51] So we measured under variety of conditions.
[2:56:53] And
[2:56:57] do you measure any non-coltruck traffic?
[2:57:01] Yes.
[2:57:02] And what did you find with that?
[2:57:05] We found that many times the non-coltruck traffic, which might be an individual's passenger vehicle.
[2:57:15] It might be a pickup truck, a private pickup truck or a commercial pickup truck or things.
[2:57:21] So many times those sound levels are the same as or louder than the trucks just because they're going at much higher speeds.
[2:57:29] So on the 35 mow an hour, or on the paved road, you know, they might be going 45 or 50 mow an hour, whereas the trucks are maintaining the 30 or 35 mow an hour limit.
[2:57:41] Okay, thank you. I have one other question I think for this witness, but I...
[2:57:47] Can you just, I think it was, no, it wasn't you, is the air quality person. You're okay.
[2:58:04] And then you have an air quality person, is that correct?
[2:58:07] Yes, let me ask him to come to the table.
[2:58:19] Thank you, Mr. My name is Vinit Masura.
[2:58:20] Yeah,
[2:58:24] it's V-I-N-W-E-T, and last name is M-A-S-U-R-A-H-A, and I help on the air quality side, and
[2:58:32] I live in Irvine, California, 33-06, Crescent Way.
[2:58:41] Okay.
[2:58:41] Thank you.
[2:58:42] We did the Air Quality Monitoring, I think, report for GCC, and there was a different
[2:58:50] air quality outcome or evaluation,
[2:58:55] and I don't recall the name of the person who did that.
[2:58:57] Ethan Mayer, I think it was from November of 2015, perhaps.
[2:59:01] Do you familiar with kind of a review of your report and that came to different conclusions
[2:59:07] and could you talk about that?
[2:59:09] Yeah, I reviewed all three reports put together by the MMA, which also studied the air quality
[2:59:18] And just to clarify, it's not air quality monitoring, it's air quality modeling, which is used using US EPA establish method, and both, I guess experts have used similar methods, it's just the inputs, which will be a little bit different, and that led to in my review, which I have identified on May 13, why I believe they are review, simply overestimate a lot of
[2:59:48] PM-10 a mission which I guess model for 24 hour averaging period in my report as well as in their report too.
[3:00:01] You can read different conclusions. Can you explain why your conclusions were different from theirs or?
[3:00:09] Yeah, definitely. I'm not sure if my May 13 report is part of your binder or not.
[3:00:17] It is an I'll tell you the number in just a second.
[3:00:19] Okay, but I kind of actually answered the question there, but the big thing is in any of EPA method, there are a lot of, there's one method which is kind of a,
[3:00:31] method used by everybody, but it's known as AP42, and AP42 uses many variables, so one of the key variable there is, you know, the silt content, how much is the silt in the unpaid road, which can get knocked around by the dust moving on the road, and you know, higher the silt content definitely the higher the PM10 emission would be, and it happens to be, as I identified in my method in report, the emissions are so high, if you just look at the
[3:01:01] quantification what they have done, the other expert have done, it comes out to be around 600
[3:01:06] tons per year of PM 10 emission. And I work with a lot of industrial facility, I have done work
[3:01:12] with close to 20 years of building power, plant, cement plant, coal mining and all sort of mining.
[3:01:18] I have never seen a four-mile stretch of which is kind of naturally unpaid road, it is actually
[3:01:31] this would have been true, this would have been a very large source of, you know, PM-10
[3:01:36] emission and CDPHE would have been very, very worried about all this, this would have been
[3:01:41] a major source, this mine is not a major source, this is a minor source and 600 tons of
[3:01:47] emission if you just put that in contest that would have required approximately 1 to 2 trucks
[3:01:53] you would have to haul every month if you assume all that dust can be captured and then
[3:01:59] put it in a truck, you would be hauling close to two trucks a month to haul that dust which
[3:02:04] has been overestimated by the other other expert. And this road probably by this time would
[3:02:09] have not even existed if that those numbers are true. And remember you see also puts a lot of
[3:02:15] water here that water usually doubles the moisture content as I put in my report as well. If you put
[3:02:23] approximately, you know, they are putting around 0.3 gallon per square yard, much of water
[3:02:31] there. If you apply that much water, that basically doubles the moisture content. If you double
[3:02:35] the moisture content, that approximately quits to 75 to 80 percent control. And remember,
[3:02:42] paving, if you pay the road, that's approximately 95 to 99 percent control. That's why I believe
[3:02:48] the other expert has over estimated the emission and also I want to point out the form I work
[3:02:55] with Trinity Consultants we actually developed the model for EPA back and 40 years back.
[3:03:01] So I am very familiar with how EPA has developed the model as well as not only in Colorado
[3:03:06] we work all around the country with all the different minds as I said simply based on my review
[3:03:12] of all the expert report put together by the MMA. It's way, way, way over-estimate all the PM-10
[3:03:18] emission and therefore the impacts.
[3:03:21] And the May 13 report that Mr. Mosser,
[3:03:28] that's exhibit number 69 in your packet is the
[3:03:31] May 13 2016 Supplemental Expert report from Mr. Mosser, Ahah.
[3:03:37] And one more thing I'd like to point out when I hear the dust and in a couple of last hearing
[3:03:44] have seen people bringing the pictures of the dust, you know, knocked by the trucks.
[3:03:49] I just want to point out, the PM-10 standard, what EPA has established for PM-10, it's
[3:03:54] a 24 hour average standard.
[3:03:57] So you could see a dust right away, but that necessarily doesn't mean that it will cause
[3:04:02] the violation of the EPA standard.
[3:04:05] It has to be similar level of dust has to exist for 24 hour in order for somebody to
[3:04:11] field some sort of primary secondary health related impact.
[3:04:15] And there are region YEBA has established that 24-hour averaging period.
[3:04:19] And I kind of little bit outline the history of YEBA has never changed the 24-hour averaging
[3:04:26] period.
[3:04:27] There are several pollutants for which EBA has established the sort of averaging period such
[3:04:32] as one hour and three hour.
[3:04:33] But for PM 10, after close to 60 years worth of history and the research EBA still uses
[3:04:40] 24 hours every evening period for PMT.
[3:04:45] Thank you.
[3:04:51] Mr. Chair, I do have a number of questions.
[3:04:54] I want to know for the record it is a little afternoon.
[3:04:57] I'm not sure if we want to take our break now and resume questions after the public comment
[3:05:02] period or how what is the pleasure of the board.
[3:05:17] Okay.
[3:05:20] Thank you very much for your presentation.
[3:05:22] I don't believe we establish for the record the address of GCCC in where GCCC is based
[3:05:30] and what GCC stands for.
[3:05:34] I'm going to ask Trent to do that as it relates to GCCC.
[3:05:43] GCCC is an acronym for a group of cementals that you allow.
[3:05:47] Group of cementals that you allow was founded in Chihuahua, Mexico in 1941.
[3:05:51] on first-it-business in the United States in 1994, currently the U.S. division covers
[3:05:59] a number of states, central rocky states, as well as mid-Western states. The U.S. division
[3:06:07] headquarters for GCC of America is a 600-South Cherry Street Glendale, Colorado, 802-46,
[3:06:17] I believe. Locally, GCCC Energy was formed in 2004 when GCCC bought the assets of the National King
[3:06:31] coal mine. GCCC's local address is 6473 County Road 120, Hesperis, Colorado 81326.
[3:06:42] Thank you very much, and I guess I'll follow on to that regarding the enforcement question
[3:06:48] and our concern about enforcement and the fact that GCC is based in Mexico do the
[3:06:56] local officials of the company have the authority to act on the company's behalf or is
[3:07:01] this a chain of command that would take some time because we'd have to get a response from
[3:07:07] to go to Denver to Hesperis.
[3:07:12] Local officials have the authority to act on GCC's behalf.
[3:07:16] Thank you very much.
[3:07:17] And the U.S. division is a U.S. company license to do business in the United States.
[3:07:23] Okay, thank you.
[3:07:33] Regarding the truck drivers, are the truck drivers, GCC employees or is the company a subcontractor to GCC?
[3:07:44] is that a separate entity altogether?
[3:07:49] The Strat Peterson is not employ any truck drivers of its own.
[3:07:56] All truck driving is contracted out either by us or by our customers.
[3:08:03] And because some of the truck traffic is one of our major issues with GCC,
[3:08:13] describe the nature of your contract and the ability for you to be able to enforce the provisions
[3:08:21] of this permit with here subcontractor.
[3:08:26] Rable to enforce the provisions of this permit by establishing local policy policies that
[3:08:33] govern the operation of trucks on our property or on the highways similar to similar
[3:08:38] to the way we would enforce policy on our own employees.
[3:08:41] And
[3:08:45] I would add to that that you can see that already occurring because many of the existing mitigation measures involve the operation of the trucks such as reduced speed limits and you know the 1-800 number and so on and all of those have been policies adopted by GCC with which the truck companies are required to comply and they have done so.
[3:09:07] Okay. Thank you.
[3:09:10] In my event that there is an accident on county road 120 north and the road is closed for
[3:09:18] an accident or some other purpose. Even construction, you stated that you hoped to
[3:09:24] begin phase one as early as is the first of June. Would you re route traffic in that event
[3:09:34] or would you cease, truck, hauling, and tell the road was reopened, and would you have to
[3:09:41] seek an exception to the permit?
[3:09:47] Yeah, there is currently a condition of approval that says that any routing of truck
[3:09:52] traffic on anything other than county or road going to any north would require the approval
[3:09:56] of county public works.
[3:10:00] And, actually, I'm going to happen.
[3:10:06] I think also a related partial answer to your question is you're really referencing the
[3:10:10] emergency response plan that was an additional condition of approval in between planning commission
[3:10:17] and border county commissioners and there is a draft emergency response plan. I was just
[3:10:22] trying to look it up to see where in your packet it is and I can tie that in a minute. A draft
[3:10:26] plan has been prepared by GCC and with the recommendations of the various agencies incorporated
[3:10:32] into that and as I understand it there's now discussion of a further condition of approval
[3:10:37] that further meetings be held involving members of the public who have additional questions
[3:10:41] and concerns about that, but the response plan would dictate whether alternative routing
[3:10:46] is to be requested from the county, but Mr. Peterson's right that the county would still
[3:10:51] have to approve any alternative routing.
[3:10:54] Thank you.
[3:10:58] Does GCC operate any other coal-mine operation similar to the one in Hesperis?
[3:11:08] Okay, given that I'm not sure you're prepared to answer this next question, but are you aware of any other counties in Colorado, for example, that do have coal mine operations similar to yours, and are you aware of any other, you know, what are those counties charging per ton for hauling et cetera?
[3:11:34] Are there best practices you've been able to borrow from other counties?
[3:11:43] I can't speak to that level of detail.
[3:11:46] I do know that in the North Fork Valley around Paleon,
[3:11:50] there's been significant conversation between the coal operations and local jurisdictions about mine impacts.
[3:11:57] I don't know what extent there are impact fees levied.
[3:12:03] Okay, I do believe our county did have discussions with perhaps Rout County about it's operations with Peabody
[3:12:14] Okay
[3:12:15] It's correct Daniel Murphy
[3:12:16] Plain department. We did have a conference called Rout County and the Peabody mine
[3:12:22] Can you tell me what they charge per ton for
[3:12:27] Impacts to the roads I
[3:12:34] remember off the top of my head and in fact
[3:12:36] they had their whole program entirely differently structured example they issue a permit for the
[3:12:43] mind they issue a permit for the road so they approach it in a different way and they also
[3:12:48] have rail transport so that it's not necessarily a identical comparison because we don't
[3:12:56] have that option okay do we have an amount per ton, does any staff remember what they charge
[3:13:04] for time?
[3:13:06] Well, in the else correct, we had those discussions some time ago, without counting, but I
[3:13:13] don't recall either, and I'm looking around table to see if anybody recalls the rate
[3:13:16] that they mentioned to us.
[3:13:23] Do you need the trust team?
[3:13:24] I don't.
[3:13:25] Commissioner, I can't do it.
[3:13:26] You need staff to pursue that information.
[3:13:28] We can certainly do that.
[3:13:32] Okay.
[3:13:32] I think it would be helpful to have a comparison just until we understand if we're in the ballpark
[3:13:37] with similar county, similar operations
[3:13:40] if we're charging too much, too little.
[3:13:44] Just come Paris and.
[3:13:45] Mr. Chair, if I may just to go back to your power question,
[3:13:48] we've identified the emergency response plan
[3:13:50] as being item 50, 50 in your packet.
[3:13:53] Thank you.
[3:13:59] Okay, Mr. Chair, I think that concludes majority
[3:14:01] of my questions for the moment.
[3:14:04] Thank you.
[3:14:04] I am back to my monitoring wells question
[3:14:08] and would like to just ask a couple of questions.
[3:14:12] on that.
[3:14:16] If you could identify yourself and your address, please.
[3:14:21] Mr. Landon Beck, resource hydrogeologic services field, about 2-8-36 during
[3:14:26] the Colorado 8-1-301. Can you spell your first name, L-A-N-D-O-N?
[3:14:36] Thank you. Can you
[3:14:38] speak to the nature and the number of monitoring wells in the location, generally, you
[3:14:43] don't have to pinpoint them, but maybe generally.
[3:14:47] Are we talking about the proposed wells that we're proposed wells?
[3:14:51] Yes, water monitoring well, right?
[3:14:54] OK, so currently proposed are for what we call clusters.
[3:15:00] As their monitor wells close together. Four clusters of three wells each and each of those wells will be completed in a discrete interval to monitor both water levels and water quality if water is even present.
[3:15:16] The locations of those, which were, you know, subject to TR-26 on going technical revision with the state of the RMS.
[3:15:28] What we've done is we've placed one cluster to the north of the mind, which is considered upgradient.
[3:15:34] That will provide baseline data.
[3:15:38] In other words, data that will be collected in order to show background.
[3:15:46] natural conditions can't possibly be affected by any mining, by GCC.
[3:15:52] And then what we do is we look at downgrading locations.
[3:15:57] So in this case, there's two locations, cluster locations that are to the south of the
[3:16:03] project area.
[3:16:04] And then in addition to that, we have another location that is what we would call crossgrading.
[3:16:11] And that's just mostly due to the location of that del Vista del Oro subdivision, immediately
[3:16:20] to the west southwest of the King II mine.
[3:16:29] Are there any other monitoring plans for existing wells in the area?
[3:16:36] So currently, GCC monitors three existing groundwater wells, and those are in the hate
[3:16:43] area. And those are all completed in the Hague ultraluvium, so just un-consolidated
[3:16:50] sediments. And the location, well, I should say, those are considered compliance wells
[3:16:57] by DRMS. And those wells are sampled for water quality and also water level, depth
[3:17:07] water measurements quarterly.
[3:17:11] And those records go back a substantial period of time. So, for
[3:17:16] example, with the king one mind, those records go back to 1982, and then the other two wells
[3:17:23] were brought online more for the king two operations ahead of the king two operations.
[3:17:31] Those,
[3:17:32] Because those wells, like I say, are monitored quarterly, were actually in a phase now where
[3:17:38] we're monitoring the actual field parameters.
[3:17:42] So that is to say, parameters such as pH temperature, conductivity, et cetera, on a monthly
[3:17:50] basis, and then the laboratory sample collection is still on a quarterly basis.
[3:17:57] Thank you. And generally, what depth are those wells?
[3:18:02] Existing wells are because there's our shallow, alluvial wells, we're on the order of 20 to 30 feet.
[3:18:10] One of them is 65 feet, actually.
[3:18:12] But yes, so those are more on the shallow side.
[3:18:16] We consider the proposed monitor well clusters.
[3:18:21] Now those are bedrock wells, okay?
[3:18:23] So those are going to be on the order of say 300 feet.
[3:18:32] Mr. Chairman, Carolyn Whiteigan, for the record, if I may, I would just note that your
[3:18:37] condition 17 proposed by staff is the one which requires that the data from these monitoring
[3:18:43] wells be posted on a website and made public on a going forward basis.
[3:18:48] Thank you.
[3:18:49] Thank you for your time.
[3:18:53] Any further questions?
[3:18:56] commissioners council.
[3:19:00] With that I guess we will adjourn for lunch and come back after lunch.
[3:19:08] We need one hour one hour and at that time we'll hear from
[3:19:17] the mayor's council.
[3:19:21] All right we'll adjourn until 120. Thank you.
[3:19:27] Let's go.
[4:21:57] Testing. Thank you. We are going to call our meeting to order. Thank you for coming. And we would like to
[4:22:07] mention that because we are running late, public comment was due to start at one, we will be
[4:22:15] hearing from the neighbors and legal counsel for the neighbors. If you would like to make public comment
[4:22:22] and you're on a very short timeline,
[4:22:25] we would welcome you to come and give public comment
[4:22:28] at this time, but we realize that it would be good
[4:22:31] to hear from the neighbors in their presentation.
[4:22:35] Is there any one that needs to make public comment?
[4:22:40] No, you'll need to come up, Brian.
[4:22:42] Have you filled out a,
[4:23:00] right up here at the podium?
[4:23:01] And have you filled out one of these pink slips?
[4:23:04] And what was your name, sir?
[4:23:05] On Wilson.
[4:23:06] Can you speak right into that mic and give your name
[4:23:08] your address for the record.
[4:23:11] John Wilson, 898, Tucker Lane, Bayfield, Colorado, 8122.
[4:23:17] Thank you.
[4:23:17] You're welcome.
[4:23:21] Go ahead.
[4:23:21] You ready?
[4:23:22] You're ready.
[4:23:23] Okay.
[4:23:23] I'm a retired officer at the United States Air Force.
[4:23:27] 28 years.
[4:23:30] Service.
[4:23:32] I swore.
[4:23:34] To.
[4:23:35] Protect.
[4:23:36] By oath.
[4:23:38] This country.
[4:23:40] From all aggressors, foreign and domestic.
[4:23:46] And that's what I feel like I'm doing today.
[4:23:49] Somebody wanted to close down a perfectly good company
[4:23:55] that supports people up to 300 as I understand it.
[4:24:00] Working 550 for the mind in 150 and supporting jobs.
[4:24:06] Those people have families and to support the political agenda of the federal government.
[4:24:16] I find to be a crime in this case.
[4:24:19] That mine has got some of the best cold that there is.
[4:24:25] They have not been tagged for any pollution problems that I know of, but the federal government
[4:24:30] has.
[4:24:31] I mean, they dropped all the stuff in the river.
[4:24:33] So, they're far better off than this company is.
[4:24:38] These people, like you said behind me, I don't know one of them, other than I introduce myself
[4:24:42] to two back there.
[4:24:44] So my agenda is to support these people and their jobs, and I strongly, strongly recommend
[4:24:52] that you people who are here to support the people of this county do so.
[4:24:59] Thank you.
[4:25:00] Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
[4:25:01] Is
[4:25:08] there anyone else that needs to make
[4:25:22] the niece, Denise Baca?
[4:25:29] She must have had to leave.
[4:25:42] I will go ahead and briefly read Denise's comment on her pink slip.
[4:25:47] It says, I will be presenting property value data along County Road 120 North, the effects
[4:25:52] of trucking on residents, house values.
[4:25:56] So I imagine she wanted to talk about that.
[4:26:01] For those of you who weren't here earlier, we do have,
[4:26:12] let's see, we do have some ground rules for speaking for the public during their public comment.
[4:26:20] If you'd like to speak, please complete a pink sheet and provide it to Jan or to Jeannie up here.
[4:26:28] And I will call off the names of three speakers at a time if your name is called, please move to the front of the room and speak at the podium.
[4:26:38] We value and respect every opinion and ask that the audience to do the same by refraining from applause and outbursts.
[4:26:47] Each public speaker will be given three minutes for their public comment.
[4:26:52] Thank you.
[4:26:54] All right, now we can go ahead and switch gears again to hear the presentation by neighbors
[4:27:05] with legal counsel and boards and initial questions.
[4:27:20] Thank you very much.
[4:27:22] Members of the Commission, Mr. Chair.
[4:27:25] Thank you all for allowing us to make this presentation.
[4:27:29] My name is Luke Danielson. I'm a lawyer in Gunnison, Colorado. I wanted to come down to the big city here to make this presentation. I represent the Cross Creek Range.
[4:27:44] And let me just tell you a little bit about my client. They're a landowner on County Road 120 North. It's owned by the Fountains family.
[4:27:53] The folks family have been active in this area since 1901, lived in the Fort Corners area much longer than that, but I've just wanted to say we are not here because we oppose mining.
[4:28:10] We're not here for anything other than to try to help balance the interests of the neighbors with the interests of the mining company.
[4:28:19] Okay, I don't want ever, I spent my whole career trying to get us beyond the thing, I like the mine, I don't like the mine.
[4:28:29] You know, things are much more complicated and nuanced than that, and I hope that's where we're going to go.
[4:28:35] I just wanted to,
[4:28:40] for some reason, then that these buttons seem to advance me.
[4:28:45] I guess I need to use this. Next, this is just my personal note. This is where I live when I was a little boy.
[4:28:51] my parents taught it for Lewis while I was still out at the fort before the Durango campus.
[4:28:59] And I wanted to get to do a little history. This is where we were not so long ago.
[4:29:05] I'm sure some of you remember Violet Smith.
[4:29:08] I do because I was a member of our statewide land reclamation board.
[4:29:12] And I remember what our inspectors used to say when we told them they had to go out and inspect this mine.
[4:29:18] They were always happy about it.
[4:29:21] But, you know, basically, we had a mom-and-pop operation.
[4:29:26] That's really what it was.
[4:29:28] In 2001, the Bureau of Labor Management
[4:29:30] didn't environmental assessment.
[4:29:33] And they found that at that time,
[4:29:36] it was an estimated 18 to 28 cul-trucks at that.
[4:29:40] That's what was going on out there at that time, right?
[4:29:46] And they anticipated that that would continue to be the production rate 300,000 tons a year.
[4:29:54] Okay?
[4:29:55] We now have the company having successfully made an application to the state.
[4:30:00] The raise their production rate to 1,300,000 times. So from this time to date, we've had a quadrupling of the production.
[4:30:09] It is no longer a mom and pop operation, and if we ever wanted to treat it like one, it's not time to do it anymore.
[4:30:17] impacts are, we have grown dramatically, and it's operated by a major multinational company.
[4:30:25] Okay, group of the cementers that you are, is a very successful cement manufacturer,
[4:30:31] a $14 billion company. It just bought this month a bunch of major assets,
[4:30:39] mostly in the front range for $400 million. Okay, so this is not a company without assets
[4:30:49] this operation has been in non-compliance with the land use code for years.
[4:30:56] Okay, here is the August 5, 2010 letter from the county attorney that we've talked about before.
[4:31:03] This is a violation of the Laplaza County land use code directing the company to get in compliance in August of 2010.
[4:31:13] Okay, here we are almost six years later, and we're going to see what's been, here is
[4:31:22] prior to the county's letter, if you'll see, these are production figures, incidentally,
[4:31:29] if you're interested in these production figures, look at our Karl Mount's exhibit 35 or
[4:31:40] 35, which has all the data about past production and that he compiled, but you see that at
[4:31:48] no point did we ever get to 500,000 times a year prior to the county letter. Here's what
[4:31:54] happened after. Okay, here's the county letter. Suddenly we're up to 600, 800, 900, and an
[4:32:03] application to go to 1.3 million. Okay, so this is after being told that they're not in compliance
[4:32:10] with the county land use code, we see this dramatic ramping up a production during which period
[4:32:17] we never actually quite get a permit, right? Here are the, here's how that production
[4:32:25] translates to co truck trips. As you see, there's a little bit of hatching there that
[4:32:30] represents these differences that Mr. Olson talked about earlier between seven day operation,
[4:32:38] in six-day operation or five-day operation but what we're seeing here is by our calculation
[4:32:46] and all of our numbers are there in the record in Mr. Mount's report. 46 Coltrux per
[4:32:54] day that's actually double that number, 92 if you count the coming and the going. But what
[4:33:02] What we see is growing coltruck traffic on that road up to where we could have reached
[4:33:12] 171 trucks, 342 trucks total a day.
[4:33:20] That's just part of the story, though, because what I'm trying to convey is that at approximately
[4:33:30] that same time. GCC for reasons that have never really been made completely clear to us adopted
[4:33:38] an internal policy. Prior to that time, the truck drivers had apparently been allowed to
[4:33:44] select their own routes. Some of them went on one-nineteen, some of them went on one-nineteen,
[4:33:49] some of them went on one-nineteen, some of them went on one-nineteen, but starting in 2011, all of them,
[4:33:54] percent of them were directed by the company on to 14 North. Okay, so it isn't just the total
[4:34:01] number of trucks ramping up, but now they're all concentrated on one road segment. Okay, so that's
[4:34:09] why we start seeing some of the concerns. This is not Violet Smith and her 18 trucks a day.
[4:34:16] Okay? What is this meant? This is from Mr. Olsen's report. And this is, what is this meant for truck traffic?
[4:34:26] Well, we've gone from the 2001 level to a proposed level of 312 trips.
[4:34:37] And if you add the other trucks, the water trucks, the supply trucks, the equipment trucks,
[4:34:43] bringing stuff up to the mind, and all the employee vehicles
[4:34:46] were talking about 660 trips a day.
[4:34:51] OK, 312 per day of these large heavy trucks.
[4:34:56] We're going to talk about these five subjects.
[4:34:59] OK, and let me start into road safety.
[4:35:04] Just say this.
[4:35:06] There's all kind of talk about, oh, well,
[4:35:09] they're all these different layers of regulation.
[4:35:11] This is an area where the county is clearly in the driver's seat, okay?
[4:35:17] The county has the responsibility for regulating activity on county roads.
[4:35:23] It's not the Bureau of Land Management or some agency in Washington, D.C.
[4:35:27] This is the county's job, okay?
[4:35:32] And the code requires an analysis of safety as part of the application process.
[4:35:40] And we believe that the current levels of truck traffic on the current roadway just simply aren't safe.
[4:35:48] The public is exposed unreasonable dangers.
[4:35:52] LSC transportation consultants is a highly regarded traffic engineering firm.
[4:35:58] It came out that traffic counts measured the curves, measured the width, did all kinds of analysis of the roadway.
[4:36:06] And this is their conclusion.
[4:36:09] at a level of 80-loaded cult trucks a day that we are not adequately ensuring a reasonable degree of public safety on the road.
[4:36:19] I've brought Jeff Hodgson, a traffic engineer with LSC here with me, and Jeff is going to explain his conclusions.
[4:36:30] Thank you, Mr. Danielson.
[4:36:31] Again, not Jeff Hodgston with LSC Transportation Consultants, 545 East Pikes Peak, Sweet
[4:36:38] 210 Colorado Springs, 80903.
[4:36:43] We're a Colorado-based traffic engineering and transportation planning sort of specialty
[4:36:49] firm.
[4:36:50] We have offices in Denver and Colorado Springs and Tahoe City, California.
[4:36:56] Speaking for myself, I have 23 years of experience in these fields, conducting traffic impact
[4:37:04] assessment reports, traffic operations analysis, roadway geometry analysis.
[4:37:12] In addition to the reports we've submitted, I've read the reports and the staff recommendations.
[4:37:18] I've directed and supervised our personnel in the field taking measurements and doing traffic
[4:37:25] counts and I've examined the route in detail myself on a couple of visits.
[4:37:34] Okay,
[4:37:39] there we go.
[4:37:40] I look at the screen instead of my paper, it would be better off anyway.
[4:37:45] So when we prepared our reports in our evaluation, we considered the factors that are shown
[4:37:52] on the slide, specifically calling attention
[4:37:55] to horizontal alignment and roadway width,
[4:37:59] the lane width, as well as sight distance.
[4:38:03] And the traffic volumes on the roadway
[4:38:05] and the mix of vehicles.
[4:38:08] And it's important to note about the mix of vehicles.
[4:38:11] You know, when you talk about a local roadway
[4:38:13] and criteria, often you refer to a local roadway
[4:38:16] with a typical mix of resident, mostly residential traffic
[4:38:19] and perhaps some other uses as well.
[4:38:22] Well, this road is highly dominated by large commercial truck traffic.
[4:38:28] It's a dominant mix of the vehicle mix on that roadway.
[4:38:33] So that's a certain we have very important consideration,
[4:38:37] just this sheer size and the number of the traffic in the percentage.
[4:38:42] We looked at, and we, of course, looked at the crash history as well.
[4:38:45] So, based on these factors, we evaluated it along with field observations and looking at
[4:38:56] county criteria first and foremost, but also looking at drawing on other criteria for
[4:39:02] some additional detail, such as Ashdo, which is the roadway design handbook, geometric design,
[4:39:11] Institute of Transportation Engineers, Resources, and other jurisdictions, other county criteria
[4:39:18] for roadways in Colorado.
[4:39:22] And what we found is that when we did the analysis, we found a lot of, as has been mentioned
[4:39:29] before, the roadway is deficient.
[4:39:31] So we found a lot of deficiencies up and down county road 120 North, and a lot of those deficiencies
[4:39:37] kind of their combined deficiencies, such as a narrow width with a substandard curve and poor
[4:39:45] sight distance.
[4:39:47] And those factors kind of exacerbate any one of the deficiencies alone.
[4:39:55] So, our conclusion has been that the roadways not adequate to run 80 load a call trucks
[4:40:03] day and still have or ensure a reasonable degree of public safety and efficiency for the
[4:40:09] traveling public in its current condition or in a partially or phased condition.
[4:40:19] So basically our judgment is until all the road improvements have been completed, the 55 trucks
[4:40:27] a day would be a reasonable upper limit of the trucks of the cold transport trucks.
[4:40:33] And I made this recommendation a little bit of reservation given the deficiency we're seeing out there.
[4:40:43] However, it's a reasonable compromise towards that end to keep things operating.
[4:40:52] The 55 was basically, it's an adjusted number from the 7-day traffic to the 6-day.
[4:41:00] That represents the historical level at the time the county letter was sent to GCC.
[4:41:08] That 2010 letter at that point.
[4:41:10] That was like 46 or something like that.
[4:41:13] We adjusted it up to 55 to account for the six-day traffic.
[4:41:18] Also, that number is consistent with the Haygulch citizens advisory panel recommendation.
[4:41:25] So, you know, the main basis for the 55.
[4:41:31] So, when all road improvements are completed,
[4:41:35] the increase truck loading on 120 North could be accommodated.
[4:41:41] And traffic also needs to be limited during construction,
[4:41:43] and it's 55 will help with that as well.
[4:41:50] So, when we talk about limiting 55 trucks a day,
[4:41:55] loaded trucks on 12 North, we still look at, there's still the option at 12 South and
[4:42:02] 119, and I'm talking about, not 12 South all the way to Highway 140, I'm talking about
[4:42:09] 12 South, 116 to 119, what I'm referring to. So none of the roads in this area are ideal
[4:42:17] to carry this volume and type of traffic.
[4:42:22] I mean, that's pretty well known. I've observed
[4:42:25] and completed some analysis of that Southern route.
[4:42:29] And from what I can see, there
[4:42:31] doesn't appear to be any engineering basis for saying
[4:42:35] that trucks cannot use that route.
[4:42:37] And what I mean by that is, there's been
[4:42:40] discussions of crashes and incidents and that sort of thing.
[4:42:45] And again, the route is not ideal.
[4:42:48] However, I didn't see any evidence that would suggest
[4:42:51] this route should be just tossed.
[4:42:53] I think it's worthy of looking at maybe doing some improvements because some improvements would likely be needed some not significant improvements, but I think some minor improvements would be needed.
[4:43:06] And perhaps some of the techniques that have been used on 120 with some of the slowing, the change of the speed limits could be applied on 120 whereas before maybe it even tries some of those approaches when they failed before.
[4:43:22] So bottom line is one way truck traffic, you know, where they arrive one way and depart another.
[4:43:29] Maybe the best solution to allow GCC to have more trucks yet still stay below that 55 trucks a day.
[4:43:37] So they can expand and use the other route to get to allow more trucks by splitting the ends and the outs.
[4:43:47] So, this is just a quick excerpt of what I was, I'm just going to briefly go over this.
[4:43:53] This is what I talk about sort of a couple of the deficiencies that we see.
[4:43:58] And this is, there's a couple of several locations along 120 north that you see this.
[4:44:03] The roadway is narrow, in some cases, 20 to 22 feet, for the traveled way, for the vehicles.
[4:44:10] And it's on a substandard tight horizontal curve.
[4:44:13] But the way trucks operate, they need to swing wide, and they need extra width to be able
[4:44:20] to make the corner without having the rear wheels go into the ditch, so they need to use
[4:44:26] up more of the roadway.
[4:44:27] So what you see here is that basically the opposite direction paths basically overlap, they
[4:44:32] conflict.
[4:44:34] So that's a problem and that's why the road needs to be upgraded to a current standard.
[4:44:39] And part of my recommendation for the upgraded road is to, if there's places where they have curves that need to be still tight,
[4:44:51] widen those way out according to Ashdale standards so that those truck paths don't conflict.
[4:44:58] That's all I have for now.
[4:45:01] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[4:45:08] So,
[4:45:10] this is the staff report. Every one agrees that we're talking about a traffic volume that's beyond the capacity of the existing road that it's not up to minimum county standards, and it would only be compatible on completion of all required improvements.
[4:45:28] Okay, you know, incidentally I would just say that's one thing I think we all agree on is if all these improvements are done
[4:45:37] I've my clients don't have any problem with the 120 truck a day limit but we want the improvements to be done before we reach that limit.
[4:45:46] Okay, how did we, how can the county get to this 80 trucks a day? Well you heard this thing of well someone told us someone whose name has never been divulged
[4:45:56] told us in 2014 that things were okay in 2013.
[4:46:04] You know, we submitted to the Planning Commission.
[4:46:08] And they're in the file.
[4:46:10] And I'd like them to be part of the record.
[4:46:11] Letters from a majority, the residents on 120 North saying,
[4:46:16] I never told anybody that it was okay in 2013.
[4:46:19] I never heard anyone say that it was okay in 2013.
[4:46:23] and I don't think it was okay in 2013.
[4:46:27] We put in a open record record request to the county for any documents that would support
[4:46:34] or contain that statement and last Friday we told we don't believe any such documents exist.
[4:46:41] So the basis is somebody said supposedly in 2014 that everything was okay in 2013 who said
[4:46:51] who knows. We haven't been able to find them and we've been looking. The county has no engineering
[4:46:58] study that supports 80. Let me turn to air pollution before I go too far. I'm going to cut
[4:47:07] the short in light of Commissioner West Endorf's questions. But basically, we know about the PM10 standard.
[4:47:18] And what we know is let me just get right to this, the standard is 150, and the modeling
[4:47:25] that's been done shows what, at the McQ residents, it's double the standard, at the
[4:47:31] Hunsaker residents, it's triple the standard, and I would be delighted if the commission
[4:47:37] wants to pursue this line of questioning why is our study different from the applicant study.
[4:47:43] But we do all agree, I think, that long-term exposure, like living for six years in
[4:47:51] a cloud of dust, while we creek our way through the permitting process, is in the
[4:47:59] deleterious to health, okay?
[4:48:03] It's interesting.
[4:48:04] It is a function of traffic levels.
[4:48:06] One of the studies that we've submitted to you, number 37, shows if you reduce this to 2010 traffic levels, you're within the standard.
[4:48:19] Okay, it's a function of the traffic level.
[4:48:23] So this study was done on a conservative basis.
[4:48:29] The authors, one of the most respected firms in Colorado say that the underestimates impacts.
[4:48:36] Okay. Solid waste. Here's what the county land use code requires. All developments are required to demonstrate adequate solid waste collection and solid waste disposal sites.
[4:48:52] So, here's what the staff report says. Well, we take all the waste from King 2 and we move it over to King 1 and that's where it's disposed of.
[4:49:03] But the staff also says the class two land use permit does not include this waste disposal site.
[4:49:13] It's our waste, but we're not going to include it.
[4:49:16] And the staff proposal is apparently that yes this does need a land use permit.
[4:49:22] But at some point in the future, the company needs to come and apply for one.
[4:49:27] maybe we can do another permitting process just like this one, so just what we want to do, but the staff position, apparently, is let's put all that off.
[4:49:38] We will let the company just keep dumping theirs until this happens.
[4:49:44] And while there is a condition, condition number two, the talks about this, there's no condition that says that this has to be done by any particular time.
[4:49:53] there's no deadline for doing anything.
[4:49:55] This is a picture of the waste disposal site.
[4:49:59] Here's the condition.
[4:50:01] Apparently the proposal is this after this hearing,
[4:50:06] but before the permanent issues,
[4:50:09] the company is going to write a report and come in
[4:50:12] and give us the report, which after any opportunity
[4:50:17] for public comment, that is going to deal
[4:50:22] with the question of what's happening with the wastes.
[4:50:26] OK, so here's the deal.
[4:50:32] The county saying, well, let's rely on the state.
[4:50:35] But four years after GCC was found in violation
[4:50:39] by the state for disposing of things here,
[4:50:43] there's still no resolution of this application.
[4:50:47] Indeed, I can bring you news today was the deadline by which the state was supposed to receive everything needed and act on TR20.
[4:50:58] Oh, guess what? Today the state acted to extend the deadline again, apparently at the request of GCC.
[4:51:05] So we have no decision on what monitoring is going to be done.
[4:51:10] No decision on which parameters will be modeled.
[4:51:14] No decision on whether the activity meets standards
[4:51:16] and no effective deadline for any decision.
[4:51:21] And our point is, look at the bottom,
[4:51:24] all developments are required to demonstrate
[4:51:26] adequate solid waste collection and disposal.
[4:51:30] Okay? That's our concern.
[4:51:33] Water, ground and surface water.
[4:51:40] This is what our expert Randy Fisher says. The potential
[4:51:45] water quality impacts may result in possible human and should be taken into consideration
[4:51:51] by Laplata County. The county's position is let the state take care of this. I don't
[4:51:59] know how you comply with the county land use code based on the hope that at some future
[4:52:04] date the state will do something. At this point, I'm now told that the state has received
[4:52:13] some kind of advice from GCC, that some of these locations for these well clusters
[4:52:19] are going to have to be changed because they're having trouble getting access to them.
[4:52:24] And so they're going to have to reanalyze this and start all over again. So we're talking
[4:52:31] about monitoring that can't even occur till the wells are installed.
[4:52:36] We are continuously postponing this process.
[4:52:41] How can the county find compatibility for water based on the possibility that the state
[4:52:47] may at some future point take action?
[4:52:52] GCC has not come into agreement with the state.
[4:52:57] Noise. I'm just going to make these points. Mr. Dr. Braslow's report is 73. First of all, the
[4:53:11] HUD Noise Guidelines used in the Wave Engineering Report are designed for like downtown Chicago,
[4:53:17] or some kind of serious urban area. They're not appropriate for evaluation of rural noise.
[4:53:26] And he says analyzing the data, there's a severe noise impact that these three monitoring sites,
[4:53:35] which I think should be M1M2M3, and that if this were a federally funded project,
[4:53:42] federal rules would require mitigation.
[4:53:45] So this is my last slide.
[4:53:48] And again, we're really what this is supposed to say if you look at the right-hand side
[4:53:54] is 55, but it has, we haven't adjusted it to the appropriate number of days in the week.
[4:54:02] But if you look at this, what you'll see is there are three reasons why this is appropriate.
[4:54:08] Left-hand bar, that's the level we had in 2010 when the county sent the letter saying you're not in compliance.
[4:54:15] That's the letter Mr. Hodson has recommended as being tolerable in the short-room term as a compromise while we wait.
[4:54:26] It also gets us to air quality compliance.
[4:54:31] And it's also recommendation number one of the hate gulch citizen advisory panel.
[4:54:38] Recommendation number one was returned to the 2010 levels immediately.
[4:54:43] So, that's my presentation.
[4:54:47] I look forward to any questions, particularly about the air pollution, but let me turn this
[4:54:54] over to my colleagues.
[4:55:21] Good afternoon.
[4:55:22] My name is Paula Mathias, and I have lived at 788 Cougar Way for 13 years.
[4:55:27] Thank you for the opportunity to share a few of my personal stories of life along CR-12 North,
[4:55:32] since King Colt II began operating.
[4:55:33] As you witnessed on your May 18 site visit, traffic counts do not include delivery vehicles, water trucks or employees.
[4:55:42] Therefore, daily traffic related to the mine has resulted in substantial increases over the existing traffic volumes.
[4:55:48] It exceeds 600 additional vehicles utilizing our narrow rural county road.
[4:55:55] I live on Cougar Mesa. It's a subdivision located directly above where the pavement ends.
[4:56:00] Our location, coupled with the topography, along the top of the nearly 9% variance hill, means
[4:56:06] that each loaded coal truck, climbing the hill, 24 hours per day, creates noise pollution.
[4:56:12] Noise that is beyond the Colorado Noise Statue of 86 decibels.
[4:56:16] Noise that interrupts our quality of sleep.
[4:56:19] Noise that is occurring, even though this hill is paved.
[4:56:23] Noise that has never been monitored at the loudest point identified by residents.
[4:56:28] Our days have been joined a cup of coffee on the patio, admiring our rural solitude, or long gone.
[4:56:34] During your visit, noise along variance hill was one of the highlights, but as you are aware,
[4:56:40] we did not exit our vehicles to experience the noise created by a culturek.
[4:56:45] This is unfortunate, as I know you would have agreed that the decibels reached would not have qualified
[4:56:50] for Laplace County compatibility.
[4:56:52] Another compatibility issue that was not visible during your site visit due to our lovely
[4:56:57] rainy-muddy conditions was dust. We have endured dust for way too long. My asthma has
[4:57:03] definitely worsened over the past three years as I now take two medications. Currently,
[4:57:08] the amount of water added to the dirt section of CR120 to suppress dust creates track on onto the
[4:57:13] pavement and the dust generated by the coal trucks easily stins beyond the height of their wheels
[4:57:19] and permeates the canyon.
[4:57:22] Our biggest concern living around the CIR-12 North is safety.
[4:57:26] We have repeatedly heard there have been very few reported accidents on 12 North, if
[4:57:31] any.
[4:57:32] This is incorrect.
[4:57:33] On Saturday, October 18, 2014, a cold truck driver suffered a fatal heart attack near
[4:57:39] mile 1.4 in route to the mine.
[4:57:42] During the winter, truck safety hazards on 12 North, particularly attempting to climb the
[4:57:47] and so. While these incidents are not reported, they occur often and put residents' lives in danger.
[4:57:55] Let me clarify that everyone seated here today behind me has lived on CR-12 North before
[4:58:01] GCC purchased King Cole-1. We were residents before GCC introduced the semi-truck 288 daily.
[4:58:10] Each of us does not represent a job. We represent a family, a subdivision, a neighbor.
[4:58:18] While concessions have been reached with the county and other community members, our concerns largely have been ignored.
[4:58:26] Had a man used permit been granted in 2010, the truck levels would have been livable and
[4:58:31] compatible at 55.
[4:58:33] Truck numbers beyond the 2010 levels were not tolerable.
[4:58:37] We are asking you to retain the character of Hey Gulch to preserve the quality of our lives,
[4:58:43] to ensure our safety and to enforce your compatibility standards.
[4:58:48] Demonstrate to us, your county residents, that our lives do matter as much, if not more than
[4:58:53] and international company's profits.
[4:58:55] Grant G.C. at Class 2 permit with a truck limit
[4:58:58] on CR-120 North of 55 trucks,
[4:59:01] which equals 110 per day.
[4:59:04] Thank you.
[4:59:10] I'm Julie McEugh, I live at 2541 County Road 120.
[4:59:15] My husband, Frank and I have lived here for over 32 years.
[4:59:18] That's where we raise our three children.
[4:59:21] To begin, I cannot help a shake my head and wonder
[4:59:24] how a billion dollar multinational corporation
[4:59:27] has managed to divide a beautiful, small rural community.
[4:59:32] I want to thank you all for coming out to our area
[4:59:34] to try to get a better sense of what we are living with.
[4:59:38] Unfortunately, on the day of the site visit,
[4:59:41] it rained all morning hence no dust.
[4:59:44] Also, how ironic that for the 25 minutes you stood in our front yard,
[4:59:48] a total of three trucks passed, two coal trucks,
[4:59:51] and one speeding delivery truck.
[4:59:53] That indeed was nowhere even remotely close
[4:59:56] to a true representation of our daily life.
[4:59:59] Dealing with that.
[5:00:00] High volume of cold trucks deliver trucks in mine employees. Since 2010, when GCC was notified that they needed a class to permit trucks rumbling past our house has tripled. This is just one aspect we struggle with. How can they continue to operate and run and outrageous number of trucks daily when they are in non-compliance to county codes. Also, I find it incredibly insulting to think that the experts hired by GCC have stated that the quality of air in
[5:00:29] front of our home and our neighbors is within normal ranges. Over the past six years we have
[5:00:36] been forced into our house because the air was so thick with dust we couldn't breathe. Yes,
[5:00:42] over the past few months they've watered the road, but due to the high volume of trucks,
[5:00:47] it only lasts for a short period of time at best. Over the past three to four years,
[5:00:52] my family has experienced the damaging effects of road dust in our respiratory health.
[5:00:56] So how are we going to be compensated for that?
[5:00:59] We are the people who live in Brie them this road.
[5:01:02] GCC and the planning departments seem to think
[5:01:04] that by installing the temporary paving or barrier walls,
[5:01:08] they will improve the experiences of the residents along the road.
[5:01:12] And nothing is far from the truth.
[5:01:15] We have met with them, the planning department and GCC
[5:01:20] to discuss their situation on numerous occasions.
[5:01:23] We told them at the idea of living behind a wall,
[5:01:26] living through construction and living with the 200-plus coal trucks daily was not acceptable.
[5:01:32] The impacts to our property value and lives are putting us between a rock and a hard place.
[5:01:36] And quite frankly, one we are really struggling with, to continue to live in a home that we peeled the logs and then built with their own hands
[5:01:44] and our circumstances that are intolerable is heartbreaking.
[5:01:48] Our reality is that we can't sell our property for who in their right mind would want to live in a coal hall road.
[5:01:54] with trucks rumbling by every five minutes.
[5:01:58] We asked JCCC plain blank to purchase our property,
[5:02:02] and they even admitted that they don't want it.
[5:02:05] So tell me, what are we to do?
[5:02:08] Until the road is improved, the whole way from intersection highway 140 to the mine.
[5:02:12] JCCC should only be allowed to run those 55 trucks.
[5:02:15] In the past, coal trucks used both the north and south routes to the mine.
[5:02:19] JCCC water trucks still uses 120 south.
[5:02:22] It seems to work for everybody, and no one group had to suffer the whole burden, that's equitable.
[5:02:28] In conclusion, as we have stated from the very beginning, we do not want to shut the mind down.
[5:02:34] We just want our quality of life back.
[5:02:36] I'm asking, as a resident of Laplada County, who has lived on County Road 120 since 1984, for you are elected officials to help us.
[5:02:48] send a message that you care for your residents and are looking out for our welfare and safety.
[5:02:54] Commerce is only one aspect of lives.
[5:02:57] We would like to think that our quality of life does indeed matter.
[5:03:00] You are voted into your position to represent your constituents.
[5:03:04] So please protect us.
[5:03:07] Approving a class 2 permit that limits trucks to 55 on county road 12 north until all road improvements are completed.
[5:03:14] allowing GCC to use other routes and encourage GCC to operate that mind long-term and
[5:03:22] suing and ensuring those employees jobs for a longer period of time.
[5:03:28] Thank you.
[5:03:35] I am Karen Hunger.
[5:03:37] I love at 32, 30 county road 120.
[5:03:41] A late friend of mine, Eleanor Fraser, and our fathers and I purchased the old humpplace
[5:03:46] at 32, 30 county road 120 and 1989.
[5:03:49] And I'll try to back and forth from Shibraq, New Metz code to care for the farm and the ranch,
[5:03:57] and tell 2005 when I moved to the ranch full-time. During this time, you never viewed more than two or three trucks a day in haygalt and in front of my house.
[5:04:10] You could run walk your dogs, ride your horses, up and down county road 120, without the screaming, whining, pounding of these cold trucks.
[5:04:19] Most of the cold trucks at this time, and until 2011, 2012, were traveling southbound on CR-19 to 140 intersection by Fort Lewis Elementary School.
[5:04:35] The trucks passed by Bruce Gualsky's house, he did not like these trucks, and he kept the trucks from going by his house and the route was changed.
[5:04:46] When the trucks solely traveled on 20 north, the dust wall of the 1930s came back.
[5:04:53] Sometimes the dust is so bad, I can't see.
[5:04:58] Truffs now are increasing and have tripled in volume passing by my house.
[5:05:06] Where is the permit?
[5:05:08] No permit.
[5:05:10] This now is very scary situation when I walk up my steps from my home to see our 120 and have a truck at my shoulders as I am getting in and out of my truck or car.
[5:05:25] I met with Mike Olson and Wade with more in January and told him I did not want a barrier in front of my property.
[5:05:35] I do not understand where the wall would go or a new road would fit between my house and the small portion of the road.
[5:05:45] Be real, truck limits 55 a day and let the mines stay open, they don't need to close.
[5:05:59] My name is Gary Gratham. I live at 1124 County, World War 20 in Hespers. I bought the property in 1996 and have lived there continuously since 1998.
[5:06:11] I have three issues I want to talk to you about equal protection under the law, mitigation, compatibility, and conditional approval.
[5:06:20] The third equal protection, the Plotic County current approach to this class 2 land use permit application,
[5:06:27] creates serious concerns about equal protection under the law for the residents and property owners along the CR120 North,
[5:06:34] as well as for GCC energy.
[5:06:36] GCC energy invested in a business in good faith reliance upon your assurance that they did not need a class 2 land use permit.
[5:06:44] So we're all here because you need to put the gene back in the bottle.
[5:06:48] Throughout this process, a great deal of testimony has been heard about the benefits of GCC energy
[5:06:54] presence, and I dare say you're going to hear a good bit more.
[5:06:58] These benefits are real, and they accrue broadly across many economic sectors in this region.
[5:07:05] However, they come with significant costs, and the exit application imposes the majority
[5:07:11] of those costs on a small number of property owners and residents on CR-12 North.
[5:07:17] GCC's energy preference for CR-120 North is based solely on cost, and I would suggest
[5:07:24] to the commissioners that compromising the safety, health, quality of life, and property
[5:07:29] values for a select group of citizens in order to minimize project costs for corporate
[5:07:35] applicant, and because it is politically expedient, does not constitute equal protection
[5:07:41] under the law.
[5:07:42] That's a last planning commission hearing the commissioners just commented that quote C.R. 120 North is getting the short end of the stick.
[5:07:50] Unquote. Why is that acceptable? Why should the health safety quality of life and property values of one group of property owners?
[5:07:59] Trump, those of another.
[5:08:01] We have been told by the planning department Fort Lewis Mesa Fire Protection District.
[5:08:07] GCC Energy's road consultant that has better to focus all the negative impacts on the smallist
[5:08:13] group. Our
[5:08:14] neighbors on alternate routes tell us it's because there aren't many of us, we're older,
[5:08:18] and we don't have children. None of
[5:08:21] those arguments would be acceptable if the word black was substituted as the descriptor.
[5:08:26] So hashtag CR120
[5:08:28] North Lives Matter. It's the county's
[5:08:31] duty to provide equally for the safety of all its residents, a six-fold
[5:08:36] increase in traffic results in an exponentially higher probability of an accident.
[5:08:41] When that increase is predominantly due to heavy trucks and the probable severity of the
[5:08:45] accident has a multiplier of at least 20.
[5:08:48] There are no detailed plans to address the numerous limited visibility issues, driveways,
[5:08:53] no-one-out-croppings, which also increase the probability of an accident and its probable
[5:08:57] severity.
[5:08:59] In fact, as you've heard today, there are no detailed plans for the road period.
[5:09:04] Emergency response times, EMS, fire police, or any group should not be highly veritable.
[5:09:11] Routing all the whole traffic on CR-12 North makes it likely that a 20-minute response
[5:09:15] time could increase to 60-plus minutes, depending upon truck activity, time of day, and
[5:09:21] what kind of construction is going on.
[5:09:23] It's clearly a reduction in current service levels for the CR-12 North residents.
[5:09:28] These examples, and there are many others, reflective views that it's permeated this entire process for the last three years,
[5:09:38] that the safety, health, quality of life, and property values of CR120 North residents are expendable for the greater good of our neighbors,
[5:09:47] GCC energy, and the county. And we just simply don't subscribe to that view.
[5:09:53] Now, to move to no mitigation, no compatibility.
[5:09:57] Many of the mitigation measures proposed in this application,
[5:10:00] simply substitute one amp for impact for another.
[5:10:04] For example, five trucks and owes to tail 20 minutes apart
[5:10:07] or five trucks for minute support, your choice.
[5:10:12] Fathered by the noise or the view, we'll put up an eight foot wall,
[5:10:15] and you can look at the back of that.
[5:10:17] And even more, Greece, as example, is the major mitigation proposed, a local 10-plus units
[5:10:23] paved highway with 12-foot lanes, three-foot shoulders, and a 60-foot right away.
[5:10:29] This highway is completed, would be totally beyond comparison to any other county road in
[5:10:34] the area.
[5:10:35] In our view, such a local 10-plus units highway would, in and of itself, adversely and irrevocably
[5:10:43] altered the character of the upper-hagolts neighborhood. Nothing even remotely mitigates
[5:10:50] the adverse impact of this 60-foot wide stab through the heart of our neighborhood has been
[5:10:55] offered by GCC or proposed by the planning department. Rather than making GCC energies
[5:11:02] industrial presence compatible with the neighborhood, what this highway would do is completely
[5:11:07] transform the neighborhood to make it compatible with GCC energy.
[5:11:13] Now, to turn the conditional
[5:11:14] approval, we recognize that the concept of mitigation to achieve compatibility and
[5:11:19] body in the Laplata County Land Use Code is highly subjective and largely a matter of
[5:11:25] perception. If you choose to accept the local 10 plus units highway is mitigation that
[5:11:30] achieves compatibility, we urge you to reject the proposed road improvement agreement.
[5:11:35] Limit the number of crux to 2010 levels until the entire hall road is completed, and
[5:11:41] cap the number of crux on the completed hall road at 120.
[5:11:46] We would remind the commissioners that alternate routes exist, and that limited temporary
[5:11:51] use of them as a condition of approval would lessen the business impact on GCC energy, and
[5:11:58] facilitate timely completion of GCC's hall road.
[5:12:02] Mitigation delayed is mitigation denied.
[5:12:06] Thank you for your attention.
[5:12:37] Mistress, what she's opening that up, I'll go ahead and introduce myself.
[5:12:40] My name is Jeff Robbins, six of a 90 second avenue here in Durango, Colorado.
[5:12:44] I represent all of these folks.
[5:12:46] There are members of Southwest Colorado advocates, which is a non-profit.
[5:12:50] Its members are owners of property, along the county road, 120 and 120 north.
[5:12:57] So we wanted you to hear from them, they are the impact folks involved in all of this.
[5:13:04] I'm going to sum it up with a little bit of a presentation now.
[5:13:11] They all, to a T, don't want this road, and it's improved state.
[5:13:18] As Mr. Grantham just said, that will change the neighborhood.
[5:13:22] It will turn it from the rural neighborhood that it is now to a different neighborhood because of the road.
[5:13:30] Now having said that though, they're all willing to allow it to happen and willing to allow all of the improvements to take place.
[5:13:37] And willing to allow GCC to have the ultimate number of trucks that they desire, which is 120.
[5:13:43] Between now and then though, they ask you to put a hard number on the number of trucks at 55.
[5:13:52] And here's how we get there.
[5:13:54] We submit that GCC is asking you to wave and not apply a current county design standards for the first five years of this project.
[5:14:03] This you cannot and should not do.
[5:14:05] You cannot ignore and fail to apply county code provisions applicable to this project.
[5:14:10] And you should not because it's fundamentally unfair.
[5:14:13] If having identified that as a problem, we will propose a solution.
[5:14:18] All right, so here are some of the standards, development-generating traffic, which is above the current surface level capacities of the roads, is prohibited unless improved to meet service level needs.
[5:14:31] GCC's proposed truck level,
[5:14:36] GCC's proposed truck level is beyond what is allowable on the county road 120 right now.
[5:14:45] I think we've heard from pretty much everybody that there's agreement on that.
[5:14:49] The road here, the road design standards, the project produces a large volume, load of traffic that is beyond the capacity of the current road.
[5:14:58] This is the design standard.
[5:15:00] That is applicable. Jim Davis spoke to it. The applicant spoke to it. Our engineer spoke to it. There are five things that are needed. A surface with the 24 feet plus three shoulders, 60 feet of right away. It must be paved and it must meet sight distance and horizontal alignment.
[5:15:19] Everyone agrees. The standard applies. Staff. GCC. Mr. Hodgston. It's a shell. Guys, it's not a may. New developments shall be required to construct
[5:15:31] improvements to existing roads on-site and off-site and accordance with their projected impact
[5:15:36] on these roads.
[5:15:39] This is a required standard that you can only approve this.
[5:15:43] If the application meets all required standards and you determine it to be compatible,
[5:15:47] which we'll talk about,
[5:15:51] the compliance with the standard is required upfront and phasing is
[5:15:55] not allowed.
[5:15:57] With regard to commercial projects in this community, oftentimes off-site improvements
[5:16:02] need to be engaged in.
[5:16:04] Those need to take place before the new development uses those roads.
[5:16:12] The Plan of County Code does not allow the standard to be met via phasing the improvements.
[5:16:17] However, GCC is asking the applicant proposes to achieve these minimum requirements via an executed RAA,
[5:16:23] capturing the improvements within a phased development schedule.
[5:16:28] We don't believe GCC can ask you to do that.
[5:16:31] and what that was.
[5:16:33] Jim is putting a tough spot.
[5:16:35] He's gone on record saying that he's okay with this.
[5:16:39] We will allow them to continue to transport the call prior to completing the reconstruction
[5:16:43] of the North 6.4 miles of county road 120 to current standards.
[5:16:49] County staff is in a tough spot too.
[5:16:52] And they admit this is not the typical approach.
[5:16:55] Projects compliant with the county code typically complete all public improvements prior
[5:16:59] to commencement of the permitted years.
[5:17:00] I would suggest that county projects are always required to construct necessary improvements before the commercial use starts up.
[5:17:11] Here's staff's justification, in page 11 of the staff report, with this existing use and outstanding land use permit,
[5:17:17] additional tools are sometimes needed to bring the project into compliance.
[5:17:23] We are sympathetic to staff as we mentioned. It's been put in a tough spot, but it cannot create additional tools out of thin air.
[5:17:30] The tools that are available to you are the ones contained in your land use code.
[5:17:34] GCC cannot simply suggest that the county way of application of the standard for the first
[5:17:39] five years and allow the coal mine to access over and admitted non-code compliant road
[5:17:44] during that timeframe.
[5:17:45] Nor can the county develop a non-code-based mitigation measures, no matter how nice they may
[5:17:50] be, and substitute them for the objective road design standards contained within the code.
[5:17:57] GCC proposes mitigation, staff admits the compliance occurs once all the road improvements are accomplished.
[5:18:05] Here's why I suggest that you can't not apply Title 74, Chapter 91 up front and require all the improvements.
[5:18:14] And it's because that is the code.
[5:18:16] And the intent of your road design section is to provide the design engineer with standards that will ensure the design and construction of roadways,
[5:18:23] which will incorporate high quality engineering quality, high engineering qualities and provide the public a safe and durable roadway.
[5:18:30] You have standards in your book for a reason, you don't create standards by pulling mitigation
[5:18:36] tools out of the air for the first three or four years while the road is not compliant.
[5:18:42] We submit that if you wave application of 7491 at the outset and allow the applicant to use
[5:18:50] the county road before undertaking the required necessary improvements that this would likely
[5:18:55] be an arbitrary and capricious decision and it would be a decision that certainly contradicts
[5:19:00] black and white objective county road design standards.
[5:19:05] So where does that leave us?
[5:19:06] GCC is requesting you approve the application as is with a face set of road improvements.
[5:19:13] We are concerned for you to approve it that way.
[5:19:15] We were concerned that that would force us to ask a judge whether that action is indeed arbitrary
[5:19:20] or capricious and contrary to county road standards.
[5:19:23] I think we've made the case that it would be that you've got to apply 7491 upfront, and
[5:19:29] they can only use the road once it is in a completed application, and once the duck, so here's
[5:19:37] the no-law suit option, and you've heard it from all the neighbors, you've heard it from
[5:19:41] Mr. Hodgson, phase it, but reduced the trucks to 55 in the interim. As you heard from
[5:19:47] Mr. Hodgson, the 55 number, he's not very comfortable with it. He would rather it be a
[5:19:52] number less than that. But in talking with him, he believes that you can get a reasonable
[5:19:58] compromise for interim truck numbers, assuring a reasonable degree of safety, as 50-5, 50-5-80-t or 110-round-ship trucks.
[5:20:06] The neighbors have agreed. They're not happy with it either, but they've agreed to 55.
[5:20:11] This number also correlates with the 2010 truck levels. Therefore, it correlates with any grandfathered
[5:20:17] argument, GCC may have to run trucks. The grandfathered argument is they argument that they were told earlier
[5:20:22] and they didn't need a permit, and then in 2010 they were told they needed a permit.
[5:20:26] So, it's at that 2010 level, the number of trucks that are running there, that's the number of trucks that they could argue somehow, and they could run without any permit.
[5:20:35] So, the 55 works from a safety perspective, the neighbors are willing to choke it down, and it correlates with the 2010 levels.
[5:20:43] It's also consistent with the haygulch folks.
[5:20:48] The GCC needs to run more trucks. I would submit that's irrelevant. I would ask you to Google your lane use code for the word economic.
[5:20:55] and it won't find it. It's not part of your lane use code criteria. But if they need more
[5:21:00] trucks in the interim between now and the time all the improvements are done, they can
[5:21:04] always run them south, like they used to. When we heard from Mr. Hogston that that may take
[5:21:08] some work, but it is a viable alternative.
[5:21:13] Finally, under this option, GCC controls the pace
[5:21:15] of development. They could do all the improvements this year, and then they'd get 120 trucks.
[5:21:22] They could, we suggest you remove phasing from the RA altogether, that it's 55, and then once
[5:21:29] all the improvements are done, it jumps to what they had asked for, which is 120.
[5:21:34] The only interim measure is the 5580T on 120 North, and again, that doesn't preclude them
[5:21:39] from running additional trucks south.
[5:21:42] So I've gotten for you revised findings and conditions, and I've got for you a revised
[5:21:51] road improvements agreement, having identified a problem we wanted to provide you with
[5:21:55] a solution.
[5:21:59] What the revised findings do in red line is remove the phasing out of it, and it removes the
[5:22:04] 80 and the 100 and the substitutes in the 55, that's essentially the changes, and I've got
[5:22:10] copies for you here along as well.
[5:22:12] So for the reasons articulated by my clients and co-counsel Mr. Danielson, we submit this
[5:22:17] project is not compatible. Air, water, noise, dust, traffic. We submit they've not met
[5:22:23] their requirement to establish compatibility. But we understand that the county is looking
[5:22:30] hard for a win-win. We understand and we appreciate the amount of time and effort the county
[5:22:35] and GCC for that matter have put into this application. It has been a monumental task.
[5:22:40] But we think that you can only find a win-win if in the interim a safe number of trucks is traveling on that road before all the improvements are done.
[5:22:51] Therefore, we request you amend the findings, conditions, and the RIA consistent with our revisions to allow at most 55 ADTs during the interim and prior to the code required improvements to county road 12 north.
[5:23:04] Remove all other phases and let the applicant control its own destiny to achieve the ultimate 120 ADTs that it desires after the improvements are completed.
[5:23:16] Thank you.
[5:23:17] Any of our clients or here are experts here if you have any questions for us?
[5:23:25] but also state Cynthia R.O. backs up as advocates to 3rd.
[5:23:31] Cynthia R.O. backs up as advocates to 13 West 26th Street.
[5:23:36] We had one resident who didn't have time to speak,
[5:23:40] and if it's okay with you, he's going to get a pink slip
[5:23:44] and speak during the public.
[5:23:46] You have five minutes and 20 seconds.
[5:23:53] I'm Dr. Tom Williams, 1644 County Road, 120 Hespers,
[5:23:59] in a landowner in county road 120 for 20 years, and I oppose this class to permit.
[5:24:04] I'm a board certified fellowship trained otoleterangologist and I treat disease of the upper
[5:24:08] airway impaired nasal sinuses.
[5:24:12] Estonishingly, GCCC has increased their call production by 300% since moving to their new
[5:24:16] location with no permit.
[5:24:18] With this higher production, TREC traffic is correspondingly increased to a dangerous level.
[5:24:23] It's demonstrated by the January material report.
[5:24:28] This report indicates that increased traffic on the unpaid portions of the road produces dust that exceeds the EPA air quality standards.
[5:24:37] As a physician, I have personally have personal experience treating adverse effects of the toxic levels that road dust.
[5:24:44] The road dust has been shown to exacerbate asthma, sinus disease, and pulmonary disease.
[5:24:49] Of course, particles from the road dust will lodge in the upper airway system and will cause severe irritation.
[5:24:56] effects are more pronounced in the infants and the elderly and those with asthma shown by
[5:25:04] our residents. These particles are also linked to respiratory cancers. We've been told by
[5:25:09] GCC that their medication will reduce dust to the level of tract tires. That height.
[5:25:17] I personally have witnessed dust clouds and hay gults residents have video and picture evidence
[5:25:22] of disciplines, billowing above the trucks, coating surrounding trees and rooftops, contrary
[5:25:27] to the conclusion of GCC's Trinity consultants.
[5:25:30] At present level of truck traffic, the dust concentrations on CR120 extend, far past the
[5:25:38] roadway, as demonstrated by the McVill report.
[5:25:41] This is also demonstrated in the literature, a CSU paper, shows that for every vehicle
[5:25:47] traveling on a unpaid road, one mile for one day per year, one test, one ton of dust is deposited
[5:25:55] along the corridor by extending 500 feet out from the medium. That's for passenger cars,
[5:26:03] for cold trucks at present levels. We calculated it to be 50,000 tons in six months. Also,
[5:26:09] dust from 120 is a particular concern due to the coal in the dust that drops from the trucks.
[5:26:14] This has not been studied, but called thus contains heavy metals, and it's a cardcinogen.
[5:26:19] The amount in our road dust is unknown, and since the PM 2.5 is linked with premature mortality
[5:26:26] in cardiovascular disease and respiratory illness, this is a danger.
[5:26:30] The second health concern is noise pollution from the high volume of trucks.
[5:26:36] The high decibel episodic intermittent noise production is one of the worst forms of noise
[5:26:41] and is related to cardiovascular disease, heart attacks, hypertension, and behavioral changes.
[5:26:47] These include fatigue, decrease working capacity, and disturbed family relationships and high stress.
[5:26:55] The effects are worsened when sleep is disturbed, and this can cause irreversible medical complications,
[5:27:02] including decreased alertness that leads to accidents, injuries, and death.
[5:27:06] The mitigation effects are efforts by GCC to control the dust and noise are ineffectual due
[5:27:14] to the share volume of trucks.
[5:27:17] The McFeedle report concluded that decreasing the truck numbers to 2010 levels of 55
[5:27:23] per day significantly reduces dust production enough to mitigate the damaging effects.
[5:27:30] I agree with that conclusion, and I urge the commissioners to protect the health of the
[5:27:36] see truck traffic to 2010 levels until the road is paved for its entire length.
[5:27:44] Thank you very much.
[5:27:47] Thank you.
[5:27:53] All right.
[5:27:53] Thank you for your testimony and questions from commissioners.
[5:28:06] Okay.
[5:28:07] We'll be happy to start.
[5:28:09] It's time around.
[5:28:10] Thank you very much for your presentation.
[5:28:13] A lot of thought went into all of your comments.
[5:28:17] I guess, Mr. Hudson, I'd like to start with some questions for you regarding your study.
[5:28:27] I guess to make it simple, why 55, why not 60, why not 65, 70, can you explain your rationale?
[5:28:37] Sure, we looked at the 55, that's essentially the number, it's the adjusted number to six days a week.
[5:28:48] It's those 2010 levels at the time the letter was sent to GCC telling they needed to get a permit.
[5:28:57] So essentially anything, the way I think of it, anything above that level, if you increase traffic generation or loading, is new traffic, it's new development traffic.
[5:29:09] So that's the way I see it, is anything above that level should be considered new traffic and
[5:29:17] And so that's the main point there.
[5:29:19] And again, the hay gulch advisory committee also recommended that.
[5:29:25] So some of the other reasons, the 55,
[5:29:31] it's mentioned.
[5:29:33] If you have 80, it's basically a high every 5.8 minutes,
[5:29:38] I think, is very peak times, essentially the truck volumes.
[5:29:43] There's a built-in 20% variation to that, so the 55 is actually the monthly average and
[5:29:52] they're allowed to deviate up to 20% on any given day, above that 55 number.
[5:30:00] So for a good chunk of the days and looking at their past truck data, there is quite a bit of
[5:30:10] variation there, taking advantage of that. And that 20%, that 55 considers that. You know, that many
[5:30:17] a day, they're going to have quite a bit more than that, 55, and then some days they'll have less
[5:30:23] than that. But it's those days, and it's a significant number of days, when you have 20% over
[5:30:29] that, you know, you've got that much more exposure to that much more volume of trucks on the roadway.
[5:30:37] So that's the other part of that.
[5:30:46] You know, and then again, to consider the roadway standards, and this is common of a lot of counties,
[5:30:53] you know, a local roadway talks about in terms of number of single family dwellings units.
[5:30:59] It's equivalent to 380 t is equivalent to 30 single family homes.
[5:31:04] And it's a general mix of traffic is mostly residential with maybe some businesses thrown in.
[5:31:12] But in this case, we're talking about a much greater, it's a commercial, it's dominated by a large commercial trucks.
[5:31:21] It's not your typical local roadway.
[5:31:24] So that's another reason I looked at that as well as because it's not your typical local roadway traffic mix.
[5:31:32] And for the record, you mentioned the company could split its route and take some of the trucks south, that would be if it wanted an increase over the 55 on county road, 120 north,
[5:31:49] If it needed more trucks per day to meet its obligations, it could send that traffic south.
[5:31:56] The 55 is basically your trip loaded truck.
[5:32:00] That's your trip generation.
[5:32:01] That's what the mind generates in terms of traffic.
[5:32:05] You can choose to load it all onto 120 north and keep that 55 on that road and not do anything and not load itself.
[5:32:14] Or you could take a look at ways that you could, and as I said, 120 South and 119 are perfect
[5:32:22] either.
[5:32:24] But it's a way that I think with some relatively minor improvements, and some splitting
[5:32:31] of the traffic, you could get more tripped generation, truck tripped generation, and
[5:32:37] more coal production by splitting that up and taking advantage of that.
[5:32:42] Did you analyze and report what exact improvements would need to be made to the road going
[5:32:49] to the south?
[5:32:50] Well, to start with, I looked at in my letter of April 7, I show a potential improvement
[5:32:58] down at Highway 140.
[5:33:01] I think part of the reason there was a problem before is that trucks couldn't make, can I bring
[5:33:07] this up in short?
[5:33:08] So here, a seven in our attachment is it, do you have an attachment number, it's figure a seven is the last, it's the last page of the letter.
[5:33:26] I've got 76 other letters.
[5:33:30] I don't have the, it's our April 7 supplemental letter.
[5:33:49] Anyway, it basically shows a radius improvement on the, it's basically on the southwest corner
[5:33:59] of County Road 119 and Highway 140.
[5:34:04] The statute is 72.
[5:34:07] Because of the skew of the intersection,
[5:34:10] I can understand why they couldn't
[5:34:11] without an improvement.
[5:34:13] Like trying to use it as it exists today.
[5:34:16] You can't make the turn because the truck would swing
[5:34:18] into the oncoming traffic.
[5:34:20] So what they did was they believed that
[5:34:22] what they did was running straight across
[5:34:23] and that's created some problems with the school
[5:34:26] and the parent pick up.
[5:34:28] But if this radius were improved,
[5:34:31] And for what I could tell them, there may be the right way to do it.
[5:34:36] If you improve that rate, this truck can make that turn and enter that self-bound lane
[5:34:41] without encroaching in the northbound lane.
[5:34:43] So that's just one possibility that they could look at for an improvement that could help.
[5:34:50] And there's some other radius improvements that they could do along 11119 and that 11116 route.
[5:34:57] that they could look into, and then again, applying some of those things that they've done
[5:35:02] on 120 north of the speeds to maybe make that a viable route.
[5:35:07] And again, it's only for a short period of time until they get the road finished on 120 north.
[5:35:13] So, it's not being used in perpetuity is just for a short period of time.
[5:35:19] Okay.
[5:35:22] Thank you.
[5:35:25] Hi. Next question is for staff.
[5:35:31] Good afternoon, Mr.
[5:35:32] Mr. Hudson's up on the Mr. Hudson.
[5:35:36] Continue this line of questioning.
[5:35:37] Thank you.
[5:35:39] Commissioner Lackle asked a question that I have had intended asked.
[5:35:42] But I have a follow-up and that is you talked about a truck exiting off of
[5:35:47] on 19 on to Highway 140, what issues are related to that intersection for, and enter only,
[5:35:55] let's say.
[5:35:57] For enter only, it's probably more costly and hired, because if you enter traffic that way,
[5:36:06] you're probably looking at a left turn improvement on the state highway, which is, it can
[5:36:17] to do a left turn when you have typically wide and both sides.
[5:36:20] You have to widen on the north side.
[5:36:22] So the entering component is probably more extensive
[5:36:26] in terms of improvements.
[5:36:28] If you exit the trips that way, and if they're exiting south,
[5:36:36] you probably don't have enough traffic from what I could tell
[5:36:40] to justify the need to build an acceleration line.
[5:36:44] Now, that's up to C got to make that determination.
[5:36:46] But based looking at the numbers, it didn't look like it necessarily required an acceleration
[5:36:53] way in going south.
[5:36:55] So all that perhaps could be needed is the radius improvement, so the truck could make
[5:37:02] that turn.
[5:37:04] My understanding was that the loaded trucks were more post-higher risk than unloaded trucks.
[5:37:12] And so if that was the exit route, if Iran from the north end to the south end, those would
[5:37:18] be loaded trucks dealing with the five county road intersections and more hills and so on
[5:37:24] that made that less desirable as an exit route for loaded trucks.
[5:37:31] That's something to consider, sure.
[5:37:34] But looking at that section to the south, it's much less sort of mountainous terrain than
[5:37:42] you have further on to County Red 1, 20 North, that the grades are more rolling. They're
[5:37:48] not as severe in terms of the grades.
[5:37:54] Thank you.
[5:38:01] I have no questions.
[5:38:02] Thank you.
[5:38:02] Can I ask one of you there?
[5:38:07] When you say that improvements can be done to one on the south or minor improvements, do
[5:38:12] also have an opinion as to how many trucks can go that route safely or vehicles just in general.
[5:38:20] given the improvements that you have contemplated?
[5:38:27] Yeah, I wouldn't probably, I mean, I think you could probably
[5:38:30] do half the trucks, the exiting vehicles that perhaps
[5:38:35] want to go to the south to the Mexico, which is probably
[5:38:38] three quarters of them.
[5:38:41] I mean, I would want to take a look at a little more
[5:38:44] more detail before I make a determination as to the number.
[5:38:49] But I think it's worthy.
[5:38:50] of late 20, between 25 to 30, is that what you're saying?
[5:38:56] That's 55 times three quarters of that, so.
[5:39:00] Three quarters.
[5:39:02] But I would, you know, I'd want to look at, in more detail before I make an assessment,
[5:39:08] you know, put a definite number and put my name on it and all that.
[5:39:10] But I, one of my point is I think it's worth looking at that route as an option
[5:39:16] to give an opportunity for more trucks.
[5:39:18] then just using 120 North and do in the 55.
[5:39:28] Thank you. Mr. Davis, a question Mr. Danielson stated that the, I believe it was
[5:39:37] Mr. Danielson stated that the county has no study supporting the 80 truck trips per day.
[5:39:43] Would you agree with that statement?
[5:39:45] The county does not typically, excuse me, the county does not typically prepare a traffic
[5:39:51] study for development that's typically done by the developers consultant. In this case
[5:39:56] here, GCC had Michaels and the roadrunner engineering provided traffic study. We evaluate
[5:40:02] that, we comment on that. That's typically how we approach most development proposals. Other
[5:40:11] than our local knowledge and our review of that report,
[5:40:13] we did not complete a traffic impact study
[5:40:16] independently from the one that the GCC did.
[5:40:21] Thank you.
[5:40:22] And then a question from his white,
[5:40:28] I believe I heard earlier
[5:40:30] that the company, if paving adequately mitigates
[5:40:37] the dust and noise impacts that you do not plan
[5:40:41] who installed the barriers that you have in your report.
[5:40:46] Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, again,
[5:40:49] I'm quite a Carolyn White for the record on behalf of the applicant.
[5:40:53] No, that is not the case.
[5:40:55] The condition of approval for the buffers is available, regardless.
[5:41:00] What I said was that our study, the modeling predicts that whether the barriers are installed
[5:41:06] or not, the noise levels will be below the state limits.
[5:41:11] If the private entities along the road elect to have the barriers installed, that will further
[5:41:16] reduce the noise limits, but it's not that if the company pays it that they're not available.
[5:41:21] They're both conditions of approval.
[5:41:25] Thank you.
[5:41:25] And then one final line of questioning for Mr. Danielson regarding air quality you mentioned
[5:41:38] in closing that you wish that you hoped that the commissioners would ask you some questions,
[5:41:46] more questions regarding air quality. Can you discuss?
[5:41:51] I can definitely address the question of why our study is different from their study.
[5:41:57] Okay. Thank you. I will appreciate that.
[5:41:59] Our expert has already done that in what's attachment 52.
[5:42:02] Look,
[5:42:05] none of the differences between the two studies amount to a hill of beans except for
[5:42:10] two.
[5:42:11] Okay, I mean there's a long discussion of something that in the end would mean a difference
[5:42:16] of 0.04%.
[5:42:18] I'm leaving that out.
[5:42:20] There are two issues, right?
[5:42:22] One issue is we know that if you put make chloride and water on a dust road, there's less dust,
[5:42:30] Right? And our expert says based on a bunch of studies that he sites that that reduces the dust by 50%.
[5:42:42] Their expert says it reduces dust by 84%.
[5:42:50] Okay, so if you assume 84% dust controlled by the water in my chloride as opposed to 50% you get a lot of reduction.
[5:42:58] I will say that the Trinity expert, Mr. Masuda, he says that he cites a reference for the 84% figure,
[5:43:14] but the reference refers to control by a product called soil cement, which is a bonding kind of synthetic material that creates kind of a surface on there
[5:43:25] make chloride is certainly a much less effective, but that's where he get the 84 percent.
[5:43:31] That's why we disagree. We don't think soil cement and make chloride or equivalent.
[5:43:36] The second issue is he referenced this what percentage of the material in the road is
[5:43:44] silt. I will say, if you look at our report, we tried to hire Dave Troutner to go out and
[5:43:55] So, our experts as 8.4 percent is silt, fine particles, Mr. Masura says that it's 1.5 percent.
[5:44:09] Here's where we got the 8.4 percent.
[5:44:11] Is when GCC submitted their permit application to the State Air Quality Control Commission
[5:44:19] for the road that's on their site that goes from their point out to the 120.
[5:44:24] what figure did they use in there for the silt content, 8.4 percent. So we use their own figure.
[5:44:34] Now they're telling us they need to reduce their own figure by 80 percent.
[5:44:41] And so that's where the two differences are.
[5:44:46] Thank you.
[5:44:49] There's any questions for now, Mr. Chair?
[5:44:52] Thank you. Questions?
[5:44:55] I would just ask for clarification that every-
[5:45:00] Moons opposed to batching, is that true? Okay, that's what I understood, but I wanted to get something
[5:45:08] formal from you guys. And I think that's it for me, thanks.
[5:45:18] I don't have any questions at this time.
[5:45:23] Mr. Chairman, I don't have anything of the neighbors,
[5:45:26] but can I ask a question to staff regarding something that came up during the presentation
[5:45:31] for the neighbors? Yes. And that is the Ms. Matthias made reference to the noise caused by the
[5:45:43] steep grade on that hill, though, where the variance was issued and I was wondering, is it true?
[5:45:48] What have we looked at the sound impacts of that grade? I know it was raised a long time ago,
[5:45:56] so it's not a new issue.
[5:46:02] You know, we're at the planning department. My understanding of the
[5:46:05] of engineering report and I certainly think there's an opportunity for that gentleman to speak
[5:46:10] to the report but the Hill itself was not monitored precisely because there were no residences
[5:46:17] along the Hill so the residences are where the data was collected. The Hill has been modeled
[5:46:23] and there are those results in the latest report so there is that factor that it was not
[5:46:32] specific data collection point.
[5:46:34] And also there was mixed determinations as to whether or not there's value in putting buffering
[5:46:41] along the hill.
[5:46:42] It could, yes, potentially knock down noise, but it could also redirect noise.
[5:46:47] And it's also a concern as to where would that improvement go, typically you make those
[5:46:51] improvements outside the right of way.
[5:46:54] So it just created more questions and answers.
[5:46:57] And that's why there was not a formal recommendation for there to be buffering on the portion of the health.
[5:47:09] Thank you.
[5:47:12] Any further questions?
[5:47:17] Any further comment, Mr. Danielson?
[5:47:21] I had an old morning hanging in the line waiting for his turn.
[5:47:26] Our expert Dr. Carl Mouth, who is going to make a brief statement, he's not available
[5:47:31] the afternoon.
[5:47:32] So, he just sent me his statement, and I'm going to just distribute this for the record.
[5:47:41] Can you speak into the microphone?
[5:47:44] Thank you.
[5:47:46] Mr. Mouth was on the phone or on the streaming all morning and was ready to call in on the
[5:47:51] and he was available all morning, but he just can't do it this afternoon.
[5:47:55] So he wrote a one page statement and I'd just like to submit it.
[5:48:00] Thank you.
[5:48:01] Why do you have any objections?
[5:48:04] We do not have an objection.
[5:48:06] Mr. Smith.
[5:48:08] All right, what was the question?
[5:48:09] The objections to the admission of this statement.
[5:48:15] It would be a testimony.
[5:48:17] Objection.
[5:48:18] Mr. Chair, could Mr. Danielson just summarize the nature of this statement for our listening
[5:48:25] public and those in the audience at Arnkno see our copy?
[5:48:30] It relates to the waste pile at the King Co. one site and the monitoring program for
[5:48:37] that waste pile.
[5:48:39] Okay.
[5:48:39] Thank you.
[5:48:41] I suspect GCC has a rebuttal to make in that event.
[5:48:46] I'd like to retract my statement that we have no objection.
[5:48:48] I would say rather that this falls into the same category as all the evidence introduced
[5:48:52] today related to the King one pile.
[5:48:54] We believe that staff is finding that it's not related to this application is correct.
[5:49:00] Should the Commission find otherwise and you wish to address that issue?
[5:49:03] Then we agree that this and our information as well ought to be included in the record.
[5:49:07] But if you agree with that conclusion, then we would suggest that none of that information
[5:49:10] should be included in the record.
[5:49:14] discussion.
[5:49:16] Yes.
[5:49:17] Let me ask, position is the same.
[5:49:19] Although we prefer the option we're not about is included in the record.
[5:49:22] Can you speak up?
[5:49:24] Yes, I'm sorry.
[5:49:25] This is Adam Smith with the County Attorney's Office.
[5:49:27] We agree with the GCC's Council's assessment of the situation.
[5:49:31] Although we would prefer that none of this information be included in the record.
[5:49:36] It's irrelevant to the land use that is being considered today.
[5:49:43] So, with respect to discussion, I think it's appropriate for this to sit to the side, but I don't believe we'd decide to meet a determination as to the role of how the King won.
[5:49:56] Wait, I mean, we call it King won. How I want to call it the solid waste disposal as it relates to this land use is handled. So, for now, probably set it aside, but have it at the ready.
[5:50:06] Mr.
[5:50:17] Chair, if I may, since Adam Smith with the county attorney's office, first I just wanted to note for the record that we county staff has not received the documents that Mr. Robinson handed out and we would like an opportunity to review those.
[5:50:34] I believe all the copies were handed up there if there was a way to get one that would be helpful.
[5:50:39] And also, although it was not necessarily contemplated, I believe at the end of a staffs of original presentation,
[5:50:45] it was noted that we had 18 minutes and one second remaining on the clock.
[5:50:49] If possible, I would like five minutes of that time to respond to an issue that was raised.
[5:51:00] Wait, before we get off on that, we need to decide what we're going to do with that last exhibit.
[5:51:04] So is it on the side or is it in?
[5:51:06] Set it aside.
[5:51:08] I'm talking about Mr. Blun's testimony.
[5:51:14] It's on the side.
[5:51:17] Well, my question is how it relates to truck trips in this permit and whether, I mean,
[5:51:28] does our council leave its related or not?
[5:51:30] I think she needs a minute to review it.
[5:51:53] It appears as if it deals entirely with the waste issue.
[5:52:02] I would support it being on the site.
[5:52:06] We will place that document on the site for now.
[5:52:13] Adam, could you restate your request for time?
[5:52:20] I believe we had 18 minutes left over at the end of our presentation, although it was not necessarily contemplated.
[5:52:26] that we reserved any of that time with the chair's description we would certainly like to use about five minutes of that to clarify an issue that was raised
[5:52:36] discussion
[5:52:37] I was keeping time with it for 18 minutes
[5:52:41] Well the fire chief use a 10 second
[5:52:46] And the clock's the ticket.
[5:52:50] The other question Mr. Smith raised was the proposed amendments to the RIA and the conditions
[5:52:59] which I think we can put those on the site for right now too.
[5:53:02] We'll see where the discussion leaves us.
[5:53:05] Right.
[5:53:06] We will grant you five minutes.
[5:53:09] Thank you, and this relates back to the question that was asked to Jim Davis earlier.
[5:53:14] But it's important for county staff for us to clarify, which aspects of the code are informing
[5:53:20] different parts of the recommendation, so that's the initial comment.
[5:53:25] It was noted by the neighbors, I will refer to them just for ease of reference that county
[5:53:34] staff's profit option, the 80 trucks at the initial phases doesn't meet the code specifically
[5:53:41] 7491, the 7491 would be referencing our road standards.
[5:53:48] I would offer that based on their argument, the way they're analyzing our code, their
[5:53:54] offered solution, the 55 trucks equally doesn't meet the code 7491.
[5:54:01] Instead, county staff's position is that both options technically meet the code.
[5:54:05] The only variables county staff is ever negotiated with GCC is the timing of when the road will come into compliance.
[5:54:13] Not if the road will come into compliance, not what the coast standards are when it comes into compliance.
[5:54:19] Because the only variable we've ever negotiated is the timing, both options 80 and 55 meet chapter 7491 based on our analysis.
[5:54:30] Thereby one informs 80 versus 55 is not 7491, it's compatibility, and I would note that the
[5:54:38] neighbors on traffic engineer rely on compatibility metrics measures to justify the 55.
[5:54:45] That's an important distinction, because that is not being driven by 7491.
[5:54:50] It's being driven by the compatibility standards, which dictates the number of trucks
[5:54:53] without first phase.
[5:54:59] Thank you, questions for staff.
[5:55:03] I don't have any questions for staff.
[5:55:08] No questions.
[5:55:10] Thank you.
[5:55:11] Mr. Chairman, I do have kind of like the, I'd like to have the input again.
[5:55:18] We didn't hear from the chief Fort Lewis Mesa fire district before, but he spoke only about
[5:55:26] his recommendations as a related to the emergency response plan, but since the issue of the
[5:55:35] He does have an opinion as relates to the appropriateness of a loop route, and Mr. Anderson
[5:55:41] are you available to comment on that and may he come forward? Mr. Chairman.
[5:55:46] Yes, please.
[5:55:51] Mr. Anderson, thank you for those of our production district.
[5:55:54] I did submit agency comments that they're included in your packet about concerns about the Southern
[5:56:00] routes, and that there seem to be more traffic challenges on those southern routes in the northern
[5:56:07] route, and I can answer any questions concerning that, if you'd like.
[5:56:13] Yes, I remember I believe that you specifically referred to access in an event of an emergency,
[5:56:21] see their being a challenge or a problem if both routes were closed due to accidents.
[5:56:30] I don't know if you could just elaborate on what that was.
[5:56:34] I don't think I was going to brought up that but it has been discussed throughout the interaction
[5:56:41] between GCC and the community about if there is using a loop route, if we had an accident
[5:56:49] one area that it may cause inaccessibility issues. But, specifically, I really don't see
[5:56:59] it as a major concern.
[5:57:02] Okay, thank you.
[5:57:06] Anything further?
[5:57:07] I have no questions, Commissioner.
[5:57:10] Thank you.
[5:57:20] We are running.
[5:57:22] Well, let's see.
[5:57:23] It's about three o'clock.
[5:57:24] We're scheduled for a break at three, but.
[5:57:27] We do have public comment, do you commissioners,
[5:57:32] rather keep going?
[5:57:34] Okay, we'll move into public comment.
[5:57:41] I have public comment for William Thomas Williamson.
[5:57:46] I spoke to you.
[5:57:48] Thank you.
[5:57:55] Yeah, I have heard.
[5:57:57] I have heard card.
[5:57:58] Did you fill out a piece of...
[5:58:13] You'll probably have to take your comment after these words.
[5:58:18] We received these, so we'll move to, do you have a deadline, or do you
[5:58:34] have, we read
[5:58:35] her comment,
[5:58:59] we will probably go ahead and go in the order that we have, the Pink Slips.
[5:59:06] Matt Watson.
[5:59:07] Donna
[5:59:15] Nizario?
[5:59:17] Matt, come up.
[5:59:20] Randy Lynn Scott.
[5:59:22] And Ann Markord.
[5:59:27] Hi.
[5:59:27] Good afternoon.
[5:59:28] My name is Matt Watson.
[5:59:29] I live at 156.
[5:59:30] Timber Drive, Drango Colorado.
[5:59:33] That's a Drango West one subdivision.
[5:59:36] I am the Human Resources Coordinator for GCC Energy.
[5:59:39] I've been with the company for five years this December.
[5:59:42] Before I talk a little bit about GCC, I'd like to share my personal story.
[5:59:46] and I would as an impact as a plot of county.
[5:59:49] I worked in the building to turn it on industry.
[5:59:51] In just few, nearly 20 years and was there when the housing bubble burst and Phoenix.
[5:59:56] So, you know, I know firsthand how employees and families are affected with business flows and companies.
[6:00:00] These are forced to close their doors. Personally, I lost it's about everything that I'm moving to
[6:00:05] Durango, work temporarily for my brother's construction company. I was fortunate to get the GCC and I think it's a great company.
[6:00:13] I think probably 100 people apply for this position. I rented rooms for a couple years to share around Durango, saved up money, sold my house in Phoenix, bought a small lot in Durango, west one, hired a contractor, had a house bill.
[6:00:27] Well, now my 19-year-old daughter lives with me.
[6:00:29] She goes to Southwest Community College.
[6:00:32] She works part-time at bed, bath, and beyond.
[6:00:36] So you can see just on my own, like what an impact, a good job can have on the local economy.
[6:00:42] Just a little bit on GCC and its employees.
[6:00:44] I have a degree in business and I've worked for several large, reputable companies in my career.
[6:00:48] I can tell you without a doubt, GCC is the best company if I've been had the opportunity
[6:00:52] to work for company truly cares about their employees.
[6:00:56] the environment and the communities in which we operate.
[6:01:01] As of today, we have 115 employees working at the mine.
[6:01:04] In addition to that, approximately 200 truckers and countless other vendors
[6:01:08] business suppliers that support our operation.
[6:01:11] In fact, during the families of those involved in the mine,
[6:01:14] and I'm sure in excess of 1,000 people would be affected
[6:01:17] should our ability to operate be compromised.
[6:01:21] Our average rate of pay for our salary to end hourly employees
[6:01:24] combined is 31,69 an hour.
[6:01:26] In addition to that, our employees have competitive,
[6:01:29] full benefit package.
[6:01:31] These are all really good jobs that are,
[6:01:33] you know, bail to our economy.
[6:01:36] I know all our guys personally,
[6:01:37] and through benefit and enrollment,
[6:01:38] and questions from spouses,
[6:01:39] I know a lot of their family members
[6:01:40] and have met their kids.
[6:01:43] They have a great group of hardworking men and women.
[6:01:47] The work for GCC is support
[6:01:48] the surrounding communities.
[6:01:51] You know, we even had an example
[6:01:52] where we did the degree to what we care about the neighbors and safety, we had two employees
[6:01:56] that we actually had to terminate because they were speeding on the road and we warned them,
[6:02:01] they didn't heed the warnings, we actually terminated their employment just for that.
[6:02:04] They were good employees other than that.
[6:02:07] So personally, I'm very proud to work for GCCC, as I know all my co-workers are as well.
[6:02:11] I hope the plot of County is proud as well to have a world-class company like GCCC in its community.
[6:02:17] Thank you for your time and consideration.
[6:02:19] Thank you. Randy. Randy Lenscott.
[6:02:29] Randy Lenscott lives on County Road 120-22 years. I am
[6:02:35] located where both the 90 turns are on South 120 intersection.
[6:02:43] In the wintertime, many
[6:02:45] cars go off and go off the turn on slick pavement and go into ditch and knock down
[6:02:52] This year, I myself was aware of two such occurrences on the front of my house, but I'm sure I'm sure there were probably more.
[6:03:09] One twenty south.
[6:03:11] And Mark Clark,
[6:03:15] and
[6:03:19] hers says parallels with this case and others negligent county planning decisions.
[6:03:28] John Lee, he could come up.
[6:03:32] Dan Huntington, you're on deck, and Derek Schneider as well.
[6:03:40] John?
[6:03:41] I, John Lee, 1-1-4-4-2,
[6:03:45] Kenny Road, 1-20, Pespers, Colorado,
[6:03:48] owner, operator, Silver River Ranch.
[6:03:50] I make my living there.
[6:03:51] Raise my children there.
[6:03:52] I have a working area of that kind of road 120 that
[6:03:58] fronts for about a half mile and you know the traffic item you know
[6:04:04] it's very compelling to hear all of this this morning and into this afternoon
[6:04:08] and I don't understand the ideas of sending it somewhere else and that's
[6:04:14] going to solve the problem so as it keeps being made note of run it a loop
[6:04:19] on it further, run it somewhere else.
[6:04:21] Let's increase exposure.
[6:04:23] If the statements are true about silt, noise, health,
[6:04:28] that it's affecting somebody's way of life,
[6:04:32] property value, safety, and traffic,
[6:04:36] then we should just spread that around to everyone.
[6:04:39] And affect even more roads and more ways of life
[6:04:42] that haven't had to deal with that in the past.
[6:04:45] That didn't buy anywhere near that location.
[6:04:49] 20 years ago, when I went to look at the purchase, I looked on one 20 north in the Cougar
[6:04:56] area and didn't buy, in part because of traffic and mines and things like that and other
[6:05:02] opportunities.
[6:05:04] But now to say, well, we need to share this pain with other people because the pain has gotten
[6:05:12] to great and then cite all of these problems and say what we like to do is pass these problems
[6:05:17] on to other people. I think it's very misplaced. Thank you.
[6:05:21] Thank you.
[6:05:24] Dan.
[6:05:35] And Huntington, 78, county road 120, quarter mile, 5,000 feet south of the entrance
[6:05:44] to King II.
[6:05:48] I have no problems with the mind. Being that close, I very rarely hear any
[6:05:54] truck traffic, except in the early morning when the air is still.
[6:06:00] But anyway, fourth generation resident, a grandparents, bought and put together 2,500 acres
[6:06:10] there.
[6:06:11] We did have up to 4,000 acres, and when the government raised the interest rates, they
[6:06:24] to maintain our homeplaces and, I guess, it's our fault that these people are here, complain
[6:06:32] and about the truck traffic, because that was all our property at one time.
[6:06:38] But anyway, they talked about changing the character.
[6:06:43] They moved in here, changed the character of Hague Oates, there wasn't a residence up there.
[6:06:49] besides the accused down there in the bottom and a couple of residents up on the North
[6:06:54] End.
[6:06:58] Another thing I just want to comment on the length of time that it's taken to do to get
[6:07:05] this process going every time to get something agreed upon something else comes up.
[6:07:14] I've just been a snowball and I appreciate coming to a conclusion.
[6:07:23] Truck traffic to the south.
[6:07:25] Truck traffic to the south was never willy-nilly.
[6:07:29] The only time they run that traffic to the south was in income, weather, or somebody lived
[6:07:35] down on the south's south end.
[6:07:39] Accidents on the South and there's been numerous, numerous trucks rollovers on the 90-degree
[6:07:49] corners.
[6:07:49] There's one corner down by 117.
[6:07:52] There's been five cars off of that corner this winter, often the ditch.
[6:08:00] And I want to state that I'm not represented by the Southwest advocates.
[6:08:05] Thank you.
[6:08:06] Thank you.
[6:08:06] Thank you.
[6:08:09] Derek Schneider.
[6:08:12] Derek Schneider.
[6:08:16] Derek Schneider says I live on county 1-20 North and run that road every day.
[6:08:21] The change star community since 2010 when King II ramped up has been tremendous.
[6:08:28] The road is devoid of human traffic.
[6:08:31] When trucks were running at 50 plus a day, we hardly noticed.
[6:08:36] Please constrain traffic to that level during the construction period.
[6:08:46] Donna,
[6:08:48] your number 10.
[6:08:52] Jack, Luellen, you're up on deck.
[6:08:57] Thank you for letting me speak.
[6:08:59] I'm Donna Nizario.
[6:09:00] I live at 689 Cougar Way, has first.
[6:09:04] And I'm going to speak on a couple things.
[6:09:06] Maylam to speak for Denise Baca, who is a real estate agent for your
[6:09:12] and has compiled in request of the neighbors, we, she compiled a report for everyone talking about real estate sales and how it compares to the seller real estate in our area that is impacted by the mind.
[6:09:29] So on the first page, and I'm going to run through this as quick as I can bear with me.
[6:09:33] It's a lot of time.
[6:09:33] I'm just to give you the heads up public comment is limited to three minutes.
[6:09:37] So, right now the average price price of a property is between 384 and 415.
[6:09:44] This is for residential rule, okay?
[6:09:47] And this is all dates from January 2015.
[6:09:53] Right now, days on the market is 1.64 between 1.15 and 1.64.
[6:09:57] It's getting a little faster now.
[6:09:59] The property cells are moving faster.
[6:10:03] And so moving along since it only a much time, we're going to jump right into the
[6:10:07] that January 2015 active listings you'll see are five right now only two of sold in the last year and
[6:10:17] half out in this area. We're talking you know 120 and we'll go through the subdivisions. You will see
[6:10:25] down further there's a lot of expired properties that did not sell and there's a lot of withdrawn
[6:10:31] properties.
[6:10:34] You know, one of the things that Denise said, she was showing property out there
[6:10:39] and several people comment on, well, we really, we really don't even look at that area
[6:10:44] because of what we've seen in this paper and the articles about the impact in that area.
[6:10:50] So I'm speaking as a homeowner also, but the bottom line is, some of us are lifetime investment
[6:11:00] is in our homes and our homes are dramatically dropped.
[6:11:04] I recently sold my home on Cooper, Mesa, if you skip to the letter, you'll see the reports
[6:11:14] here on the sales price and I'm a little stressed because I'm not having enough time.
[6:11:20] Wells Fargo, I went through the process of selling because it could not sell, so I went
[6:11:27] to foreclosure.
[6:11:30] And Wells Fargo did a study also on my home.
[6:11:32] The value was at 410.
[6:11:34] They needed to net 383 for this to sell.
[6:11:37] Only got 268 for my house.
[6:11:39] It's a big loss for me.
[6:11:41] And I know it's the same thing for a lot of folks
[6:11:44] out in that area.
[6:11:45] It's a big deal.
[6:11:46] And this issue is fallen through the cracks.
[6:11:49] And it really needs to be addressed,
[6:11:50] because it is impacting more than just noise,
[6:11:54] health, beauty, wildlife, and you will actually see my closing dock in there because I really
[6:12:01] want to get clear that this is a real deal. This really happened and you'll see all the other
[6:12:06] properties in that area that are set on the market for years way longer than a lot of time
[6:12:12] of 150 days. So it's a big deal. It's a big deal to us as neighbors and it's something that's
[6:12:19] along through the cracks that I think should be on the top of the list.
[6:12:23] Thank you, Scott.
[6:12:23] Ms. Nizario, if I may ask you a couple of questions, first of all, I appreciate all
[6:12:30] of the material that has been put together.
[6:12:33] Can you just talk a little bit more about, did the re-letcher actually, without having to go
[6:12:44] through every page here, actually go through and compare,
[6:12:48] housing prices in Durango versus housing prices in Hacolch, and we saw large property
[6:12:59] increases within the city limits of Durango two years ago when the assessor did the
[6:13:05] last assessment. Did we see similar increases in Hacolch or did it decline in why it
[6:13:12] That's more of an analysis there.
[6:13:15] Excuse me.
[6:13:16] Yes, it absolutely, absolutely declined.
[6:13:19] As you will see in some of these, some of these numbers here
[6:13:25] and I apologize because the numbers that you are going to have a hard
[6:13:29] time reading the prices on those are the numbers in red and in
[6:13:31] yours are in black and white and I apologize for that.
[6:13:34] But that shows that these properties sold for a negative.
[6:13:37] They sold for less than what their value was.
[6:13:40] And most of these properties, that is the case.
[6:13:45] We mainly targeted hidden ridge, Cougar Mesa,
[6:13:51] and Vista de Ora.
[6:13:53] And all those properties are either expired.
[6:13:56] There's only two that have sold, I believe,
[6:13:58] and they sold below market value.
[6:14:02] And so it's really showing a trend that everything out in that area
[6:14:05] is not selling, and it's sitting on the market
[6:14:08] for over three years, some of them, and it's just, you know, it's really, you know, too bad
[6:14:14] of the scenario. And so, yes, answer to your question, when everything else is going
[6:14:19] up and value, you know, in our area it's going dramatically down. And so, you know, it's a real
[6:14:26] problem. And I think it's, you know, a main impact is because people do see, and it's in
[6:14:32] the newspaper a lot, and people are getting educated now, what's really going on. And, you
[6:14:38] or residents are taking notice, ones that want to move out in the country, they're seeing
[6:14:43] that, you know, yeah, let's look at property out in the rule, but not in that area.
[6:14:47] So, you know, it hurts when you want it, it really hurt me, you know, when I had to drop over
[6:14:53] $100,000 to get my household.
[6:14:56] Mr. Chair, if I made it, is the assessor stated.
[6:15:00] Specifically, why he has seen a decline in value from, you know, I don't, from other areas in the county.
[6:15:10] I don't know if the assessor wants to take a stand on, you know, it's GCC and it's what's going on.
[6:15:17] But, you know, it makes you wonder when you do the numbers, and these are all, these year to date comparisons, or all real, they're from the assessor's office.
[6:15:26] and they're compiled by the Welles Group actually and they do this every year.
[6:15:31] Excuse me, I don't think we're looking at came from the assessors office.
[6:15:34] It came from the real estate association.
[6:15:38] I know the assessors are pulled in numbers.
[6:15:42] Well, they're based, they're actually not based on the assessors office.
[6:15:45] They're based on what real estate brokers report.
[6:15:49] So the assessor based on this information.
[6:15:52] I'm really not my experience as a real estate broker.
[6:15:54] That this is, I don't see anything in here except the things that say property taxes and so on that reflects
[6:16:03] Anything prepared by this session's office.
[6:16:06] I guess what I meant was, is the souls do come up in public record.
[6:16:11] So, you know, that's really where it's pulled off is from the souls and the mouths that they actually close for.
[6:16:17] Thank you very much.
[6:16:18] Thank you.
[6:16:19] Thanks for your time.
[6:16:20] Jack Cluellen, Roger, you're on deck.
[6:16:29] Jack Cluellen, 479 Ways Monroe, Durango, Colorado, 81303, on the Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce and we have 825 members.
[6:16:39] We talked about earlier, we heard about quality of life and economic development terms, a lot of times they talk about the quality of jobs.
[6:16:46] Because without jobs, you don't have the community, and the community cannot thrive.
[6:16:51] There are 120 jobs that we've heard about from GCC Energy, all of which have about a $90,000 annual income with benefits.
[6:17:02] They're higher than the average here in the Plot of County.
[6:17:05] Also, it has been talked about.
[6:17:07] There's 1,500 families all over the region that heat their homes from GCCC coal that they get from the coal mine.
[6:17:13] There's nothing in the code to protect these families, conditions that are being proposed
[6:17:19] today could possibly, I say, possibly shut down the mind, it's about the economics.
[6:17:25] We've heard that since 2010 the process has been taking place demonstrating due diligence
[6:17:29] to me.
[6:17:30] Staff has worked diligently with the neighbors, DCC energies of selves, and others, there are
[6:17:37] four different stages of change, denial, resistance, exploration, and commitment.
[6:17:42] I recommend you commit to the recommendation to approve this.
[6:17:47] Business and the predictability in order to continue to operate.
[6:17:51] This approval will hold GCC accountable to their commitments and allow them to properly prepare for their own future and the future of their employees.
[6:17:59] Thank you.
[6:18:01] Thank you.
[6:18:04] Roger.
[6:18:09] The machine is good afternoon and I'm right here on artists, I'm the director of the Economic Development Alliance, I live at 420 when to Lake Trail during Colorado.
[6:18:16] So I want to make a couple of comments today. First of all, I want to thank the staff and GCC for all the time they've put into this project.
[6:18:24] I've heard from both of them because I try to work a middle man ground in my job and I know it's been times it's been really frustrating for both sides.
[6:18:30] I've heard from both of them about that and I know it's been times when it's been really good for both sides and I've heard from them when that's happened as well.
[6:18:36] So this has been a very hard process for everybody involved in the fact that we've gotten to an agreement.
[6:18:41] Like we have, is a testimony to both sides commitment to our community.
[6:18:45] So thank you all for your efforts and what you've done.
[6:18:49] Now, I also wanted to thank GCC for investing in the Plotic County.
[6:18:53] Since they bought that mine, they've put tens of millions of dollars in to our community.
[6:18:56] They've hired over 50 or 60 different people just at the mine alone,
[6:19:00] plus the contracting work they've done here.
[6:19:02] That's a significant investment, and that is not something we have any entitlement to
[6:19:05] as a local area. That is something that comes about from a company's profits, companies, desires,
[6:19:11] and strategies, and communities willingness to accept that investment from a company.
[6:19:16] So thank you all for what you've done for our community as well. I'm a data geek, and there's
[6:19:21] something I want to get on the public record, which is regarding GCC's financials. GCC is a company
[6:19:27] here in the United States that's owned by the Mexican company. That's been pointed out repeatedly
[6:19:31] in testimony in the paper and elsewhere that there are Mexican company.
[6:19:36] Mexican companies report their earnings and their valuation in pesos, not in dollars, and
[6:19:41] it's called the Peso and not the dollar.
[6:19:43] So we don't have a $15 billion value company here, we have a $15 billion peso company.
[6:19:49] We don't have a billion dollars of profits, we have a billion pesos of profits.
[6:19:53] At the conversion rate, it's the US dollar, that's about $800 million of valuation, that
[6:19:59] There's one half the size of mercury when it was bought two years ago by Vantiff, and by
[6:20:04] the way Mercury had a neighbor that said, we want you to be here, we just don't want the traffic.
[6:20:09] So we had the same situation with mercury two, three years ago when they were trying to expand
[6:20:13] as well.
[6:20:14] But why does that matter?
[6:20:16] Even though economics is not addressed in the code, it is fundamental.
[6:20:20] And we can all say we don't want the mind to close, because none of us do.
[6:20:23] But you can impose conditions that make it impossible for the mind or any other business
[6:20:27] to operate.
[6:20:28] And one thing I haven't heard is what are those conditions in which the mind can operate and what are the conditions that they cannot.
[6:20:35] And the simple fact is that they can't operate with 55 trucks a day, the mind closes.
[6:20:40] 120 people lose their jobs, 1500 people lose their heating, and 400,000 dollars of taxes go out the window.
[6:20:47] We shouldn't be trying to race to the bottom to figure out where that threshold is, but there is a threshold at which point a business will no longer operate.
[6:20:53] And that is important when you're considering whether grant a permit or not,
[6:20:56] so whether you're going to have a business or not to grant a permit to.
[6:21:00] So thank you.
[6:21:02] Thank you.
[6:21:05] Guy Stees.
[6:21:18] My name is Guy Stees.
[6:21:19] I live on County Road 120 South.
[6:21:25] And I really want to thank Popeye County Planning staff for all the work they have done on this.
[6:21:31] They work for all hard.
[6:21:32] I was on the original Hague Alt Citizens Committee, so I had to deal with this for quite a while.
[6:21:43] And GCC worked hard to alleviate a lot of the problems that the north side was coming up with.
[6:21:54] I do represent a lot of the people in the south end of the road there, and some of the things that I want to bring up, there's three times as many people there, there's five county road intersections that if they go south, a lot of those county intersections are blind, really hard to see on.
[6:22:21] And there's almost twice as many drivers that he'd go when 19 or when 20.
[6:22:28] Many of those houses are really close to them.
[6:22:32] He's the one of those roads, so there'd be a lot more people
[6:22:35] that would be complaining about the noise because they're right on the road.
[6:22:42] And both 19 and 19 and 20 South are a bus route for schools.
[6:22:49] So that is a big thing to think about.
[6:22:54] And during one of the Hague Alt Citizens meetings, we had both the county and the C-dot
[6:23:02] come and talk to us.
[6:23:03] At that time, CDOT said they would only fix, or there would only be one intersection that was fixed.
[6:23:11] So, that kind of makes it where there wouldn't be two intersections they couldn't afford it.
[6:23:19] Thank you.
[6:23:21] Thank you.
[6:23:23] Is there anyone else that would wish to make public comment today?
[6:23:30] Six o'clock this evening, we will have another public comment.
[6:23:33] If you'd like to wait till then, you're more than welcome or you can do it today.
[6:23:45] My name is Connor McQ, 25, 41 county road, 120.
[6:23:50] So first I'd like to thank you guys and staff,
[6:23:53] of GCC for being here.
[6:23:58] I also want them to thank them for disrupting our community
[6:24:01] and disturbing another lovely day, because I'm sure we would have nothing else to do.
[6:24:06] But it's pretty amazing how they've managed to warm themselves
[6:24:09] and just access through the layers and layers of legal BS that this whole process is entailed.
[6:24:17] They want to be commended for apparently offering up all these millions of dollars to improve the road
[6:24:22] for them to solely operate on.
[6:24:26] And it kind of seems like it'd be if they would buy a big building.
[6:24:29] These are the renovations they have to do to be able to basically run their business.
[6:24:34] So, the fact that they're doing their job is kind of a slap to the face for all the ways
[6:24:40] it's going to improve our lives, so to speak.
[6:24:45] So that's kind of another thing that I'd like to commend them on is just how they're able
[6:24:50] to run on an outdated permit.
[6:24:53] I know if I was trying to grow copious amounts of marijuana and I started a little bit before
[6:24:58] I started the paperwork and got the proper permits in, I would probably be in jail.
[6:25:03] I wouldn't be able to say why I didn't understand the questions or I'm sorry I didn't
[6:25:07] turn my paperwork in time.
[6:25:10] I wouldn't be able to drag my feet on this.
[6:25:13] So I guess I just basically want to commend them for showing a young student how to operate
[6:25:20] businesses and how to succeed.
[6:25:23] And it's a really interesting, eye-opening experience and I would like to thank them again.
[6:25:28] So all of you guys have a good day.
[6:25:33] Can you feel a lot of pink slip for Jeanne over there?
[6:25:37] Thanks.
[6:25:40] Come on up.
[6:25:52] After noon, I have a pair of speech.
[6:25:54] I didn't come with a high-priced lawyer.
[6:25:58] My name is Mike Crawford.
[6:25:59] I live at the Bond County Road 121,
[6:26:03] which I've lived there.
[6:26:04] My entire life, fortune, race,
[6:26:06] and ratcher for over 125 years on that piece of property.
[6:26:11] The mind has mind under our property before.
[6:26:16] We did not own the royalties, so we didn't receive a penny out of it.
[6:26:21] We will have them access to cordial, subsides, cracks, different things.
[6:26:28] They have been great to work with.
[6:26:30] Absolutely great.
[6:26:32] After 11 in this community, my entire life, my family, my entire life,
[6:26:36] My great-grandfather is how Hague Galtz got his name, what's named after?
[6:26:45] I don't know.
[6:26:45] I hate to see people come in here, move in here, be here two years.
[6:26:50] I bring in a high-priced lawyer, gather up handful of people,
[6:26:54] and start changing our way alive.
[6:26:56] I am greatly inspired the mind, what they've done for our community,
[6:27:02] and the amount of people that have lived and worked with the mind,
[6:27:06] answers and minors throughout the last hundred years. I support DCC energy.
[6:27:13] Thank you.
[6:27:18] Anyone else wish to make public comment at this time?
[6:27:30] Sure.
[6:27:34] I'm William T. Williams. I live in County Road, 1120, 1644, County Road, 1120. There's been a lot of discussion
[6:27:41] about the population density along the routes. Somebody that's been our population segment that has been
[6:27:48] Clearly ignored are the residents along Highway 140.
[6:27:52] Now I understand that the county has no direct authority over the route on a Colorado
[6:27:59] Highway.
[6:28:00] However, those are Laplaza County residents, and those are trucks running through Laplaza
[6:28:05] County.
[6:28:07] On that road, there are six major intersections, and there are over 35 residences that are
[6:28:14] connection to Highway 140. So in addition to the number of intersections along county road
[6:28:23] of 120 north, it really is incumbent upon the commissioners to consider those residents
[6:28:30] that live on Highway 140. They are directly impacted on the number of increased tracks up
[6:28:39] to 288 extra trucks running up and down that highway.
[6:28:43] So I would hope that you would take those residents
[6:28:46] in the consideration on your deliberations.
[6:28:49] Thank you.
[6:28:50] Thank you.
[6:28:54] Anyone else wish to make public comment?
[6:29:00] Seeing none, we will close our public comment,
[6:29:03] portion of the meeting,
[6:29:07] and for the afternoon,
[6:29:10] until this evening at 6 o'clock.
[6:29:13] And have board question and answer session.
[6:29:22] Sure.
[6:29:23] Do you want to?
[6:29:25] Do you have anything?
[6:29:25] I don't.
[6:29:26] We just before we break if that's where we're headed.
[6:29:30] I'm going to update a list of the documents that are part of the record and those that are still to be determined.
[6:29:38] I assume that all of the handout submitted by the public you want to be part of the record.
[6:29:44] we would typically do that. So I will add that to the list and provide a copy to everyone. So we're
[6:29:50] all talking up the same page tonight. I believe we've also been receiving some email comments
[6:30:11] We are not going to read all of that into the record, but I provided to everyone the link that you can check in order to review all the public comments that are received.
[6:30:26] For the record, Mr. Chair, can we at least state the number of comments we've received
[6:30:33] on line today?
[6:30:38] I think it was.
[6:30:40] You know, I can click on now and see what the updated number is.
[6:30:44] Wait a second.
[6:31:37] Okay.
[6:31:38] Five were tests and then it says there's 28 responses, so I think there's actually perhaps
[6:31:43] 23.
[6:31:46] Thank you.
[6:31:51] Yes.
[6:31:52] 28.
[6:31:53] Does that include the five test?
[6:31:57] Okay, so 23.
[6:31:59] Okay, thank you.
[6:32:02] Thank you.
[6:32:03] So Mr. Chairman for clarification.
[6:32:05] Our agenda indicates that right now we had anticipated, I think, kind of,
[6:32:12] the follow-up questions by the board.
[6:32:15] And then Robuddo comments, I think, by the parties and so on.
[6:32:20] Do we still want to do that now?
[6:32:22] or do we want to wait to all the public commoners concluded before we hear from the parties
[6:32:27] in terms of concluding statements?
[6:32:32] It would be re-battle at the end of the public comment.
[6:32:36] One, I think the parties probably would appreciate the break in order to perhaps form their
[6:32:41] thoughts, but when we get public comment tonight there may be things that they would like
[6:32:46] to address.
[6:32:48] I think it makes sense to just let them be able to respond to everything that we've heard rather than try to have them respond in the middle.
[6:32:57] But if there are outstanding questions, I think I would certainly be supportive of finishing up our questions.
[6:33:07] So Commissioner, you would support asking questions. Now is that what you're saying asking questions now?
[6:33:14] We can we've got the time of the kind of what I was thinking sure. I'm in favor of that.
[6:33:32] I have a question
[6:33:33] Who wants to go first
[6:33:38] If
[6:33:41] somebody has one of the ready go for it. Okay
[6:33:45] I think I'll start with a few outstanding questions for the applicant
[6:33:52] Is I believe the Huntington reservoir was supposed to construction was supposed to be completed today did that happen?
[6:34:02] The reservoir is not not to be complete today. It was supposed to be under way today. Water hauling scheduled to stop by twice of timber 30th.
[6:34:10] The reservoir is under construction.
[6:34:13] We do expect to have it wrapped up before the end of this month.
[6:34:18] And water hauling has stopped.
[6:34:22] Are you getting your water if you're not hauling?
[6:34:24] We're getting it from irrigation, right?
[6:34:26] Oh, stay and take it straight from the ditch.
[6:34:28] Okay, getcha.
[6:34:30] Thanks.
[6:34:52] You know, I just didn't want to get all together.
[6:34:57] These may not be an order or organized for GCC, they just have your name next to them.
[6:35:03] So Mr. Olson, are you still here?
[6:35:05] There are some questions raised in some of the reports that you had underestimated the actual
[6:35:09] costs of construction or of the improvements rather for the county road.
[6:35:16] It's 120 north improvements.
[6:35:20] Are you confident in those numbers or what do we stand with respect to their accuracy?
[6:35:27] As Mike Olson wrote her entry, I am confident for this stage of analysis that those numbers
[6:35:34] are generally in the magnitude of why they are good.
[6:35:38] I utilize CDOT averages for their in assessing road construction costs and so based on what
[6:35:49] we anticipate doing on each particular part of the process of improving the program,
[6:35:55] those costs are reflective of based on CDOT averages.
[6:36:01] Thank you, and with respect you, I believe in one of the exhibits is diagrams of conceptual plans for the improvements to county root 120 north is that correct.
[6:36:18] Correct.
[6:36:19] Can we take a look at him?
[6:36:20] I have a question.
[6:36:21] I did not bring that with me.
[6:36:24] I'm sure someone else in the room has them.
[6:36:27] So, I'll probably tell you, if you,
[6:36:28] It's a picture and it wasn't clear to me what segments necessarily were represented in the photographs and so that's it actually has to do with a 90 degree turn. I believe for first one and
[6:36:46] Does that conceptual plan right now the curve goes to the north of a residence?
[6:36:54] Does your plan anticipate the road being rerouted, re-aligned to go to the south of that residence?
[6:37:00] Putting in in what would look like a really weird place?
[6:37:05] That particular work you're talking about is Maopo's point three, and that is the first 90-degree corner on Canada at 120.
[6:37:12] There are constrained areas right there because they're used with the old highway and they're
[6:37:18] so all the transmission lines, both local service and transmission going along the existing
[6:37:26] kind of road.
[6:37:28] Thank you.
[6:37:29] And we're looking at which exhibit?
[6:37:30] This is attachment 5 in your packet, but with that, I'm not sure which sheet, but one of the
[6:37:37] elements are also telling you which sheet it is.
[6:37:50] We could pull it up on the screen for you real fast as well.
[6:37:53] That would be great.
[6:37:55] Thank you.
[6:37:58] Mr. Chairman, if I may, while we're looking for that.
[6:38:02] I would also just note for the record relative to the question about cost.
[6:38:05] That under the road improvement agreement, there is no cap on the dollar amount.
[6:38:09] That GCC is required to expand.
[6:38:11] They're just required to construct the improvements.
[6:38:13] So the risk of increased cost is on GCC.
[6:39:30] We can address that later, but I just wanted to request a copy of the Realtive Report.
[6:39:35] That's the only document we don't have.
[6:39:36] Thank
[6:39:39] you.
[6:39:41] Commissioner Westeriff, is this a particular looking at the...
[6:39:44] That is it.
[6:39:46] First, if you look in the upper right hand, you'll see a North Arrow.
[6:39:53] That gives you relative directional what's going on right there.
[6:39:57] This is conceptual plan.
[6:39:59] There are in the existing alignment, there are power poles on both sides of the roadway, and in fact actually at the 90-degree corner that used to run 90 degrees and go directly east across a bridge that's since been abandoned.
[6:40:21] So that's probably why the juncture that particular 90-degree corner.
[6:40:26] This is conceptual plan and the next stage is going to discuss with the right away.
[6:40:32] The issues that we have, there is a, a acceptable curve in the existing alignment.
[6:40:39] And because it's constrained, the option of being, as you go ahead and align it, something
[6:40:44] like it's shown, or you align it where that you take out quite a bit of the, or re-direct
[6:40:51] the existing parallites.
[6:40:53] This is one option.
[6:40:56] This is what we'll do additional assessment of and that's regards to what we're looking
[6:41:01] at both what makes the most sense and that includes Radaway and that includes direction
[6:41:07] and conversations with that particular property owner.
[6:41:11] And this, just so you know, this particular instance, that's probably acquiring the full
[6:41:16] parcel.
[6:41:19] This case here is, I would say, the exception to the amount of right away that's currently
[6:41:26] or the road to line within the existing alignment.
[6:41:35] And I guess, in my, if this were my house, and I saw this, I would be a little bit upset
[6:41:42] right now.
[6:41:42] So I'm wondering, did you talk to these people that they know, or is this, if they look at
[6:41:47] So are they going to just kind of freak out and, you know, to what extent, you know, is this
[6:41:54] particular?
[6:41:55] So you first go out and say, what actually is doable?
[6:41:57] Then you go out as part of the preliminary plan phase.
[6:42:00] You should go ahead and say, this is what you have.
[6:42:03] And here, if it's to a point that doesn't make any sense and the property owner is not supportive,
[6:42:08] then you try something else.
[6:42:10] And, but you're going to start someplace.
[6:42:12] Okay.
[6:42:13] So, this is-
[6:42:14] So your questions-
[6:42:14] So your questions-
[6:42:19] And then, uh-
[6:42:21] Not since we're looking at this thing.
[6:42:24] I don't know what it'd be helpful to-
[6:42:27] I guess what I'd just really like to know is we've heard from,
[6:42:31] uh, we've got a proper donor,
[6:42:33] Um,
[6:42:34] Ms Honsegary, who has concerns about what-
[6:42:37] Um, if I say it wrong, stop me,
[6:42:40] but my belief is you have concerns about the way
[6:42:42] the realignment. I heard her say she had concerns about the way the realignment might affect
[6:42:47] her property. What what voice will she have in that in the consideration of a realignment
[6:42:57] near her?
[6:42:58] She definitely have a voice and with that as it right now there's no plans to move the
[6:43:05] center line and that's typically how you set up a road design project. You establish a
[6:43:11] line, and where the assume center line is, there's no, at this point, is to, we intend
[6:43:18] to push the center line and move it all towards the north, which, I mean, away from Ms.
[6:43:24] Sonsinger's house.
[6:43:25] There is an issue because she is right on the road.
[6:43:29] Her pipe fence is right on the road.
[6:43:33] And with that, there's parking that's currently being supported that is right on the road.
[6:43:38] And so we have to address any type of clear zone issues and make sure the drainage works.
[6:43:44] And all those components go into the final road design, but Ms. Um, Ms. Um, would be a part of that.
[6:43:53] Thank you.
[6:43:54] Also,
[6:43:59] um, there's an opportunity to address this too, but there is a, I believe one of the, there's been
[6:44:07] comment raised that there might have been an under-reporting of accidents and I had a similar concern
[6:44:14] as I was reading through the documents because I don't know where those the accident reports
[6:44:22] came from whether they were things that were reported to the sheriff's office or the highway patrol.
[6:44:28] Those are things that went through central dispatch if those were things that were reported to
[6:44:31] We've heard a couple of different anecdotal comments here about people in ditches that didn't
[6:44:38] get reported.
[6:44:39] Truck sideways in the road that aren't considered accidents, so they don't get recounted.
[6:44:47] And even in GCC's Accounting, I can't remember what document it was, but there was one
[6:44:52] that record, I think it was in the maybe emergency procedures and how accidents will be handled
[6:44:58] it's different than truck.
[6:45:00] Such it stuck in a ditch and truck stuck in a ditch may not be actually an accident for one definition, but it certainly
[6:45:08] sounds to be a traffic problem. And I'm just wondering how was that collection of data still
[6:45:16] relevant to you? Was it under reporting change your analyses of the adequacy or changes that
[6:45:23] do you meet to the road?
[6:45:26] So my analysis is based on recorded data.
[6:45:31] And this typically the way it's done is it's a car
[6:45:34] of state patrol holds main database.
[6:45:38] And through the action reporting that I have reflect
[6:45:42] that representative in my reports or based on the data
[6:45:49] supplied by the county.
[6:45:50] Now, that being said, that's only recorded data, that does not include a particular incident
[6:45:58] where both people say, hey, you shouldn't have done that and gotten charged space and
[6:46:03] walked away.
[6:46:04] So there are times where you have incidents that are recorded, that do occur, and whether
[6:46:12] of being from some truck that's been too wide in a road or somebody who's traveled too fast
[6:46:20] or whatever, but there may be a particular instances that, and in it, from residents
[6:46:25] who live there, they say just so that there are, there are accidents that are not recorded
[6:46:32] or there are incidents that are happening out of court.
[6:46:34] And the way that the Karostate Patrol looks at is, you have three types, you have a property
[6:46:39] down at Joan only, you have injury or you have fatality.
[6:46:45] And so that's how they record their actions.
[6:46:47] Just case and point in one, twenty-self in the last few years.
[6:46:52] There were two fatalities.
[6:46:54] And that happened to be one with a motorcycle, a hidden animal.
[6:46:59] Another one was a person who didn't negotiate a 90-degree curve,
[6:47:04] and was excessive speed.
[6:47:06] those things, you know, those are in the actual records, but going back to question, does
[6:47:12] everything get reported? No. And as they get handled, they get handled by the residents
[6:47:21] there on site, and they don't get reported to the accident. You know, I'm going to say that.
[6:47:31] How does that affect your analysis?
[6:47:33] If there's an entry, I mean, you're going to get that.
[6:47:36] If there's a property damage, you're going to get that because that's the only way
[6:47:39] you can make a claim.
[6:47:40] And so I would say that for the most part, it's accurate and reflective on the operations
[6:47:46] of the road.
[6:47:48] But I would say that, I mean, that's the only thing I can go by right there.
[6:47:54] Mr. Chairman, if I could add one thing, Terrell and White again for the record, while
[6:47:58] it may be true that individual private drivers on that road might have the option to
[6:48:02] whether or not they wish to report an incident.
[6:48:06] The truck drivers under contract to GCC do not have that option.
[6:48:09] It is GCC's policy that any incident, whether it's a single car, a truck in a ditch
[6:48:15] or under their policy, all of them need to be reported.
[6:48:20] So we, I would say, could infer from that a relatively high degree of confidence in the data
[6:48:25] as it relates to GCC vehicles.
[6:48:27] It may be true that other accidents are under-reported.
[6:48:32] Thank you and I think you're right of way agent is here
[6:48:41] He spoke of the planning commission meeting correct. Would you like to add questions up there anyway?
[6:48:46] I could
[6:49:01] my name is Rob Johnston and with Johnston land company
[6:49:05] Address at 1315 main Avenue
[6:49:08] Sweet 2 2 2 2
[6:49:10] Durango Colorado
[6:49:11] Thank you, Mr. Johnston Johnston. Yes, thank you
[6:49:16] You have my right of way question to Mr. Olson and did you have anything to add to that or clarify?
[6:49:28] I'm sure I could try it again.
[6:49:30] So my first concern was just as it related to this, this property that's on the screen now,
[6:49:38] and it sounds like for Mr. Olson.
[6:49:40] If this doesn't work out, then other options would be considered.
[6:49:44] The other one had the question had to do with Ms. Hunsaker and implications for her of some kind of
[6:49:51] re-alignment and what would be the involvement of property owners in that process.
[6:49:56] And as the right away, H&I assume you'd be involved there.
[6:50:01] Yes.
[6:50:03] First of all, the guidelines and process and procedures would be following the Uniform Act.
[6:50:10] And in general, what that does is it provides that property owner with the policies and procedures that are going to be followed for that potential right away acquisition.
[6:50:23] And what's set up as the right away agent to deliver information about the project to the land owner and have integrated negotiations with that land owner and having that land owner be able to provide comment or concerns.
[6:50:39] And the two parties would enter into problem senses, identifying problems, and trying to come up with some problem resolutions.
[6:50:52] So, when I look at this first picture here at the 90 degree corner, there could be a couple of different options.
[6:51:00] and until something is presented, and discussions are started between the right-of-way
[6:51:07] agent in the landowner, that's just the first step.
[6:51:13] But the landowner is encouraged to participate and provide comment back about their concerns
[6:51:19] or issues.
[6:51:21] And then we work to try to resolve those through problem senses and reach some voluntary
[6:51:26] consent.
[6:51:30] Mr. Johnson, just a quick question. Have you done land acquisition in this area before?
[6:51:38] I've worked in the land and ride-away business here in the Plata County for 26 years.
[6:51:44] Primarily in the oil and gas industry, but also for public utility companies, with both pipelines, compressors, compressors, stations, and transmission lines.
[6:51:55] in this area?
[6:51:57] 26 years in Leopard Academy.
[6:51:59] Sorry, sorry.
[6:52:00] In the hate gulch area.
[6:52:04] My only involvement actually in the hate gulch area was
[6:52:07] acquiring at least a lease in favor of GCC
[6:52:10] from the U-Mount News.
[6:52:14] Thank you.
[6:52:20] Commissioner.
[6:52:22] You just asking general questions or just for GCC?
[6:52:25] I don't think we're doing it either.
[6:52:27] Okay.
[6:52:30] All right, I'll pick some for GCC.
[6:52:32] I'm not sure, I don't think I need to anymore, but who knows?
[6:52:41] I'm a tour that the commissioners were able to take with staff and members of GCC personnel.
[6:52:51] We noticed that a large pullout outside of the north of the mine on Cairo 120.
[6:53:02] And we had a quick answer question about what the trucks were doing, whether they were actually
[6:53:07] covering their loads, when they pulled out into the pullout or exactly it was more of a safety
[6:53:16] check.
[6:53:24] Mr. Peterson is probably the most knowledgeable, but he wasn't on the tour, so just to make
[6:53:28] absolutely sure we were referring to the exact right place that you're referencing.
[6:53:33] I just would like to see if there's another GCC person who's better suited to answer
[6:53:36] that question.
[6:53:37] Can he keep coming up right now and there would be the person I was thinking of?
[6:53:43] Working, my name is Wade one more, I reside at 918 East Oak Drive, Bayfield, Colorado.
[6:53:52] We're for juicy see for 22 years.
[6:53:54] When we were on the tour of the area that you were talking about, it's considered what we call the truckers.
[6:53:59] Call the U-curals, it's state ground.
[6:54:02] It's an extra wide spot right next to the loading shoots.
[6:54:07] And that's where they were pulling off out of the lane of traffic on County Road 120.
[6:54:15] This turnout actually isn't near a loading shoot.
[6:54:19] Loading shoot is a cattle.
[6:54:21] It's a cattle.
[6:54:22] Okay.
[6:54:25] Not a cold shoot.
[6:54:27] Okay.
[6:54:28] So what activities are they performing when they pull off?
[6:54:32] They're required by GCC policy to be charted or un-tarp at that location because there's no
[6:54:38] residents in between there and the mine site.
[6:54:42] If they need to pull off prior to getting to the mine site.
[6:54:46] And when they're leaving the mine site, what activity are they pursuing?
[6:54:50] Because same.
[6:54:51] If they do not tarp on the mine site, they will tarp their out-of-the-lane at traffic.
[6:54:59] Is there a representative of the trucking company present in the audience today?
[6:55:08] We did not call or invite them as our witnesses, but I suspect you might have a good
[6:55:12] representative in the audience if you ask that question generally.
[6:55:15] Okay. I had a question as to the number of hours that truckers are on the job per day.
[6:55:26] And I have noticed the majority of the trucks that I've witnessed and certainly on the tour have
[6:55:33] New Mexico plates, I'm wondering, do the majority of the folks drive in trucks,
[6:55:38] Reside a new Mexico and base on number of hours a day or they are picking up one load and
[6:55:45] go and south the Gallup and staying or coming back a number of times a day.
[6:55:50] Mr. Y. More might be able to answer that question.
[6:55:54] I can answer on the hours that they run. Now there is trucks that run down and you might
[6:55:59] see the same truck in one day but they have different drivers during the shift. May run down
[6:56:05] If they're going to the gallop location, they'll run down the gallop, return back to their
[6:56:08] yard in Kirtland area and a different jock you'll get in the cab and take over.
[6:56:14] So, Kirtland is one of there.
[6:56:16] Is there a main?
[6:56:17] There's a couple of different trucking companies, one of the facilities is in Kirtland.
[6:56:21] The other trucking companies, other facilities in Farmington.
[6:56:24] OK.
[6:56:30] Commissioner, you might ask that question again after 6 p.m. when the folks that are working
[6:56:35] during the day come for the second round of public comment.
[6:56:37] Okay, I think we'll have some more witnesses available at that time.
[6:56:41] Okay, great.
[6:56:42] Thanks.
[6:56:43] We may have somebody right now wanting to answer that question.
[6:56:53] I am Brandon Wendell.
[6:56:54] I am well on wheels, water hauling here in the public county.
[6:56:58] Truckers by National DOT requirements are not allowed to drive anything more than 11 hours
[6:57:04] a day.
[6:57:05] They are allowed to be on shift trip 14 hours, but only behind the wheel for 11.
[6:57:09] They have to document all of their in and out time at the seat and document what they're
[6:57:14] when they're not driving. So I thought that might help answer that question. Thank you.
[6:57:20] You're welcome.
[6:57:32] Okay.
[6:57:36] I guess
[6:57:45] other questions for GCCC.
[6:57:53] I guess is a follow-up to the council for
[6:58:00] for the neighbors and cross creek, the request, repeated request for 55 trucks, a limit
[6:58:13] on 55 trucks per day going north.
[6:58:17] Have you analyzed a split of 55 trucks going north, 25, 25, using this other route?
[6:58:23] And I was noting one of the comments earlier from a member of the public setting when
[6:58:29] The traffic was at 50 trucks per day. It was hardly noticeable when you were a resident near the road.
[6:58:37] Anyway, I just wanted to put that out there on the record, but have you analyzed that split?
[6:58:48] So, I really hear that as maybe two questions.
[6:58:50] One is the question of, could GCC reduce operations to 55 trucks period.
[6:58:55] The second is, has GCC analyzed 55 trucks on county road 12 north, plus 25 trucks or some other
[6:59:02] number on county road 125.
[6:59:04] Well, I believe 55 was the neighbor's question.
[6:59:06] My question is, have you analyzed 55 trucks going north and 25 going south?
[6:59:12] Plus 25 going south.
[6:59:13] Okay.
[6:59:13] We'll address that question now then.
[6:59:15] Okay.
[6:59:15] Thank you.
[6:59:21] We've worked closely analyzed.
[6:59:23] It's one twenty-south, it's entirety, and for a number of reasons, which by Colson's
[6:59:29] stated earlier, it's not a favored route because of the number of constraints that are built
[6:59:34] into the road, the number of netty degree corners, the number of county road intersections,
[6:59:39] and the nature of the state highway intersections at any traffic volume.
[6:59:45] I will further comment that there were times in years past that one twenty-south was used
[6:59:51] is an alternate route. Sometimes during snow events,
[6:59:58] it was any time that
[7:00:00] Out was used, it was found to be problematic. In 1996, GCC opened its own truck, GCC's predecessor,
[7:00:09] National King Cole opened its own trucking company at RAN its own trucks until 2004, I believe.
[7:00:18] I was in charge of the trucking company for a while. At the beginning of that point, there was the occasional practice of running trucks to the south.
[7:00:26] It became problematic enough with the number of trucks stuck in the ditch and spilled loads
[7:00:33] that we absolutely abandoned the practice of driving to the south.
[7:00:40] After we sold the trucking company in 2004, there was again a short time when trucks were
[7:00:45] occasionally routed to the south for one convenience or another, but finally that was abandoned
[7:00:50] because it's a problematic nature of the route.
[7:00:53] If I may ask staff, Mr. Murray, would you mind finding the slide of the roads to the various routes?
[7:01:05] The 120 going north, 120 going south.
[7:01:07] I heard Mr. Dodson say during his testimony that he was not recommending the full southern route,
[7:01:14] but using the combination of 119, 116.
[7:01:18] I would just like to see the visual on that.
[7:01:36] Yeah, Ms. Marie, could you show where the route that the commissioners were driven on going to the south versus the route that Mr. Dodson is recommending, or recommended?
[7:01:49] Any emergency planning department?
[7:01:50] The Green Line shows North 120, the red squares, the mine, then we traveled south to this intersection.
[7:01:59] right here we went left and traveled up this hill and right around here the road becomes paved so then
[7:02:09] you may remember that right yes portion of it and it actually goes up and down probably to
[7:02:15] with these advantages so then there's a hard right where the ditches these two 90 degrees and then
[7:02:23] We popped out here at 140.
[7:02:25] We traveled south down to Klein, where the school is.
[7:02:30] Schools actually down here.
[7:02:32] And then hung this right and went back in on 119.
[7:02:37] And traveled around.
[7:02:40] Okay.
[7:02:41] Thank you.
[7:03:04] I guess perhaps one last question for the applicants.
[7:03:14] If you were to begin, if you were to do all four phases as one phase, how long do you
[7:03:26] believe it would take you?
[7:03:28] And is it, is it even feasible in the amount of time there is between now and winter?
[7:03:40] Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Carolyn White, again, I'd like to give you an overview answer
[7:03:45] and then ask Mr. Peterson or Mr. Olson to answer in more detail.
[7:03:50] But I want to highlight for the commission that some of the obstacles here.
[7:03:54] This is not a question of GCC being unwilling to spend money faster or to engage in activities
[7:04:01] faster.
[7:04:02] This is a question of certain steps which have to occur sequentially and the amount of time required
[7:04:07] to complete each of those steps.
[7:04:09] So as to this specific amount of time that you could get it done and if you compressed it,
[7:04:13] I'll let Mr. Olson apply on that if he has an opinion, but the point I'm making is that we are at a phase of conceptual design.
[7:04:22] Subsequent to approval of this permit, if it is approved, we will engage in preliminary design with the approval and coordination with county staff.
[7:04:31] When preliminary design is finalized, then they will engage in the right away analysis that's already been discussed extensively.
[7:04:37] And that will include a process of identifying what right away is needed to complete the roadway as it has been designed as well as
[7:04:45] Alternatives where it appears that it may be problematic to acquire that right away, right?
[7:04:49] Like the corner we were just looking at and all of these things cannot occur concurrently.
[7:04:56] So the parts that can be done quickly are already proposed to be done as soon as possible namely in 2016
[7:05:04] And those are also the parts that have the most urgent need, like the immediate paving in front of the residents of the portion that's on pay.
[7:05:11] But significant portions of this can't be really engaged in until certain other portions are completed.
[7:05:17] And that's really the constraint that's driving some of the proposal for phasing.
[7:05:22] There has also been concern expressed by the residents about how the construction will be staged.
[7:05:27] And that's an issue that will work very closely with county staff.
[7:05:32] But if all of the work were to be expedited and completed all at once, there would be significant impacts likely on both the mind and the residents ability to use the road in the interim,
[7:05:42] phasing it allows it to continue to be used by all parties.
[7:05:46] So that's the sort of big picture overview answer, but I'll let Mr. Peterson and Mr. Olson add any more detail that they think is appropriate.
[7:05:59] Mike Olson wrote an engineering there from the conceptual into the preliminary is a significant
[7:06:06] matter work and the scheduling allows time to complete that work and this just doesn't happen
[7:06:12] overnight and there was and a lot of that it doesn't address the right away requirements
[7:06:19] and if there is any modification to the alignment and so that allows a little bit of time for
[7:06:25] It doesn't allow a lot, and so this isn't aggressive schedule, but you don't want to
[7:06:33] also, you want to put together a schedule that's fairly realistic.
[7:06:38] I think there may be some opportunities to move some tasks forward, but that really depends
[7:06:44] on right away, and if consensus and agreement can reach.
[7:06:49] So, this is a realistic schedule and there's no, there's not in ten to show any type of delay.
[7:06:58] Thank you. Mr. Chair, I actually do have another question for staff.
[7:07:03] Put staff on the hook over here.
[7:07:07] We received a recommendation from Mr. Robbins of changes to the road improvements agreement and
[7:07:18] changes to findings and conditions. I know you probably haven't. I'm not sure if you've
[7:07:23] had a chance to review these in detail, but do you believe it might be possible to give
[7:07:30] the commissioners your opinion of these as it relates to the staff findings and conclusions
[7:07:37] by the after the public comment period this evening?
[7:07:46] At this point, we have certainly not reviewed those proposed amendments extensively.
[7:07:54] We very quickly reviewed them.
[7:07:58] We can certainly try and be prepared to speak more particularly to those amendments this evening.
[7:08:05] However, most of the amendments are being proposed or being driven by the idea of 55 trucks going north which then would be some fairly significant changes to the project as it's been presented by the applicant.
[7:08:22] So we will try and be more prepared this evening, but I'm not sure it's possible at all to do a complete analysis of the implications of change of that magnitude.
[7:08:33] Thank you.
[7:08:34] That's certainly by tomorrow afternoon, right?
[7:08:41] Speaking for my colleagues on this point, but complete analysis of, I mean, if there's
[7:08:47] a limit from 80 to 55, if staff is of the opinion that 80 trucks can go north, kind of
[7:08:53] around 120, then I don't think the issue is 55 trucks can go north, kind of around 120.
[7:08:58] If the issue is trying to divert that access traffic, different direction, and I don't think
[7:09:03] is something that we will be prepared to speak to tomorrow afternoon. That would require an analysis,
[7:09:10] both on public works, perspectives with regard to the road conditions and an analysis from
[7:09:17] planning regarding compatibility.
[7:09:21] Thank you.
[7:09:27] I think only have a couple of questions for Mr. Robbins.
[7:09:32] On the road, you had mentioned that the road will change the neighborhood if the road is
[7:09:40] change, did it would change the neighborhood?
[7:09:42] Can you speak to that a little bit more?
[7:09:50] This is Jeff Ophens for the record.
[7:09:52] And I was paraphrasing, I think, the testimony in particular from Gary Granpo, who spoke
[7:09:59] and is one of the neighbors.
[7:10:01] His point being is that it's a farm-demarket road now.
[7:10:05] In discussions I've had with the neighbors and getting prepared for this hearing and let them
[7:10:09] pipe up if I'm saying this wrong, they don't want a new paved road.
[7:10:14] road. They like the road as it is right now. But they are cognizant of the fact that everyone in
[7:10:22] the room is struggling with having to figure out a way to get a win-win win here. And if GCC
[7:10:28] needs 120-80 T's at the end of the day, they'll bite the bullet and take the road. But Mr. Grant's
[7:10:35] point was that will fundamentally change the neighborhood and that we now will have a road similar
[7:10:42] to the proposed road next to the proposed class.
[7:10:45] I think that's the one that we looked at.
[7:10:47] And I recall the proposed road before and after
[7:10:50] the improvements, and it's a pretty different road.
[7:10:55] And a road of that magnitude
[7:10:58] could likely support additional development down that way.
[7:11:03] I mean, if you just sort of think logically through what
[7:11:06] that could open up.
[7:11:06] And I think that was Mr. Grant's point.
[7:11:09] And I think the other point from the neighbors
[7:11:10] is they like their small farm-to-market road that's there now, but they're trying to come
[7:11:16] to some solution-based orientation for you.
[7:11:20] So I think that was the point.
[7:11:23] Thank you.
[7:11:31] I think that's all the questions I had and appreciate you following up on that.
[7:11:42] Any other questions?
[7:11:45] I do, but I don't want to, I mean, I don't know, I do have questions, but for staff,
[7:11:50] but I don't know if you want to start at 12 minutes after four or not.
[7:11:56] Yes, Mr. Huntington.
[7:11:57] I'm going to
[7:12:09] go and throw up some water and clean the afternoon.
[7:12:12] Mr. Huntington, can you wait a minute?
[7:12:14] If you're going to, first of all, we need to decide if you're allowed to talk again
[7:12:18] since we close public testimony and if you are, you'll need to come up to the mic.
[7:12:22] So if you wait just a second.
[7:12:25] If you open it up, then you have to open it up too, whoever else wants to come in.
[7:12:30] or he can wait till tonight.
[7:12:38] If Mr. Huntington's going to talk about where there have been accidents on the south
[7:12:42] route, I think I have what I need to know already as it relates to that.
[7:12:47] I think I do as well, but you would be more than welcome to come in again this evening
[7:12:52] if you can make it back to that meeting.
[7:13:00] Ask questions.
[7:13:00] They're just told off to later.
[7:13:02] Are these questions you want on the record or is this a staff question?
[7:13:08] These are staff questions I would have to ask on the record.
[7:13:11] I would be in favor of continuing.
[7:13:16] Okay.
[7:13:16] I'm looking at specific questions as it relates to the staff report.
[7:13:20] So please have that handy, Mr. Murray.
[7:13:24] Page 47, item number 26.
[7:13:28] It talks about if truck traffic increases, there would be a need for new permit.
[7:13:36] And I'm wondering, what's the definition of, how do we know if truck traffic is increasing?
[7:13:42] Is what's the trigger for that?
[7:13:48] So Daniel Murray, I'll take the first crack of this and Adam may add on to it.
[7:13:51] We're talking about condition number 26.
[7:13:54] And this was just an absolute explicit reference that any increase in trucks warrants a major amendment.
[7:14:01] That was a recommendation from the cap, citizen advisory panel.
[7:14:05] There are 14 instances where these conditions are directly traceable to be at the
[7:14:10] cap or north one twenty neighbors. So that is one where we are just reiterating
[7:14:16] a recommendation from the public that would be very clear. These truck numbers are absolute
[7:14:21] and that an increase of one warrants a major amendment.
[7:14:25] So that's to say if the full improvements were implemented and the one twenty trucks per day
[7:14:32] we're the number. If it went to 121, well, we'll take the average. But if the average became
[7:14:39] 121, that that would be made require a new amendment, it would be a major amendment.
[7:14:45] That's the intent of the condition.
[7:14:49] So would GCC understand?
[7:14:54] Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, yes, that is GCC's understanding and I would
[7:14:57] Additionally, know that the way you will know what they're talking about.
[7:15:00] Members are that GCC is required to do actual reporting and to provide that information not only to the county, but to the public through the website that I mentioned previously.
[7:15:11] So it's whether GCC affirmatively wanted to request the opportunity to add additional trucks or whether it became evident through actual reporting data that they had increased the number of trucks, whether inadvertently or not, that a major amendment would be required.
[7:15:27] Okay, thank you.
[7:15:29] I'd like to spend some time looking at the road improvement agreement.
[7:15:33] That is a crux of what we're looking at today, and that will require me to get it.
[7:15:39] Before we move off of this, I think the example that Ms. Murray offered was an increase to the
[7:15:45] 129 acts, but I believe it would be any increase to the truck numbers as referenced in
[7:15:50] condition 15A. That is the chart that dictates all the different truck numbers for the
[7:15:54] phases, and if it would make the condition more clear, we can certainly add a reference to
[7:16:01] the truck numbers as shown on the chart in condition 15A.
[7:16:08] I just want to make sure everybody is on the same page,
[7:16:13] and it sounds like everyone is
[7:16:14] part of that condition is concerned.
[7:16:19] So with respect to the road improvement agreement,
[7:16:30] first, under 1.4 talks about grants, and
[7:16:33] I just want to get a recognition from GCC that we are, we absolutely believe that our grant
[7:16:41] opportunities for projects that would apply to this will be going down.
[7:16:47] every indicator is that the State of Colorado has less and less money to even from energy
[7:16:53] impact grants due to a recent Supreme Court decision that we are now in a high 80s
[7:16:59] for the next two rounds of even getting money of any kind.
[7:17:03] So I want GCC to understand when we had the first conversation when the first discussed possible
[7:17:10] energy impact monies, that's we're not in the same world anymore.
[7:17:15] Mr. Chairman, the comment is certainly acknowledged.
[7:17:19] We are actively involved in those discussions with the Joint Budget Committee and well aware
[7:17:23] of the Supreme Court decision that you're referencing in.
[7:17:26] Hope to work closely with the county to do our best to maximize the Lafata county's opportunity
[7:17:30] to get whatever money is available.
[7:17:35] All right, thanks.
[7:17:39] I kind of hesitate to get into this conversation, but we got to get into it sometime.
[7:17:42] And that is, I think, high on all of the people in this room, at least in the front row's mind as well as in my own mind is how do we enforce compliance?
[7:17:54] There have been times when we understood that there would be actions taken on GCC's part that would improve situations that either didn't happen in the time frame that we hope they would or they were the temporary row that decayed very quickly all that kind of stuff.
[7:18:09] So this is, you know, I think for staff, more than anybody, but how are we safe?
[7:18:16] How do we know that we, that if, if, you know, end of June 2016 turns out to middle of August,
[7:18:26] 2016, how, where is enforceability in this and how are we protected?
[7:18:31] So, care to take that one, Ms. Rogers?
[7:18:35] Yes, as previously discussed, we have the standard code enforcement process, but I think
[7:18:44] as the board is aware from some of our other instances, it is somewhat of a blunt sort,
[7:18:52] not quite as responsive time-wise as we would like.
[7:18:58] So we do have this contract and we did pay particular attention to the enforcement provisions that are in the document.
[7:19:10] So after we have gone through it, there is an opportunity where we would give GCC notice and they have opportunities to cure.
[7:19:23] but we believe that contractually it is an effective mechanism, however, even that takes time.
[7:19:35] One of the things that is available on occasion for counties as well is to try to seek
[7:19:53] to get the activity to actually cease until the applicant can come into compliance.
[7:20:00] We have not gone so far as to include that sort of language in the RIA.
[7:20:08] It is something that what otherwise have to be demonstrated in court.
[7:20:14] There are a number of elements that would have to be demonstrated by the county in order
[7:20:19] for an injunctive relief to be given, and I can cover those if the Board would like, but
[7:20:26] short of the use of that, or not using that single tool, we do believe we have brought
[7:20:33] everything else to the table that we can from a legal perspective.
[7:20:41] I guess I could.
[7:20:43] Mr. Chair, along that line of questioning,
[7:20:47] when I asked an enforcement question earlier today,
[7:20:51] Council for GCC stated that we also are committing to put up a financial assurance, can you describe that?
[7:20:59] Yeah, the financial assurance will relate to each phase of the improvement.
[7:21:04] So, if they begin to undertake improvements, we would have a 120% security.
[7:21:12] At that point, we would have to get the surety, the company that actually provided the bond to perform.
[7:21:21] I've done that before, it's not, it's another task that's not that easy to accomplish.
[7:21:27] However, while it provides a county some protection to whatever phase we happen to be in,
[7:21:33] it's not a overarching sort of process.
[7:21:38] You know, if it happens in phase five, that'll be much simpler because we have the bond
[7:21:43] and then everything will be complete.
[7:21:44] If it happens in phase one, all we have is the money to complete phase one
[7:21:49] and we have problems with respect to the future phases.
[7:21:57] Thank you.
[7:21:59] Mr. Chairman, if you'd care to hear the answer from GCC
[7:22:02] in terms of our interpretation of your question
[7:22:05] of what enforcement mechanisms the county have,
[7:22:08] I'd be glad to provide that as well at this time.
[7:22:12] Thank you.
[7:22:15] As noted before, there's the two alternative legal mechanisms
[7:22:18] and that is either enforcement under the contract,
[7:22:21] which is the section that the county attorney
[7:22:23] was just referencing.
[7:22:24] And then there's also your code enforcement mechanism and under the contract you have two mechanisms of enforcement one is by calling on the performance bond, which is by phases, but you also have the opportunity to proceed with a breach of contract or other type of action.
[7:22:39] And I would turn your attention to section 6.2, which is all the remedies available to the county, which does include injunctive relief.
[7:22:47] As as the county attorney noted, you start to prove the elements of injunctive relief to a court in order to get that.
[7:22:51] But my point I think is that this draft of the RIA and I'm referencing the one that's in your packet not the alternative red line draft proposed by the opponents this afternoon, which we have not yet had a chance to review and which we have not approved and not executed.
[7:23:06] But the draft that's in your packet is one that GCC agreed to and signed and all of the language in the remedy section is the complete and original language proposed by the county.
[7:23:16] I mean by that is, although we discussed at different times and attempted to negotiate the provisions
[7:23:24] which would reduce the impact of that, and we can the ability of the county to a force
[7:23:28] that agreement, none of those discussions made it into the final version, and the final version
[7:23:33] is the strongest possible original language that GCC has in fact agreed to.
[7:23:39] So I would say you have really three or four alternative legal mechanisms, code enforcement,
[7:23:45] enforcement under the contract, which includes the alternatives and jumped to relief breach
[7:23:49] of contract as well as the 120 percent bond requirement.
[7:23:53] In addition, I would add that there's an additional level of enforcement and that is
[7:23:58] GCC's commitment as it relates to this issue and I recognize that there are obviously some
[7:24:03] of the room who question that commitment, but what I would notice is that all of the conversations
[7:24:07] that have occurred to date about things that the county would request that GCC undertake
[7:24:13] have occurred in the absence of GCC having any assurances that it would receive a permit and be able to
[7:24:18] continue its operations. If this permit is granted, it is granted with conditions, and it very well understands
[7:24:25] that in order to continue operation, it will need to comply with those conditions. So I wanted to
[7:24:31] take the opportunity to emphasize that issue for you, because it was very difficult for both the
[7:24:36] county and GCC to have conversations about what mitigation measures it might undertake in the absence
[7:24:41] of any certainty about whether or not a permit would actually be granted.
[7:24:49] Thank you for that.
[7:24:50] Thank you for that explanation or clarification and commitment, I believe, was your words.
[7:25:01] Is there any, Mr. Davis, is there any concern or requirement as it relates to the condition
[7:25:08] of the temporary pavement that's proposed under the RIA?
[7:25:15] We had a less than favorable experience with a temporary solution over the winter and just want to know what assurances do we have that we'll have a better experience this way this time.
[7:25:29] We have all the confidence that it will be done correctly. It will be permitted by the county.
[7:25:33] a check report will be required.
[7:25:36] It's a professional application of hot matte asphalt.
[7:25:40] It was a crew to attempt to try to mitigate the dust, the application of the recycled
[7:25:44] asphalt pavement known as rap.
[7:25:47] That was basically a loose mixture.
[7:25:50] They tried to put that down possibly with some binder, but they got caught late in the season.
[7:25:54] I think it was mid to late November.
[7:25:56] It was a cold, a cold wet weather was coming in, so it didn't take it all.
[7:26:00] I would have been a lot less of a permanent solution than what's being proposed at this time.
[7:26:06] In the lifespan of this temporary pavement is expected to be three years.
[7:26:10] That's what I heard today at a minimum it would be three years.
[7:26:13] You can base the design of that pavement.
[7:26:15] Based on the anticipated axle loading so based on the vehicles that the pavement will have to support over the life of the pavement.
[7:26:24] You can design that pass fault for whatever duration within reason on a new road typically that's 20 years, but
[7:26:32] Three years would be acceptable and I think we have a fairly good base out there. There's a fair amount of gravel.
[7:26:38] It's been driven on by heavy trucks for a number of years now. So I
[7:26:43] Would expect we should have a high level of success with this interim asphalt map
[7:26:51] And then on that, on the road improvement schedule, which I seem not to be able to put my hands on.
[7:26:58] Is that section of the road to be finished by 2019?
[7:27:08] There's three years, I've just tried to figure out three years long enough for what's anticipated.
[7:27:12] I believe the road is anticipated to be completed in 2017 if I'm not mistaken.
[7:27:19] So it basically would be recycled with following year.
[7:27:23] Okay, thanks.
[7:27:34] Then yeah, that's it for me on the road improvement agreement.
[7:27:40] Thank you.
[7:28:02] Commissioner, any further questions?
[7:28:04] A request of Mr. Robbins for this evening's rebuttal if you could be prepared to discuss
[7:28:15] how your findings in conditions vary from the counties, as well as the road improvements
[7:28:21] agreement.
[7:28:22] My initial look through this doesn't seem like you had too many changes to the road improvements
[7:28:28] agreement.
[7:28:30] Thank you.
[7:28:35] I wonder if we need some time outside of rebuttal to talk about that.
[7:28:39] I can see it taking each party wanting to make some comments on it.
[7:28:44] Maybe we could just give 10 minutes each.
[7:28:47] I don't know, it's up to you, guys.
[7:28:50] That would be fine.
[7:28:53] That would be in the evenings.
[7:28:55] Yeah, maybe after public comment before rebuttal.
[7:29:00] Thank you.
[7:29:02] Mr. Murray.
[7:29:03] If I'm understanding where you guys might be headed right now,
[7:29:06] I'd like some direction before we go into a break from you in terms of what conditions we should be working on.
[7:29:13] For example, you've heard us offer a 29th condition regarding a emergency response plan.
[7:29:19] If that's agreeable, we'll come back with that.
[7:29:22] I've also heard discussion around noise levels and I'm looking for direction if that's something we should come back with.
[7:29:29] Compliance with other agencies.
[7:29:31] That was another one.
[7:29:33] Those are the three that stick out in my mind if there's others, that's what I'm asking.
[7:29:41] I'm sure if I may, the request I made earlier Mr. Smith responded that probably not adequate time,
[7:29:50] but to have some discussion of the suggestion of splitting the 80 trucks per day, 25 going south, 55 going north.
[7:29:59] I really like it.
[7:30:00] That's a really short time period, but that is a specific request that we've heard today repeatedly.
[7:30:10] That's an additional issue that the commissioners would like to see further study on.
[7:30:15] There's a mechanism in the code for requesting that that study occur.
[7:30:20] It's something that should be directed at the applicant and then staff would, of course, review any additional study that came in.
[7:30:26] But absent a study, absent more work on what 25 trucks
[7:30:31] looks like going south.
[7:30:33] I'm not sure staff is in a position to a pine
[7:30:35] on the appropriateness of that either from compliance
[7:30:38] and chapters 74 compatibility.
[7:30:40] I mean, we certainly don't want to rush into any determinations.
[7:30:43] In the additional 25 trucks going south on a road
[7:30:46] that is not an analyze from that perspective would be,
[7:30:49] well, it would be difficult to come up with that
[7:30:51] in a couple of hours time.
[7:30:54] So
[7:31:00] then I guess I would, I would Mr. Chair, I would direct that question to GCC,
[7:31:04] as Mr. Smith suggested, and any analysis or to Cross Creek.
[7:31:13] I'm sorry.
[7:31:14] Is it Cross Creek, Rancho?
[7:31:18] Of any analysis, additional analysis that you can provide tonight.
[7:31:28] There are a couple of things including, particularly, the condition that Daniel mentioned
[7:31:33] that I brought up earlier related to compliance with other permits issued by other agencies.
[7:31:43] I think that's a great idea, but I'm concerned by the difficulty that an hour playing a role
[7:31:50] of forcing that may be and I would like an opportunity to seek legal counsel from our own
[7:31:58] attorney and executive session before kind of I don't know.
[7:32:04] I think when enough legal issues have come up that there's a note I'd like to get legal
[7:32:10] counsel on an executive session and I don't know if you guys have the same sentiment and
[7:32:17] If you do, I kind of feel like that's a kind of conversation that should happen after we've
[7:32:26] heard all of the evidence as opposed to in the middle of, kind of I feel like we're still
[7:32:31] in the middle and I'd rather do the legal counsel after we've heard everything, but what's
[7:32:36] your thoughts?
[7:32:38] Well, Mr. Chair, I would, if I'm hearing you correctly, you're saying to get legal counsel
[7:32:46] on the federal and state permits that have been issued and how it relates to the county
[7:32:53] process?
[7:32:55] No, it's, that I don't think is legal advice, it really has to do with the legal implications
[7:33:02] of us taking on basically if there were violation of say a permit with the state, it would
[7:33:11] be in the state's choosing not to act, then we would have to take actions to determine
[7:33:15] is that a violation and how does that affect the permit?
[7:33:19] And that sounds like there could be challenges with our, you know,
[7:33:26] that just sounds like there could be challenges with it.
[7:33:28] I think it's theoretically a good idea.
[7:33:30] In practice it could be a poor idea and I'd like the
[7:33:31] legal advice on that particular matter.
[7:33:36] Go on forward.
[7:33:37] I wouldn't mind the opportunity to talk with you as well about the
[7:33:40] improvement agreement, particularly I haven't looked at the modifications by given the nature
[7:33:47] of some of your questions.
[7:33:49] I think it would be beneficial to discuss that as well.
[7:33:58] So are you guys having a meeting with our council would be an idea?
[7:34:04] Because if we get a nap first.
[7:34:08] And your recommendation is either following tonight's meeting or
[7:34:17] that's my, that is what I was saying is not doing it right now because we're in midstream.
[7:34:25] You know, I think we just have to take a hard look at calendars and when can when it's realistic to have it.
[7:34:31] We have a board discussion time schedule tomorrow. I don't know is there anything on that that couldn't be reprioritized Joe.
[7:34:38] A question as I'm aware of that agenda for tomorrow morning, and I think you would be able to
[7:34:43] further that if necessary, we also have identified a time in the afternoon that you could also
[7:34:49] continue the meeting to as well.
[7:34:52] Yeah, I thought we had from 12.30 to three.
[7:34:55] We've done only, have that blocked out in case the Board needs it.
[7:34:58] But we could also meet in the morning if necessary.
[7:35:03] We have a special business meeting in April 15,
[7:35:05] And otherwise, as long schedule, I will be gone from 9 to 10 tomorrow.
[7:35:14] OK, so I guess in all of my preferences,
[7:35:20] to do it at 10 o'clock or 10, 15, whenever you would get back
[7:35:25] and scratch the BDT if we get the board discussion time.
[7:35:28] This is our highest priority, and I don't want to just change it
[7:35:33] because we've got other regular business going on.
[7:35:38] So I would support that.
[7:35:40] So in all likelihood, then each party's rebuttal
[7:35:44] would be occurring tomorrow.
[7:35:47] Or do you want to hear the rebuttal tonight?
[7:35:52] I guess, think.
[7:35:56] Probably tonight, because then we would
[7:35:59] have it for our executive session tomorrow.
[7:36:02] And it sounds like our earliest available time
[7:36:05] is going to be 10.50.
[7:36:06] And what I'm envisioning is 10, 15 for the executive session, and then any, I guess, the
[7:36:22] deliberation, the public deliberation, part of whatever, in the afternoon, as scheduled.
[7:36:29] Is that all right with you, bud?
[7:36:30] Yes.
[7:36:32] And then tonight, before we close public comment, or before we close the hearing, we'll move
[7:36:37] to go into executive session at 10 a.m., I think we have to 10, 15.
[7:36:41] Yes, okay,
[7:36:44] do we need a motion on that not right now?
[7:36:48] No, I do it tonight.
[7:36:49] All right.
[7:36:51] Do that later.
[7:36:55] Any further questions?
[7:37:01] Seeing none?
[7:37:04] Do we?
[7:37:05] Can you are meeting and tell six o'clock to see me?
[7:37:12] Yes.
[7:37:13] We have the expert with the spirit.
[7:37:16] Can you speak into the microphone?
[7:37:17] Oh, I'm so sorry.
[7:37:19] Yeah.
[7:37:20] Danielson for cross creek ranch.
[7:37:22] I'm just wondering, is there a chance the board would want to talk to or question Mr.
[7:37:27] Hodgson and Altamaro, or should we let him go back to car at his springs?
[7:37:33] That's the question.
[7:37:36] And he make himself available by telephone if it is.
[7:37:38] As long as we're asking that question, we have several experts here as well.
[7:37:41] It does sound like you are heading towards planning on using the time you've set aside tomorrow
[7:37:46] and not completing the hearing tonight.
[7:37:49] So could you give us a ruling on that so we can make travel arrangements?
[7:37:58] I guess I think you can expect to be here tomorrow afternoon.
[7:38:04] Honestly, I'm not personally anticipating additional questions in terms of testimony but I don't want to say that's out of the question either because stuff comes up.
[7:38:17] So I think I did inform you guys of the possibility
[7:38:20] of a continuation till tomorrow about a week ago.
[7:38:24] I'm sure we're looking for the best guidance we can get.
[7:38:31] So you suggested if he was available by phone,
[7:38:34] that's to you guys.
[7:38:35] It sounds like that might be an issue.
[7:38:36] That was from him.
[7:38:38] Well, yeah, I don't know.
[7:38:40] Maybe we can make the call this evening
[7:38:42] after they finish their statements.
[7:38:46] Because I kind of feel like, at some point,
[7:38:47] you have to close evidence.
[7:38:48] And my sense is that we would close evidence tonight, and tomorrow would be delivering deliberation which wouldn't require additional information.
[7:39:06] I guess we'll.
[7:39:08] I guess we'll no more after our meeting tonight on the final verdict of whether you can go back to Colorado Springs or not.
[7:39:17] But it sounds more likely than not.
[7:39:20] Related to that point, if I may, I would just note that
[7:39:24] rebuttal by definition is the last thing
[7:39:26] at the conclusion of all public testimony.
[7:39:28] So if there would be additional public testimony,
[7:39:31] I would anticipate we would request that we delay our rebuttal
[7:39:34] opportunity until all public testimony is concluded.
[7:39:37] Experts and public.
[7:39:43] Thank you.
[7:39:45] That'll be fine.
[7:39:48] All right.
[7:39:49] We will, again, continue our meeting until 6 p.m. this evening. Thank you.
[9:05:07] Thank you.
[9:05:11] Thank you.
[9:05:16] Thank you.
[9:05:34] Thank you. Thank you for coming. We're going to reconvene our meeting and take public comment
[9:05:40] again this evening. If you work here earlier and you would like to make public comment, please pick up a pink slip from Jan.
[9:05:53] And sometimes they're over by the sink in the back.
[9:05:57] You can also fill out a public or a pink slip for public comment.
[9:06:01] We will be limiting public comment to three minutes.
[9:06:06] So please, please take the opportunity.
[9:06:11] Do we have any public comment slips available now, Jim?
[9:06:32] I'll try to look ahead a little bit on who is coming up and then who will be followed, so we can kind of get three people ready all at once.
[9:06:51] First, probably comment this evening. We'll be Brandon Wattel, Wadell.
[9:06:58] On deck, we'll be Dave Peters, and then Caleb Patterson.
[9:07:10] Hi, I'm Brandon Wadell. I live at 9.588, kind of road 141,
[9:07:15] Pestbriss 81326, you know, and our Wadell and wheels water hauling.
[9:07:19] the county. I do a little water on 90% of the kind of roads here in the
[9:07:24] Potter County. I'm going to show you that I'm a great monitor of the
[9:07:28] conditions of our county roads with the new truck speed limits in place on
[9:07:34] Canada 120. I believe it's as safe or safer than most county roads in the
[9:07:40] Potter County despite the tight turns or narrow lanes. Nonetheless, I like to see
[9:07:45] GCCC do what they're going to do, I think it's the right idea.
[9:07:49] I feel that this, especially dangerous for residents,
[9:07:51] county of the ones, they're straight and wide,
[9:07:54] because people just motor down them with no regard to speed limits.
[9:07:59] Why hasn't the county laid MagCloride this year?
[9:08:01] On county of the 120s a question that I have.
[9:08:08] When road and bridge work, county of the 120s MagCloride,
[9:08:10] and we used water as well to mitigate the 15 to 50% of left over dust.
[9:08:15] I can guarantee it was much closer to non-existent
[9:08:17] when both resources were used.
[9:08:20] I asked its kind of commissioners to put in place
[9:08:22] a more aggressive MagCloride Schedule on
[9:08:24] Canada at 120 until GCC completes the road construction.
[9:08:30] I'm using Canada at 120 South, and my opinion is a viable route.
[9:08:34] I travel it weekly multiple times a week,
[9:08:37] year round with a 18-wheeler, like the 30-ton
[9:08:39] coal hauler trucks.
[9:08:41] I think if you're unaware, professional courteous
[9:08:44] and law-abiding driver, then there's nothing wrong
[9:08:47] with that road or intersection is exiting out on South Canada at 120.
[9:08:51] The exit of 120 out of the highway has a long distance of
[9:08:54] sideline and I think can be used.
[9:08:57] Remember this is only a temporary solution if used as an option.
[9:09:03] I think this is one box to check off in this when when one situation of
[9:09:07] lying, you can see there are any truck minimum to sustain a
[9:09:09] profit business margin while they continue to pay their taxes.
[9:09:12] They're 12-cent per toned edition plus doing a 10 million road improvement.
[9:09:17] I support the permit and encourage you all to find a way to make this work for everyone involved.
[9:09:22] I can't stress enough the value of the word everyone.
[9:09:25] Thank you.
[9:09:26] Thank you.
[9:09:29] Next is Dave Peters.
[9:09:39] My name is Dave Peters.
[9:09:40] I live in Durango.
[9:09:41] I'm retired and previously was an executive for a major energy company.
[9:09:46] My background is an engineering litigation and government affairs.
[9:09:51] I'm here in support of issuing the permit.
[9:09:54] If I were a commissioner, I'd be looking for the following.
[9:09:58] Have the regulatory requirements been met.
[9:10:01] The Planning Department recommends approval, so yes.
[9:10:05] Will the permit add financial burden to the county?
[9:10:08] GCC is generously funding road construction and maintenance far beyond what's reasonable.
[9:10:15] Conversely, permit denial will cost the county tens of millions of dollars a year in
[9:10:20] loss revenue.
[9:10:22] Will citizens be adversely affected?
[9:10:25] The majority of people strongly report or support retaining jobs in the county and ensuring
[9:10:30] economic growth.
[9:10:32] People living near the mind are impacted by many meetings with MNGCC.
[9:10:38] The majority are satisfied with this current plan.
[9:10:42] Is there an environmental impact?
[9:10:46] Puts create dust in the past and will continue to do so.
[9:10:50] However, there are desk mitigation measures in the permit.
[9:10:53] The impact is definitely not overly significant.
[9:10:57] I've done significant permitting in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.
[9:11:02] Leplotic counties permit processes by far.
[9:11:05] The most restrictive cumbersome and lengthy I have seen.
[9:11:08] One other major measure that there is a problem is the fact that there are more by now more than
[9:11:15] 3,000, 300 pages of documents with this permit.
[9:11:20] The initial EIA for the Keystone Pipeline was just over 3,000 pages.
[9:11:25] The planning department needs help to refine the system and are taken independent party to help.
[9:11:31] There are resources available at the state level.
[9:11:35] If this permit is not approved, there will be several things that will be uncertain, but here are a few things that are certain, commissioners who vote against the permit will not be in office much longer, the citizens will see to that.
[9:11:53] There will be a request to have the State Attorney General's office investigate the commissioners in the planning department. There are several irregularities and clear conflicts of interest.
[9:12:03] A group of citizens will file lawsuits against the county and individual commissioners.
[9:12:10] I would just love to sit in on the depositions.
[9:12:13] So do the right thing and approve the permit.
[9:12:16] We really don't want a big fight.
[9:12:19] Thank you for your time.
[9:12:24] Thank you.
[9:12:24] Adderson and then Wade Ymore and Milo Gonzalez after that.
[9:12:34] Kayla Patterson, 43 book side trail, they filled Colorado, 8-1-1-2-2.
[9:12:40] First, I would like to thank the county staff, Planning Commission, GCC, and everybody else who had a part including this together.
[9:12:46] Showing that local government and private industries can be effective and working together to resolve concerns and issues while still maintaining the core of our planning codes.
[9:12:56] I would also like to point out that it has only been mentioned a few times that 1500 families
[9:13:01] heat their home with coal from GCC King 2. As a kid, I was dependent on coal from King
[9:13:07] coal 1 to heat my family's home. This is important to me and our community because coal is
[9:13:13] an effective, affordable, and maintainable way to provide heat during our long winter months.
[9:13:19] I would like to reiterate that there should be a simple decision based on the strong work done
[9:13:24] by GCC and the county staff who have recommended approval to the requested land use permit.
[9:13:30] It is apparent that the approval of the class to permit will benefit the neighbors, the
[9:13:34] county, and GCC because it also gives everyone involved an opportunity to make sure that
[9:13:41] the mitigations that have been mentioned multiple times need to happen and that the concerns
[9:13:48] will be dealt with.
[9:13:50] If I was your county commissioner, I would feel confident in approving the clause to land use permit.
[9:13:56] To not approve this permit, this development is a vote of no confidence in the county planning commission and the county planning department.
[9:14:04] And that the mitigations of GCC is more than willing to comply with.
[9:14:08] The commissioner should vote to accept the county recommendations to approve the clause to land use permit and let the work on the road begin. Thank you.
[9:14:18] Thank you.
[9:14:24] My name is Wade Weinmore, 918, East Old Drive, Bayfield, Colorado.
[9:14:30] I want to stay up front, this is my personal opinions.
[9:14:33] I'm not the views of GCC, but I want to speak up here in front.
[9:14:37] One comment I want to make, and every time I hear it from the opposition on foreign company
[9:14:42] comments, it's a stick in my side.
[9:14:45] I'm sure if we were to take a pole of hands right now, and there's a bunch of people here
[9:14:49] drove Subaru's and towed us to this outfit, foreign companies, employing U.S. citizens on
[9:14:56] this soil, just as GCC is doing.
[9:15:00] That's for the character of the county. I'm a history buff, and if I'm not mistaken,
[9:15:08] the wrangle come about in 1880, be a cold train company, supporting the mines in Silverton, and I feel that my job is not to change the character of the county, but to sustain and retain the character of the county.
[9:15:24] As for comments on property values, I don't know about in the towns in the city limits of Durango.
[9:15:33] I purchased a home seven years ago, estimated by a little over three.
[9:15:39] I can guarantee you right now I can't sell it for maybe two ninety.
[9:15:43] Because of gas and oil and industry leaving the county.
[9:15:47] And I don't think it's going to benefit the property values if we cut out another industry.
[9:15:54] Personally, like I said, I live in Bayfield, a little less than half mile north of 160
[9:16:00] where the speed limits are 45 and 55 with rumble strips.
[9:16:07] I can listen to those trucks, I do have a little sound barrier, I have a little hill between
[9:16:11] me and that road and the only difference is it's not a gravel road.
[9:16:17] So, if GCC is given the opportunity and this passes, but the asphalt in, these trucks are going to maintain the speed limit of 10.
[9:16:25] Thank you.
[9:16:27] You can already, I mean, you hit a school zone and you're doing 15, you know how slow that is.
[9:16:30] These trucks are doing slower than the school zone.
[9:16:36] That's about it.
[9:16:37] I appreciate your time. I can guarantee you the county staff is not paid enough.
[9:16:44] Thank you.
[9:16:46] Milo and then Chris Dorne Camp and then Alan Crawford.
[9:17:00] My name is Milo and I work for GCC and I can speak to my experience from other
[9:17:07] minds.
[9:17:08] I can tell you, I love you.
[9:17:09] We are going to have a company of this caliber here.
[9:17:11] One that cares for its employees, the community, the neighbors, and its stakeholders.
[9:17:15] The first I would thank you for being here today.
[9:17:17] I would take the county staff for all their hard work.
[9:17:20] I think the planning commission, I think GCC, for an enormous amount of
[9:17:23] concession is they are agreeing to in order to earn the recommended
[9:17:26] approval of permanent from those previously mentioned.
[9:17:30] I live here, I live here with my wife and children, many of the hard work
[9:17:33] and people I work with also live here with their families.
[9:17:37] That road is better than when I first started working thanks to the
[9:17:39] minds' efforts.
[9:17:41] Your staff has worked hard and so has the mind.
[9:17:43] I think they both have done a good job of putting together a plan that tries to
[9:17:46] make a challenge in situations as best as possible.
[9:17:49] You have a recommendation to approve this permit for me to plan a staff and from the plan
[9:17:53] of commission and now with my testimony as a family man trying to provide for us family
[9:17:58] and speaking for a hundred other miners who can be here not because of work and are just
[9:18:02] don't feel comfortable speaking.
[9:18:06] We also would recommend you approve the Class II permit.
[9:18:09] Thanks.
[9:18:12] Thank you.
[9:18:13] Chris?
[9:18:14] Well,
[9:18:44] my name is Chris Dorne Camp.
[9:18:45] I live at 2, 2, 3, 4, 3.
[9:18:47] County Road, D, 0.6 in Cortez, Colorado.
[9:18:50] I was born and raised in Colorado.
[9:18:52] I'm the undergarment of my superintendent, King 2.
[9:18:55] I mean, so here in support of GCC energy
[9:18:57] and their application for a class 2 permit.
[9:19:02] Excuse me.
[9:19:03] Obviously, the noise and dust are two of the major
[9:19:05] sticking points.
[9:19:07] I'd like to again point out that the best solution
[9:19:09] is to move forward with the road and permanent agreement
[9:19:12] and pave in front of the two most impacted neighbors.
[9:19:16] There's been mention of GCC safety program,
[9:19:19] one of the core philosophies of this program
[9:19:21] is behavioral safety.
[9:19:23] This by nature extends to all the facets of our life,
[9:19:27] including our travels in and out of the canyon.
[9:19:30] Another point to bring up is employed at the mine
[9:19:33] or 19 first responders,
[9:19:35] learning MT and one experimentic.
[9:19:39] All of our forums have a mandatory 10 hours
[9:19:41] first day training and all of our employees undergo weekly safety training.
[9:19:47] We even recently responded to a car wreck on county road 1-20 that they had not
[9:19:53] involved the mine. We were the first on scene.
[9:19:59] And short, if you're going to have traffic
[9:20:00] go by, we are probably the ones that you want. There are roughly a hundred more people that
[9:20:05] would be happy to say the same thing if necessary. Thank you all.
[9:20:10] Thank you.
[9:20:14] Alan Crawford, and then Alan Hartford is on deck.
[9:20:23] My name is Alan Crawford. I live in 1881, County Road 121 in Hespers. I have been
[9:20:30] a permanent resident all my life.
[9:20:34] Hey, Ghosts has always had coal mines in it. It was a coal
[9:20:38] in country and if people moved in here, what not one coal mines, I don't see why they came
[9:20:47] to this area. And with GCC energy being the last coal mine in the area, it's important
[9:20:52] coal for the local people and several residents to heat their houses and stuff, supply
[9:21:01] coal for the train for Al Harper. I think that if you shut this mine down, you're putting
[9:21:07] several hundred people out of work in an area that has no other means of support and I don't
[9:21:15] know why it would be beneficial to this county or any part of it to shut this mind down.
[9:21:27] I have a small construction company, GCC has gave me quite a bit of work, helped me out quite
[9:21:33] bit and for that I'm appreciative and I believe that GCC Energy has been over backwards to
[9:21:39] do more than they're fair share to try to keep and maintain the roads and help the public
[9:21:45] up there. That's about all I've got to say. Thank you. Thank you.
[9:21:55] Alan Harper and
[9:22:04] the Travis
[9:22:06] county road 204 as everybody knows I'm the railroad guy.
[9:22:15] I think we all should
[9:22:15] about stock and energy drinks with all the vetting that's been going on for
[9:22:20] the last two months on this issue. I couldn't be proud of how government
[9:22:24] works, how the staff has worked, the negotiations to give and take is really
[9:22:29] been important.
[9:22:33] Our company has 240 full and part-time employees. I've given this facts
[9:22:38] before. If we didn't have the coal here, we'd have to go out of state. It's estimated
[9:22:44] we cost between $3,500,000 for us to do that. The only way we could do that is raise tickets.
[9:22:51] If we raise the price of tickets, it's estimated it cost us as much as 10% ridership. Because
[9:22:57] we're already the most expensive tourist route,
[9:23:01] due to the fact of the nature of our lines
[9:23:03] through the wilderness.
[9:23:05] 10% ridership would cost this community
[9:23:07] about $17 million of economic impact.
[9:23:11] So it's critical that we have this call.
[9:23:14] It's a good call, low sulfur call, local source.
[9:23:18] So from the railroads perspective, it's very important.
[9:23:21] From a community in perspective, there's another 300 jobs
[9:23:24] from what I hear from testimony.
[9:23:26] there would be directly impacted plus many more indirectly.
[9:23:31] Hard to believe it's my 19th season with the railroad.
[9:23:35] I don't know where at the time go. I was just a young kid when I bought it.
[9:23:40] But one thing I found out about Draingo was we're all family.
[9:23:44] This is a community of family. We're all dependent on each other.
[9:23:48] In fact, I really look at these communities. We're all railroaders.
[9:23:51] We're all realtors, we're all lawyers, we're all farmers and ranchers, and we're all minors.
[9:23:58] It's important when it affects one, it affects us all.
[9:24:02] And it's so critical that we keep this mind going and operating, and that we do what we can for those
[9:24:11] people who are negatively affected, and I think the county has made that effort.
[9:24:15] So I appreciate the effort, I appreciate the staff, the negotiation, and the railroad is a hundred percent in support of keeping this mine operating.
[9:24:25] Thank you.
[9:24:27] Thank you.
[9:24:28] Travis, all of you?
[9:24:31] And then in that junior chair.
[9:24:37] Travis, all of you are 620 Sandwich Court, Hespers, Colorado.
[9:24:44] My house is the closest house to the mine.
[9:24:47] I have been to more of these meetings than I can remember, but as I've watched things develop,
[9:24:57] it reminds me of when my neighbors went to GCC with complaints and problems.
[9:25:05] They had trucks that would, as they back up, the horns would go off and you could hear those at night,
[9:25:12] and we went to them and we said, can you please do something about this?
[9:25:16] They changed to a light system instead of horns and the problem went away.
[9:25:22] They had a big exhaust fan that was in the dead of the night when things were really quiet and it's quiet out there.
[9:25:32] You could hear the exhaust fan.
[9:25:34] So we went to them and we asked them about it.
[9:25:37] And I don't know what it cost them, but they put a muffler on it and the problem went away.
[9:25:42] And as I watch these meetings and the give and the take, you know that it reminds me of those meetings that we had in our homes, where they were more than happy to go along.
[9:25:59] And I believe that they have met everything that has been put in front of them in front of them by staff.
[9:26:08] I think staff is done a good job, and I'm here in support of the mine.
[9:26:13] Thank you.
[9:26:16] Thank you.
[9:26:18] Meet Chambers.
[9:26:24] Okay.
[9:26:25] Ginny Chambers, 49, Oford Drive, Draingo, Colorado.
[9:26:29] I gave a long testimony back to the last time we did this.
[9:26:33] And my big, my big support that GCC is all the tourism industry that's going to be affected.
[9:26:41] It's not just the railroad.
[9:26:42] It's the restaurant, it's the galleries, it's the hotel, so it was the marketing director for a local hotel downtown for five years
[9:26:49] And I can tell you right now that all of our business came from the railroad
[9:26:53] So when you're thinking about if you are not going to vote for this mind think about all these kids
[9:26:57] These high school kids these college kids all of these people that work in tourism
[9:27:01] I mean it is so much more than just the mind in the train
[9:27:04] There's thousands and thousands of people that are going to be affected very seriously and their families and housing prices
[9:27:11] are already so high here, to put more people out of work, where do you think they're going to live?
[9:27:15] We're going to have more pan-handlers than homeless people on the street, and I mean that.
[9:27:20] And another thing I just came from the grocery store before this hearing, and I can't tell you
[9:27:25] how many people inside City Market that work there that use coal to keep their house warm,
[9:27:30] and they're very concerned. So there you know, there you go, there's another industry city market,
[9:27:35] the grocery stores so in my personal opinion if you do not vote in favor of this permit then you
[9:27:42] might as well hang a signed at every entrance to La Plata County every road that says
[9:27:47] La Plata County is closed for business and this will hit nationwide and international news
[9:27:52] and it will affect this entire southwest region of Colorado. Thank you.
[9:27:58] Thank you. Do we have any other public comment?
[9:28:07] Thank you.
[9:28:08] Come on up.
[9:28:17] There's a commission.
[9:28:18] My name is Tim Gallagher.
[9:28:19] I live at 500 Sandrich Court.
[9:28:22] A couple years ago, I drew the short strad our POA meeting and they elected me the President.
[9:28:28] With the mission to find out what's going on with this mind, get involved, see how it
[9:28:32] affects the property owners out there.
[9:28:35] I was asked to serve on the citizens' visor repam, as a matter of duty to the citizens
[9:28:41] and the people I represent I got on that committee.
[9:28:45] Shortly thereafter, I was asked to be the chairman of that, and I was given the responsibility
[9:28:50] to bring reasonable recommendations to the county.
[9:28:53] In that process, our mission was to gather as much information as we possibly could about
[9:28:58] every single aspect of this, including subside, with vibration, noise, traffic, and all
[9:29:04] the other issues.
[9:29:06] With the resources we had, we feel we did an excellent job of bringing forth reasonable
[9:29:12] recommendations to the county.
[9:29:13] It was never our intention to get involved with the details of the negotiations.
[9:29:19] On exactly how many trucks per day or the decibel level or any of those sorts of things,
[9:29:25] even the specific route, we left those details of negotiations to county staff in GCC.
[9:29:32] And as I sat back and watched that go on, I was very impressed with, like was mentioned earlier,
[9:29:38] the given take on both sides to get to a reasonable point that both sides could agree and
[9:29:44] we bring this forward. This then after we brought all this out, we took it to the citizens
[9:29:50] of the area for their final comments. Is this what you want in our recommendations? Yes,
[9:29:56] and those were the recommendations that were presented to you.
[9:30:00] Respectfully request that you not disregard those recommendations. It is, however, a little disconcerting to several of us that our newest neighbor has brought a big legal team in to try to change the will of the people.
[9:30:16] And with a veiled threat of litigation, if they don't get their way, I submit to you, that there will be greater challenges.
[9:30:25] If the will of the people, the majority of the people in haygulch is disregarded, yes ma'am,
[9:30:31] if the will of the people is disregarded, and then the recommendations from staff and the planning commission are not accepted.
[9:30:40] So, respectfully request that you accept the recommendations of the county staff, the county planning commission, approve this class two land use permit so we can all get back to work.
[9:30:53] Thank you very much.
[9:30:56] Thank you.
[9:30:56] Excuse me.
[9:30:58] Can I ask Mr. Gallagher a question?
[9:31:01] Just, there's some ambiguity in your statement.
[9:31:05] Our biggest, our newest, big neighbor or something along the line.
[9:31:08] Are you referring to GCC or?
[9:31:09] Okay, thank you.
[9:31:15] Charles Page.
[9:31:26] 171.
[9:31:27] Dlandling.
[9:31:28] Draingo Colorado.
[9:31:29] 181.
[9:31:31] Excuse me.
[9:31:42] You're not the first.
[9:31:46] Usually, you have two loud.
[9:31:53] 181.
[9:31:57] Charles Page.
[9:31:58] 171.
[9:31:59] Glenn Lane.
[9:32:00] Draingo Colorado.
[9:32:01] 181.
[9:32:04] I use my black.
[9:32:06] So, usually it's 302.
[9:32:08] One thing that I wanted to bring up that I haven't heard yet was one of the arguments about the mine that has been brought up before is that a lot of the drivers and a lot of the workers at the mine do not live in La Plata County, they live in New Mexico.
[9:32:34] up. But as far as I'm concerned, they are our neighbors too, and the whole region here
[9:32:45] is important. And we need to support this mind to support farming to ship rock, has for
[9:32:56] us the whole region. And I think that's important, not to forget. Thank you.
[9:33:05] Thank you.
[9:33:07] Is there anyone else that would wish to make public comment this evening?
[9:33:13] Yes.
[9:33:15] You can speak and then fill it out afterward.
[9:33:19] Kathleen Adams, 603 East, 9th Street, here in Durango.
[9:33:25] I don't think there's anything I can say that you haven't already heard as far as the details,
[9:33:30] the decisions,
[9:33:35] who's asking for what, I have been involved with this as a friend of
[9:33:42] the Maccus and the Mathias family, and the whole thing was theoretical to me until I
[9:33:50] went out and sat on the Maccus port for about an hour and became speechless about the effect
[9:33:58] of the well-being for these families that I've visited based on the amount of traffic and the
[9:34:07] non-compliance that I've heard about.
[9:34:10] I have not been able to keep up with the details of the day, and my understanding is that
[9:34:18] no one is asking that the mind be shut down, but I feel like the compliance issue is extremely
[9:34:25] important and that's followed to the T. I understand that's been a problem over the last few
[9:34:31] years and I don't think that shutting the mind down is what anybody is asking for. I believe
[9:34:38] that's right. So compliance is enormous and empathy also enormous. Thank you.
[9:34:49] Thank you.
[9:35:05] Huck Morris, 3402, Monterey Circle, Farmington, and Mexico.
[9:35:10] I'm here in support of the permit for GCC Energy.
[9:35:17] I am the terminal manager for U.S. transport, one of the trucking companies that all
[9:35:23] out of King Cole 2,
[9:35:28] GCC and the trucking companies have made every effort to abide by the rules
[9:35:35] that have been laid down on County Road 1, 1, 20. U.S. transport has made an effort to update our
[9:35:48] lead, bring in newer trucks, quieter trucks, quieter trailers, and where that is an ongoing
[9:36:00] thing that we're doing right now.
[9:36:05] GCC is in contact with the trekking companies on a daily basis.
[9:36:11] Making sure that our drivers are doing what they're supposed to, making sure our trucks
[9:36:15] to do and write, the traders are okay, if there's a problem, they will call us and we take
[9:36:20] care of it.
[9:36:22] We want to abide by everything that GCC wants and the county.
[9:36:29] U.S. transport employee employees, 58 drivers, and farm farm eaten, not all of them do
[9:36:35] coal, but I would say 80 percent of them haul coal out, and then we have 13 support staff
[9:36:44] In Farmington in the office, the shop,
[9:36:50] the DCC doesn't receive this permit and we have to cut back on everything.
[9:36:56] We're going to start laying people off.
[9:36:58] That not only affects the drivers, but also their families, the economy and Farmington, the economy and in Durango,
[9:37:16] especially with the oil and gas, the way it is, unemployment is so high in this area.
[9:37:22] If we have to lay people off, I don't know what we're going to do.
[9:37:27] So I would recommend to the commissioners, please approve this permit.
[9:37:33] Thank you.
[9:37:34] Mr. Mayor, may I have a couple of questions, Mr. Chair?
[9:37:37] May I?
[9:37:39] I did ask a question earlier about the truck drivers and how many hours a day they're on shift.
[9:37:46] And if you could fill a cylinder, the drivers are allowed to work 14 hours.
[9:37:51] drive 11 hours and three hours on duty that it, the on duty status is considered loading
[9:37:58] and unloading. So once there, and all of our trucks have electronic logs plus they have
[9:38:07] cameras in the trucks. One facing out, one facing the driver so that we can try to change
[9:38:16] are behavior. If there's something wrong, we can pull them in and say, look, this video, this
[9:38:22] is what you did wrong. You need to watch that speeding, you know, using your phone, anything
[9:38:31] like that.
[9:38:33] Thanks, that's very helpful. You also mentioned quieter trucks and quieter trailers. Can
[9:38:39] you give some examples of, we've purchased, just this last year, we've purchased close
[9:38:46] 30 brand new trucks. I don't know if you've seen them when you were up there on
[9:38:51] kind road 120, they're the silver trucks.
[9:38:56] Yeah, they're very nice. And we are updating our
[9:39:01] fleet. Again, this coming year, we have some 2013's that we're going to get rid of and
[9:39:08] purchase new ones also. And the trailers, we just purchased 10 brand new trailers just to
[9:39:15] get rid of the older trailers. The ones that are about to go out the door.
[9:39:24] They bounce too much.
[9:39:25] Yeah.
[9:39:27] Thank you.
[9:39:35] Anyone else? Anyone else?
[9:39:39] like to make public come in.
[9:39:51] And we thought we'd be here all night.
[9:39:52] Last call.
[9:39:58] Mr. Chair for the record.
[9:40:01] Prior to our break, I mentioned that there were 23 comments received on the county's website.
[9:40:09] And our public affairs officer has looked at that.
[9:40:12] I believe that one is duplicative.
[9:40:14] And so there are actually 22 comments that will be made part of the record.
[9:40:18] and again can be viewed online, if people desire, otherwise they will be printed out and
[9:40:26] make part of the exhibits.
[9:40:33] Thank you.
[9:40:37] Is there any further business that we need to take care of at this time?
[9:40:47] Guys, don't don't be mad at me, during our break I have more questions, but I really think
[9:40:54] multiple people.
[9:40:55] I think I think the thing is, we only get one bite at this apple, and I want to make
[9:41:00] that we don't make guesses at information or not kind of thing and during dinner I was able to
[9:41:09] kind of look back on my notes throughout the day and realize there were a few things that
[9:41:14] were hanging that I hadn't been able to wrap up. So early on one of the first things we talked
[9:41:23] about was the appropriate sound level
[9:41:28] and trying to figure that out.
[9:41:30] And Mike, I'd expressed concerns
[9:41:31] that that 86 decibel criterion seemed a little uncontrolled
[9:41:41] than I found out from the GCC sound guy
[9:41:47] that that's an instantaneous measure of sound.
[9:41:50] And one of the things that I think is important in the impacts
[9:41:53] isn't about the instantaneous sound, but some kind of measure of continuity of sound in the
[9:41:59] reports that we read it talked about background noise in rural settings and the HUD standard
[9:42:08] is 55 at night and 50 during the day or something like that, but it seemed like the HUD standard
[9:42:13] was something that whether someone wants to believe that's an appropriate standard for a rural
[9:42:21] area versus an urban area, I'm certainly willing to hear that, but it at least seems to measure
[9:42:28] the sound, try to capture it overall sound as opposed to instantaneous sound.
[9:42:33] And so that being said, I think, first of all, I don't know if staff ever considered, first
[9:42:41] I'll ask staff, did you ever consider anything other than the 86, and I understand that's
[9:42:45] state rule for a maximum sound emitted say by a vehicle, but what about from the perspective
[9:42:52] of trying to capture not just an instantaneous noise, but a measure of overall sound
[9:43:01] that traffic makes?
[9:43:04] You know, we're planning the department, so you're entirely correct.
[9:43:08] We've drawn upon state statute as a reference point to inform our compatibility standards.
[9:43:12] As I mentioned earlier, these are more qualitative regulations that we work with.
[9:43:17] So we look for data where we can find it and states that she does indicate 86 is the maximum
[9:43:24] emission noise level emission from a vehicle.
[9:43:27] So that's where we have arrived at our number.
[9:43:29] I think it's entirely within the board's discretion.
[9:43:32] If you would like to entertain a different number, and that could be based on an average,
[9:43:37] That is the day-night average that the GCC's wave engineering did model.
[9:43:44] I believe that threshold was closer to 65, and that would be a question that I would
[9:43:50] actually like to hear from wave engineering as to what would be an appropriate number if this
[9:43:55] is something that the board chooses to possibly complement the 86.
[9:43:59] I don't think we need to get rid of that level of number.
[9:44:02] It could be a different number if you want to refine that acute.
[9:44:06] a cute noise generation, but also I would be curious to know what would be an appropriate
[9:44:14] average noise level.
[9:44:20] So, Damien or you say something?
[9:44:21] Yeah, I just want to add one thing, Daniels correct, and the applicant's professional that
[9:44:27] deals with this would probably be able to inform the board more clearly, but at least my limited
[9:44:33] understanding is that the 86's quite strict because it is a moment in time and you're collecting
[9:44:40] the sound directly from the source of the truck versus over a span of time where it's being
[9:44:45] averaged out. So if your concern is both, you might include both an average and that exact point
[9:44:53] source, but that's something that I agree with Daniel. We should probably hear more from the sound
[9:44:59] Specialist.
[9:45:02] Okay. I have forgotten what the wave person's name is, but would you like me to ask Mr.
[9:45:11] Nicole Kalsky to come to the microphone? If you could, please remember to answer those questions. Thank
[9:45:26] you.
[9:45:28] Jeff Kalsky, wave engineering. Would you like me to just address those general comments or do you have a specific question?
[9:45:33] I think what Daniel summarized is kind of where I'm kind of what's in my mind as well
[9:45:41] because 85 constantly might not violate that, but it could be annoying.
[9:45:48] I know we're not talking about 85 decibels with respect to the trucks, but I still would
[9:45:52] like to have a little bit better understanding of how we might measure kind of a cumulative
[9:45:59] of impact of sound as opposed to just measuring discrete instances?
[9:46:07] Yes, the nice thing about the state statute level of 8060 BAA for a single pass by 50 feet
[9:46:14] is that it's easy to enforce. Someone can go out with a relatively simple sound meter, measure 50 feet from the center line of the road,
[9:46:22] and measure how a lot of truck going by is, and do that from multiple trucks.
[9:46:26] But you're right, that is just a single truck going by it, it doesn't give you any idea of the effect of multiple trucks going by over the course of 24 hours.
[9:46:36] And that's why we used the 24 hour average, the day night average sound level to assess the impact on the residents along the road.
[9:46:46] And that day night average, which is used by HUD to assess impact on residents, is exactly that of 24 hour average.
[9:46:56] the average of 24-1 hour measurements with a penalty if you will applied to noise at night.
[9:47:02] So they actually wait the night time noise heavier, recognizing that people generally sleep
[9:47:09] at night and so it will actually raise that, any noise made at night tends to raise that
[9:47:16] average, keep in the higher.
[9:47:17] So that's why we use that and the HUD does not just use that for urban environments.
[9:47:22] they use it, they have active programs and suburban and rural areas as well.
[9:47:28] But that particular number, that day night average level, 65 is somewhat of a threshold
[9:47:34] where they say below 65 is normally acceptable for residential projects and 65 or 65 to 75 falls
[9:47:46] to a normally unacceptable range that is where mitigation can be considered to kind of bring it
[9:47:54] into an acceptable range. So it doesn't mean automatically disqualified. It just means
[9:48:00] mitigation is usually considered for that. The difficulty with using that day-night average level
[9:48:06] as an enforcement mechanism is it's much more difficult to measure. Someone can't go out and
[9:48:14] could go out and stand by the road for 24 hours. But you need to have, if you're going to leave
[9:48:20] a sound meter there for 24 hours, you need to have the knowledge that a tractor didn't park
[9:48:27] near the meter for an hour or something else. A dog wasn't barking next to the meter for an hour.
[9:48:34] And there are ways to do that. You can have someone witnessed the meter or you can, we have more
[9:48:38] sophisticated equipment that can record loud levels and we can tell if it was a dog barking,
[9:48:43] things like that. But the point is it's much more difficult to enforce that kind of thing.
[9:48:50] And then you then you have to back through, if you say your goal is 65 and you measure 66,
[9:48:56] well what causes to be 66? You might have to go back and analyze each hour. See what really
[9:49:00] causes that? Mr. Chair. Yes. Question for the witness. Can you describe the mitigation factors,
[9:49:11] mitigation measures that you could employ to get to 65?
[9:49:18] Yes, I can, a number of the mitigation measures are already in place.
[9:49:24] The things that influence that day-night average are
[9:49:29] number of vehicles, the speed limits, whether the roads paved or not.
[9:49:35] I said the number of vehicles.
[9:49:36] And then you can start to look at other things such as barriers, walls to block the sound, things like that.
[9:49:48] Rob conditions?
[9:49:50] Rob conditions such as?
[9:49:52] Well, would that be a mitigation measure?
[9:49:55] Proving the road to pay it versus gravel?
[9:49:58] Yes.
[9:50:03] And I would just add that while we have that, we realize the 86 DBA level is a truck pass.
[9:50:11] by, the other things that affect the cumulative impact on the residents are, once you
[9:50:19] have the sound of the passing by, how many trucks pass by, so we have limits on those already.
[9:50:28] How fast are the trucks going? We have limits on those. So the other factors can be controlled
[9:50:34] the monitor as well, so if you can control all the easily monitored things, then you are
[9:50:41] essentially pushing towards control in the overall average that you're interested in.
[9:50:51] Do you have a general idea of what the average
[9:50:56] might be on this if it were to be averaged?
[9:51:04] Well, our study shows we've predicted those averages at many locations along the road for many
[9:51:11] different scenarios of number of trucks and all that, the 8100 and 120 trucks.
[9:51:17] So it varies depending on the distance of the home from the road and the number of trucks
[9:51:26] in area that we're in, things like that, so that's a hard question to answer it.
[9:51:31] If you have a specific location, I can look into the report for that.
[9:51:35] Thank you.
[9:51:41] I don't know if it would be worthwhile to have to look at Mr.
[9:51:45] Have Mr. I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
[9:51:47] Last time was.
[9:51:48] Yeah, for Colkowski.
[9:51:49] Colkowski?
[9:51:50] Yeah.
[9:51:50] Have Mr. Colkowski.
[9:51:52] You did collect that or model that data, right?
[9:51:56] For a number of the sites along.
[9:51:58] Yes, we modeled it.
[9:52:00] It virtually every home along the road.
[9:52:03] I think you'd be worth taking a look at that again.
[9:52:06] I read it, but, you know, that wasn't really...
[9:52:09] This is not my training, my non-back ground in this.
[9:52:14] So what exhibit was that for what attachment was it?
[9:52:17] Working on it?
[9:52:18] Working on it?
[9:52:18] Not up right now.
[9:52:21] The.
[9:52:23] Carolyn Whitey in for the record.
[9:52:25] There are a total, I believe, a four different noise study documents in your packet.
[9:52:31] The original way of engineering study.
[9:52:35] A backup. The A-mini Martin study provided by the county is number 12. The way of engineering
[9:52:41] study day to January 4th, 2016 is number 13. There's another A-mini Martin, which is
[9:52:47] number 15. And I think there's one other way of engineering as well, which I'm still looking
[9:52:52] for.
[9:53:02] I may Mr. Chair, I just note that the study we submitted is item 73.
[9:53:08] Thank you.
[9:53:09] And the final wave engineering is 68 so all in your noise studies are 12131573 and 68
[9:53:25] What I would ask then is that we just cut to the chase and
[9:53:33] From your studies your wave studies can just direct us to which report you think would be most
[9:53:38] succinct in explaining
[9:53:41] The noise impacts to the existing residences that you looked at and how might pertain to this average idea.
[9:53:51] The January 4th report is our main reporting.
[9:53:55] We walked through and that was, which one?
[9:54:00] January 4th is number 13.
[9:54:05] So that is really the comprehensive report that explains the methodology, explains the 24 hours.
[9:54:13] The average and at the end has a number of these con, a number of the graphic representations of the model, which it has noted on there that the numbers you see on those, all those pictures are 24 hour average numbers.
[9:54:30] The we are asked after the planning commission approval to do a supplemental report to address
[9:54:44] specifically the truck numbers and the road improvements that were in the RIA.
[9:54:53] So that's what we didn't change anything, but we added to that to make sure that our predictions
[9:54:59] we're consistent with those truck counts and rowed improvements. So perhaps if I walk through one
[9:55:05] of those in the attack the figures on this supplemental report, which are the number 68.
[9:55:14] That's figure,
[9:55:18] figure 1 and 2.
[9:55:21] Yeah, let's look at,
[9:55:27] let's look at figure 2.
[9:55:31] So this is attachment 68, figure 2, that's correct.
[9:55:37] the date on the report is May 13th.
[9:55:40] Right.
[9:55:42] And so attachment.
[9:55:42] Figure 2 is in the back.
[9:55:46] It is a it's an aerial photo.
[9:56:02] Where would we find the number?
[9:56:04] Where would we find the designation as figure 2?
[9:56:07] Is it in the or the corner?
[9:56:09] It is packet.
[9:56:11] Maybe or the white corner.
[9:56:13] 149 by.
[9:56:14] All right.
[9:56:14] Thank you.
[9:56:23] So commissioners.
[9:56:24] The ribbon that our software assigns cuts off.
[9:56:27] figure, but it's, this is confusing. Yeah, it's packet page 1490. If you see that on your printed
[9:56:37] set. It is. It's the second of the exhibits scenario five in RIA, in front of the C's East 80
[9:56:50] So you have two ways to display the data on here.
[9:56:59] One of these color contours.
[9:57:04] And the second is if you see these kind of markers
[9:57:08] with the boxes next to them with the numbers,
[9:57:11] that's what we call receiver points.
[9:57:13] So that's where the noise was modeled.
[9:57:16] And so if you, um, this is the number that we call
[9:57:19] The eastern half of the road, the county road, 120 north, to the far left, you'll see
[9:57:28] a box with McU and the number 63.1.
[9:57:31] So that's saying that at that residence, and these points, the individual points were put,
[9:57:38] closest near the closest structure on that particular property.
[9:57:43] Some properties are more than one structure, but if there's a single home, it's at the
[9:57:49] with their multiple structures at the closest one to the road.
[9:57:53] So for this particular scenario, they're 24 hours, is this 63.
[9:57:57] And as you fall the road along, you'll see the numbers,
[9:58:01] some of them, the houses are further way.
[9:58:03] The numbers might be in the high 40s.
[9:58:06] Many of them are in the 50s.
[9:58:08] All of the numbers that are at a house are in this 80 trucks scenario
[9:58:13] or below 65.
[9:58:15] If
[9:58:21] you were to go look at the additional figures, you'll see that everything is below 65
[9:58:28] and the only, and that's true over the west side as well.
[9:58:35] The only thing that gets above 65, just double check this before I speak.
[9:58:49] If you go to, if you were to continue and look at 100 talks, there is one home at the 90 degree
[9:58:55] turn, in fact, it's the home that we looked at earlier with the 90s degree turn going through it.
[9:59:02] Because that home is fairly close to the road. That's, for 100 trucks that gets up to right at 65
[9:59:09] for 120 trucks, it goes just over 65 to
[9:59:16] 65.9.
[9:59:21] So that is without, that is what the mitigation such as speed limits and paving the road or not,
[9:59:26] but if that is not with any barriers built or anything like that.
[9:59:30] I was going to be my question. Thank you.
[9:59:32] We looked at that separately and showed the additional mitigation that that would provide.
[9:59:43] So then you're the next page 1491 scenario five with a 12 foot barrier wall.
[9:59:52] How did you determine these numbers? 54.154.6.
[10:00:01] So those, if you look in that figure, we just, we picked a couple of the closest residences we were asked to look at for the, the barrier walls and and and show that. So this is what the 80, 80 trucks and if you see that red line kind of running east west along the road, you see that heavy red line. That's, that's where a barrier might go. This is by far from any kind of final design.
[10:00:30] We placed a 12-foot high wall.
[10:00:32] We left a space for the driveway.
[10:00:36] And we showed the reduction that a barrier might provide.
[10:00:42] So in this particular case, we had the two kind of marker points
[10:00:46] on there, one is 54.1, one is 51.6.
[10:00:51] If we looked back at the earlier figures,
[10:00:53] you could see that those were higher.
[10:00:55] But, and you also see those contours kind of move closer to the road.
[10:01:04] So, it's basically showing that everywhere behind that barrier, well, the sound level drops.
[10:01:10] As you get further away, the barrier isn't as effective.
[10:01:15] So, that's why there was some discussion earlier about the barrier, not being effective on the hill.
[10:01:20] It's because the homes are already back on top of the hill and are already getting some
[10:01:26] benefit of the shielding of the hill, the benefit, the barrier doesn't do much more for
[10:01:31] them.
[10:01:32] It's not because the barrier doesn't block sound, it blocks sound behind the barrier, but
[10:01:35] it doesn't do the further way you get the less effective it is.
[10:01:39] So it helps more for the homes that are closer, where it's most needed, which is good.
[10:01:46] But, you know, if these were to go forward with these, someone decided they wanted this barrier,
[10:01:53] we would go through a more extensive design process to decide exactly where an opening
[10:01:59] for a drive might be, how forward, extend on each end, how high it would be, you know, those kind
[10:02:03] of things.
[10:02:18] That third answer, that question I had, thank you very much, appreciate it.
[10:02:32] Mr. Chairman, if I could ask another question, this would be of staff.
[10:02:37] And this is not mentioned in anything in terms of conditions and so on, but my question is,
[10:02:45] if the permit is approved, what ongoing costs and time will be required of a Plata County
[10:02:53] staff?
[10:02:55] I notice somewhere in GCCP proposed that a Plata County staff would facilitate meetings
[10:03:01] between the residents regarding mitigation, that I don't know whether that was something
[10:03:08] staff envisioned as well, but I guess at what I don't want to unrealistically expect
[10:03:14] is that if we were to issue permit under conditions and what ongoing work will you have
[10:03:23] as staff as it relates to this permit, whether it be monitoring or facilitation as mentioned.
[10:03:40] Commissioner, I believe you're asking as relative to the creation of the barriers for buffering.
[10:03:50] Staff would be involved with meetings and the outcome of the applicant's interactions with the neighbor.
[10:04:00] We also would be involved with determining if and when there would be a necessity for hiring
[10:04:08] an additional professional, depending on how many scenarios there are that could lead to several
[10:04:17] days per scenario of time working with the applicant and the neighbor and possibly the professional.
[10:04:31] any other, I mean I wasn't meaning just on that particular issue, either there's some
[10:04:38] contingent conditions that won't be fulfilled, you're talking about a way, all of the
[10:04:42] conditions.
[10:04:43] Yeah, I mean with respect to the big picture, I've been seeing you guys put, you know,
[10:04:49] many, many hours into this project over the last couple of years, should I expect to
[10:04:55] feed that in the future?
[10:04:56] Yeah, I think so.
[10:04:57] that there's going to be significant staff staff time involved with resolving the conditions and fulfilling
[10:05:05] the conditions and working with the applicant working with neighbors in some scenario.
[10:05:12] Definitely it involves more than just the planning staff and involves public work staff and it will involve
[10:05:25] It's going to involve a significant number of staff parties and looking through the fulfillment
[10:05:32] of these conditions.
[10:05:34] There's no doubt about it.
[10:05:36] I can't come up with a number off the top of my head for you.
[10:05:39] I wish I could, but it's not over when you think it's over, let's just say that.
[10:05:49] I would also like to address your question, and I think in many ways, once so, if the board
[10:05:56] does eventually approve the land use permit, in some ways the journey has just begun,
[10:06:01] because there certainly is monitoring, there certainly is our involvement.
[10:06:05] I, as it relates to reviewing right of way acquisition, as it relates to conceptual design,
[10:06:13] final design and so our staff will continue to be involved long-term, not only in the monitoring
[10:06:19] of the conditions of approval, but as well as the future phases that have to be done to the
[10:06:29] road to honor those conditions of approval.
[10:06:39] One other question, another question that I have,
[10:06:44] I'd like to get feedback on the, we talked about
[10:06:48] early the Ag Dryup and the concern that we have specifically in the the Western part of the
[10:06:58] county plan, but I guess my question is what good does it do to have prevention of Ag Dryup
[10:07:07] as a priority if we just project by project a proof Ag Dryup?
[10:07:24] Just a couple of other, I guess, competing issues that we certainly dealt with with this case.
[10:07:32] As I'm sure the commissioners are aware, a waterite in Colorado is a property right.
[10:07:37] The State Constitution allows an individual to change their waterite, which is often a prerequisite to act dry up.
[10:07:45] Oftentimes, entities are individuals who have waterites, especially agricultural waterites, find it more profitable to
[10:07:54] to sell or lease those water rights to industrial or municipal uses, it's a fairly common
[10:07:59] thing throughout the state.
[10:08:02] In terms of why we have the goal to begin with, certainly need to rely on some of my colleagues,
[10:08:09] but I would like to articulate that the planning documents that we have are guidance for the Board
[10:08:15] of County Commissioners.
[10:08:18] As I'm sure you know, you do not adopt the complaint or the district plans, so they are
[10:08:23] part of our regulatory documents, the formally regulated land use permits that have more applicability
[10:08:30] for the planning commission, which does adopt those plans. I'm going to turn to my colleagues
[10:08:38] if they want to say more on why we have the aspirational statement about preventing out of
[10:08:43] gripes in the first place. One thing I can add that we've discussed in the past with the board,
[10:08:50] If you were interested in making the AgGRIAP prohibition more regulatory, there are counties
[10:08:58] who are doing that through 1041 powers.
[10:09:01] And that's really how it would translate for us.
[10:09:06] Homes off the most associated with agricultural drier, but the impacts of doing it in all
[10:09:10] large-scale basis,
[10:09:13] and as for all the reasons I stated, it's a difficult thing to
[10:09:16] prohibit on its face even when those communities that are using Tim 41, it's about trying
[10:09:21] to address the, uh, sometimes I'm intended, sometimes known impacts of doing such
[10:09:26] an agricultural drive.
[10:09:32] Okay.
[10:09:34] All right.
[10:09:34] Thank you.
[10:09:36] Mr. Davis, you're not getting away.
[10:09:40] The construction, this, this, this proposal says that there will be construction on
[10:09:46] county road 124, presumably a fairly large number of months over the next few years, with
[10:09:55] the truck traffic in addition to regular traffic, how is that going to be managed effectively?
[10:10:04] Well, I would say if you manage like most of our other county road projects, county road
[10:10:09] 240, I think was under construction the better part of the 90s.
[10:10:13] been a firm on a time, who was the past decade on 234, and county road 213, in the post
[10:10:19] of road. Most of your construction projects are typically constructed under what we call
[10:10:24] live traffic. You don't just have the luxury, in most cases, of just shutting a road down
[10:10:28] while you reconstruct, you know, in some cases where you may have a short section or road and you
[10:10:33] have alternate options. That's an ideal situation, but usually not a luxury we have. So we have
[10:10:39] manual on uniform traffic control devices, it pretty much governs and dictates traffic control.
[10:10:46] How that's handled, we typically work with the applicant any time they are required to make
[10:10:52] road improvements. They have to submit a traffic control plan. We review it, we take a look at it,
[10:10:57] and we work with them to make adjustments as need be. If there are variations or unanticipated
[10:11:04] complications, I've heard school buses, I don't think that's so much a consideration here,
[10:11:09] we typically work with developers to try and minimize the impacts and the inconvenience to the
[10:11:16] traveling public during the AM and PM peak hours if that's an issue as well but you know all I can say is
[10:11:24] well work with them as we do any any other project and most of our own county road projects this is an
[10:11:30] issue we deal with as well. Thank you.
[10:11:38] Another question from Mr. Davis if you want to take a break in your
[10:11:45] The question was raised earlier, Mr. Davis, about why has the county not applied, made
[10:11:52] core idea this year?
[10:11:53] Can you verify if that is the case and if so, why not?
[10:11:58] I get, quite honestly, I don't know off-hand, I can suspect our guys or our road and
[10:12:02] bridge crews are aware.
[10:12:04] This is ongoing.
[10:12:05] We have mentioned to them over the fact that if this permit gets approved, there will be a
[10:12:10] of section out there that would be paves and my thought is that they may be holding back
[10:12:15] pending the outcome of this permit. It might be wasted dollars if they did go up by the
[10:12:20] mag and she sees out there reconstructing a mile of gravel road in a couple of weeks so we could
[10:12:27] be in a holding pattern.
[10:12:30] Thank you.
[10:12:45] As far as I know, I've got a quick asking questions.
[10:12:49] I'm going to move to the answer.
[10:12:51] I'm going to move to the Board.
[10:12:54] Should we explain the process?
[10:12:57] Well, my suggestion on process would be to formally close all public comment.
[10:13:04] We can have the executive session tomorrow morning,
[10:13:07] But to allow each party no more than 10 minutes to talk about Mr. Robbins' changes to the road improvement agreement and the conditions of approval and then do revital after that tomorrow.
[10:13:24] That's my suggestion. I just think there's some things that might come out of the debate about the suggested amendments.
[10:13:32] that Mr. Robbins advance that you might want to allow the parties to cover that in
[10:13:38] the rebuttal if necessary.
[10:13:42] Mr. Chair, if I may.
[10:13:44] Mr. Lackle, that staff to analyze truck traffic going south, and to come back this evening
[10:13:50] and be prepared with an answer.
[10:13:51] We spent most of our dinner hour working through those iterations.
[10:13:54] We can certainly speak to that now, if it's helpful.
[10:13:59] Well, for starters, we tried to get constrained the problem, and we analyzed specifically
[10:14:06] a can 25 trucks go on this other route while North County Road 120 is being addressed
[10:14:13] while road improvements are being addressed through the phase project plan that you've heard
[10:14:19] a lot about.
[10:14:20] And for reasons I'll explain in a minute, staff is compelled to note that that option would likely not comply with the code, and thereby we can't support it, we can't recommend it at this time.
[10:14:31] Let me go through our analysis with that.
[10:14:35] One truck to the south, which trigger all of the same improvements,
[10:14:39] percent to 74.91 has you have heard a lot about the North County Road 120 option.
[10:14:45] In fact, the one truck going to the North triggers all of those improvements.
[10:14:49] As you've heard us talk about them now numerous times, we have never waved those standards.
[10:14:53] We have never deviated from those standards.
[10:14:55] We're doing everything we can to ensure compliance with those standards when it comes to those road.
[10:15:01] The one tool, the one point we've been able to work with is the timing of those improvements, and that is worked itself out in the road improvement agreement in particular.
[10:15:11] But as stated, all the same improvements, although same requirements would be triggered if one truck of those 25 went to the south.
[10:15:19] So, differing from what we are currently dealing with on the North County Rowland 20 option,
[10:15:25] if even one truck went to the South even for a short period of time, the five-year period
[10:15:29] when County Rowland 20 would be improved, it would require the same level improvements
[10:15:34] and we are without the same tools that we've been relying on to analyze the North County Rowland 20 option.
[10:15:40] I believe it's highly unlikely that the applicant would agree to the same level of improvements
[10:15:45] for South or South County Route 120, especially if the ultimate intent is for all the trucks
[10:15:52] to go on North County Route 120.
[10:15:54] It's unrealistic that they would improve the road and it's certainly a question that you
[10:15:58] can ask them, but it's unrealistic that they would improve the road for an in-term period of time.
[10:16:04] Analyzing if this became a permanent solution and not an in-term solution would
[10:16:08] quite literally be a new application, it's a pretty fundamental change from what was proposed
[10:16:13] to the county to begin with.
[10:16:16] So that's kind of the legal code analysis.
[10:16:18] I think there's some deeper levels of issues
[10:16:19] that my college can speak to as well.
[10:16:29] Like it's in short, the Southern Route taking
[10:16:31] county road 12 south to 16 to 11 19 to the state highway
[10:16:35] involves a longer stretch.
[10:16:38] It hasn't been fully evaluated as Adam just stated.
[10:16:41] But it's a little over nine miles.
[10:16:43] There's five county road conditions
[10:16:45] in addition to the state highway intersection.
[10:16:47] And I think some of those issues were noted
[10:16:49] earlier today as it relates to the trucks entering and leaving the highway at that county road.
[10:16:57] So those are a number of issues that would really have to be fully vetted and looked into which
[10:17:03] staff has not done at this time because that wasn't the proposal.
[10:17:12] Well, at this one of those technical items that Jim's talking about on southern route is a very
[10:17:19] As you know, the applicant in September went through the variance process to the Board of
[10:17:24] Adjustments and received an 8 tenths of a percent variance of 1 percent variance to the minimum
[10:17:33] requirement for slope. On the other side, at least on one of the routes out, there's much steeper
[10:17:40] Heels deeper slope would demand either redesign or different variants and then further processing.
[10:17:51] Similar to what Adam said though, particularly our public process and compatibility analysis,
[10:17:59] yielded all our conditions of approval and the RIA that you have before you specifically in order
[10:18:05] to achieve compliance with our code and compatibility.
[10:18:10] And so it would be an entirely new project for analysis.
[10:18:16] And that would take some significant time
[10:18:19] plus a revised application.
[10:18:23] Finally, I do want to point out that perocule planning principle
[10:18:30] and growth management is to concentrate impacts
[10:18:33] to concentrate improvements, infrastructure improvements, reducing at large costs to the county
[10:18:40] perpetually for spreading all of that infrastructure improvement out and having to maintain
[10:18:47] it as well as concentrating the impact to secure the least impact of area possible. And that's
[10:18:55] just a general planning principle and we relied on that when we looked at the applicants proposal
[10:18:59] and that's incorporated with our presentation. I think Daniel did a very good job.
[10:19:03] with concisely putting that forward with with with his presentation, but I just wanted to expand on that as well.
[10:19:11] So final comment bringing our back to the proposed changes to the RIA and the findings and conditions to the extent any of those changes are aimed at a two stage process, 55 trucks, all the improvements occur, and then the applicant would be allowed to go to 120, those are certainly something that the county staff will review and be prepared to speak more about tomorrow.
[10:19:33] but to the extent that it is that proposal or that idea is predicated on
[10:19:38] diverting 25 trucks of the south. We can look more closely at it, but our
[10:19:43] overarching comment is that staff doesn't support that approach because it
[10:19:46] doesn't appear to meet the code and it would likely require a new application.
[10:19:54] Thank you for doing that homework over dinner. And for those who weren't present
[10:20:00] earlier,
[10:20:03] the question was, or I guess the proposal was raised by one of the neighbors
[10:20:10] of perhaps splitting the traffic allowing 55 trucks to the north and perhaps allowing
[10:20:19] if the applicant's desire is for up to 80 trucks a day sending 25 to the south to minimize impact to folks going north, so.
[10:20:40] Thank you.
[10:20:41] I paid bail to publicly close to close the public meeting.
[10:20:49] I don't know what is up with that.
[10:20:53] are haunted today.
[10:20:57] This time I'll publicly close the, or close the public comment portion of
[10:21:02] our meeting and ask if there is any further discussion from commissioners. Commissioner.
[10:21:13] I have another questions. Liberation, we're going to do tomorrow, I believe, and I'm still
[10:21:19] unclear. Is your intent, Mr. Chairman, to hear from the parties tonight or regarding Mr.
[10:21:27] province proposal or has there already been some kind of stipulation that we'll have responses
[10:21:36] in the morning as far as closings and I don't know what I just need to clear it up.
[10:21:42] Are we going to do closings tonight or wait till tomorrow morning?
[10:21:46] I believe that we're going to do closings tomorrow.
[10:21:49] That's what I would suggest.
[10:21:50] Yeah. And I agree with that. So our plan is to have an executive session set for 10
[10:22:00] 15 AM tomorrow morning and shortly thereafter, which I'm not sure of the time yet.
[10:22:10] Well, 30. So what I would suggest at this stage is that actually two separate motions,
[10:22:17] One would be to go into an executive session at 10, 15 tomorrow and I can read the form of the motion for you on that.
[10:22:25] And then the final motion of the evening would be to continue this hearing until 12, 30 tomorrow.
[10:22:32] And for the public's benefit, can you explain why the Commission desires to go into executive session at Statshtarly, I'm required to.
[10:22:39] And I'm about to announce that.
[10:22:41] Okay.
[10:22:43] One of the things we talked about a little bit earlier is I do think we need, at some point
[10:22:50] say, okay, no more testimony, is that tonight?
[10:22:56] Or will we, because everything tomorrow is going to be legal, right?
[10:23:00] Well, with respect to Mr. Robbins proposal, are you guys expecting to have testimony or
[10:23:08] or yes, ma'am.
[10:23:10] Mr. Chairman, Carolyn White, my understanding was that we were to have two ten-minute closing
[10:23:18] comment periods.
[10:23:19] The first focus solely on the proposed RIA red lines and conditions of approval red lines,
[10:23:24] proposed by Mr. Robbins, the second of which would be the final final overbottle.
[10:23:29] And I also understood you to say that both the opponent neighbors collectively as a group would
[10:23:34] have that opportunity as would staff, as would the applicant.
[10:23:38] And so I think that's three times 10 times two total that you've offered to all of us
[10:23:46] for closing remarks.
[10:23:47] That's my understanding of it.
[10:23:49] Is that consistent with other councils understanding of it?
[10:23:56] So what it will basically go last, each party will have 10 minutes to address Mr. Robbins
[10:24:03] proposed amendments, GCC, well, then the neighbors will have five minutes for a closing
[10:24:11] and rebuttal.
[10:24:12] The planning will have five minutes for a closing and rebuttal, and then you will have ten.
[10:24:18] That is agreeable and understood by GCC.
[10:24:22] For a final final.
[10:24:24] In the parties, don't expect to need testimony tomorrow with respect to Mr. Robbins.
[10:24:30] Red Line.
[10:24:30] We intend to deliver argument not testimony.
[10:24:36] So county staff is, county staff is the same.
[10:24:40] We will do five minutes of closing.
[10:24:41] I'm not sure we have much testimony regarding the proposed
[10:24:44] red button.
[10:24:45] We're the same.
[10:24:47] And then I would move that we close evidence.
[10:24:52] If you guys are done looking and we have received the public
[10:24:57] comments that were written.
[10:24:59] But I don't believe they're related to the evidence that we're taking now.
[10:25:04] And I ask if you're ready to do that, if you're also ready to talk about the exhibits that will form the record.
[10:25:11] Before we do that, I just don't know what time for the board to keep in mind tomorrow.
[10:25:16] We have a joint governing body meeting with the city of Durango in this room scheduled for four o'clock.
[10:25:23] So just reminding the board that we do have a hard stop at that time.
[10:25:31] So what I'm handing out to the board is a list of the documents that are based on the board's express sentiment so far part of the record.
[10:25:41] It's with the 77 attachments to the staff report, then there are seven additional documents.
[10:25:47] The documents over which we are still waiting for a determination.
[10:25:51] And there's a nine of them listed and I think that said, I don't know, I don't think you want me to read it.
[10:26:02] The one through six we discussed in detail this morning.
[10:26:06] Number seven is the written statement of Carl Mount produced by Cross Creek Ranch.
[10:26:13] Eight are Mr. Robbins red lines and to the RIA and nine are the revised conditions of approval.
[10:26:20] all those we might have to hold out on.
[10:26:27] And just one edit to the title of this hearing dated 531 or 531.
[10:26:36] I was making it yesterday.
[10:26:43] We talked about some, we kind of put some things to the side this morning.
[10:26:49] And as far as I know, none of them became relevant.
[10:26:55] So I would, and we had no motions from anybody to bring them back in because they were
[10:26:59] off to the side unless they were relevant. So my position is that we not actually even the number
[10:27:07] seven that came in from Mr. Mount, we made the assimilated termination, I believe that was
[10:27:11] related to waste rock and that. So I still I guess my thought is that one through seven still
[10:27:21] still aren't relevant to our consideration and would not be appropriate as exhibits.
[10:27:34] As to the issue of waste disposal, I think it is something that this commission has to take on
[10:27:42] because I think your county land use code requires it.
[10:27:47] As the Mr. Mount, I guess all I'd say is I saw all kinds of people today disappear
[10:27:53] and when they were gone, they left behind a note and we read it in and nobody said,
[10:28:00] well, that one's relevant, that one's not relevant, Mr. Mount was here all morning with us
[10:28:07] ready to talk on the phone, but because we were postponed to this afternoon is the only reason
[10:28:13] that's in writing. If he had testified in person, I don't think you would have stricken him down.
[10:28:17] So I think he's in a little different category because the board has been very open to hearing
[10:28:24] from people who weren't able to be here and taking things on pink sheets that people
[10:28:30] were there.
[10:28:30] Is it correct that he's your consultant though?
[10:28:33] He's not a member of the public and neighbor.
[10:28:35] He's not a member, but you know, I suppose he has a constitutional right to address this
[10:28:41] board and we have a constitutional right to bring him here.
[10:28:45] That's my point. I've made my point and I don't want to take any more of your time.
[10:28:49] I should have a question.
[10:28:50] There was there were things in the file already related to Mr. Mount.
[10:28:55] I recall seeing his name and reading it and so on.
[10:29:02] Like other experts have testified here, he wanted to testify that he couldn't testify
[10:29:07] by phone because we didn't get our turns. That's all.
[10:29:11] I would support admitting it since he was prepared to testify.
[10:29:19] I'm fine admitting it.
[10:29:21] I think that it doesn't really, but.
[10:29:30] If it is allowed, I think then you're going to also have to allow items five and six as
[10:29:40] I was all also relate to King I
[10:29:46] was the issue King I was the issue King I was the issue rock if that solid waste removal from King II
[10:29:52] Same issue
[10:29:56] Chairman if we could be heard on this issue we we do object allowing that up
[10:30:00] But in some of the record, we weren't aware, actually, that telephonic testimony was permitted. And Mr.
[10:30:04] Mount was not President and person. He was going to be available by telephone. You know, we heard this
[10:30:10] before from the opponent's group that if they had known this sort of been an issue, they would
[10:30:14] have brought their experts here. They said that at the Planning Commission. This is an issue that not
[10:30:18] only they knew about, but they planned to raise. And that's why we were forced to bring our experts and
[10:30:23] produce our responses on this topic, so we could be prepared to address it. So we would object to it
[10:30:28] being included, but if you decide to include it, we certainly feel that all of the other
[10:30:32] documents we propose to include on that subject ought to also be included for the same
[10:30:37] reason.
[10:30:38] If I may miscute, Chair, just for the record, we've got a fistful of emails from the staff
[10:30:44] telling us that having tested telephone testimony is just fine and that we could plan on
[10:30:49] doing it.
[10:30:50] So this is not clear.
[10:30:51] I don't think we want to get a rebut argument over what it is.
[10:30:54] All of the phone he is allowed to do that.
[10:30:56] It's just the relevancy of the topic of the King-1 mind-waste and whether the board wants, I don't know that you've heard other testimony on it so you what you would really have is just the written testimony
[10:31:12] and again it relates which condition is it out of
[10:31:23] So I guess what I would encourage the board to do is look at condition 2
[10:31:27] to decide whether you need any testimony in order to support that, or if you wish to
[10:31:37] amend it because you disagree with the condition.
[10:31:40] I can clarify, can this in two just requires GCC to provide reports and accounting
[10:31:46] if you will of the waste rock that is exiting, or King to coal mine?
[10:31:54] More important, I think, to this would be finding number seven, which specifically knows, and
[10:31:59] this is proposed by staff that this land is from a doesn't contemplate or include King
[10:32:04] One coal mine.
[10:32:06] It has nothing to do with county staff and not believing that what is transpiring at King One
[10:32:10] coal mine is not important.
[10:32:12] We do.
[10:32:13] We intend to deal with that situation, likely as soon as hearing on King Two coal mines
[10:32:19] comments, but we have for quite some time years even analyzed that as a separate and distinct
[10:32:24] land use.
[10:32:29] But it is an activity that is utilizing county road 120.
[10:32:38] It is material taken from King 2 coal mine to disposal locations.
[10:32:45] is material taking from King 2 coal mine and being disposed of at King 1 coal mine.
[10:32:52] In the same way that many commercial uses in the Plata County have commercial trash service,
[10:32:59] where somebody comes and picks up their trash and then takes it to another location.
[10:33:03] We do not consider a permit where that trash is going to,
[10:33:07] and ensure that it's a permitted land fill is part of any other commercial operation.
[10:33:11] and it's essentially the same thing here.
[10:33:13] If the waste rock from King II coal mine,
[10:33:17] it's being taken off the side
[10:33:18] and being taken to another location.
[10:33:20] If that other location does not have the requisite land use permit,
[10:33:23] we certainly will deal with it through a code enforcement perspective.
[10:33:27] And that is absolutely our intent.
[10:33:30] We've had these conversations with the applicant.
[10:33:32] I think they're well aware that county staff
[10:33:34] intends to address that situation
[10:33:36] as soon as these proceedings conclude.
[10:33:47] Council?
[10:33:53] discussion.
[10:33:58] Yes, my question is seeking legal counsel on this matter.
[10:34:05] I know this
[10:34:07] might meet with some jurors, but I'm siding with the planning department. I do
[10:34:11] think it's an analogy. I've used myself that with the, you know, the waste we, it
[10:34:18] is a separate issue. As far as they're using kind of red 120, Jim, do you know
[10:34:25] those track counts also included in the, how are we calculating those in the numbers?
[10:34:32] Yes. Mr. Chairman, I'm informed by our traffic engineer that the traffic counts
[10:34:37] related to the transfer of materials from King Tudikin 1 are included in the traffic numbers
[10:34:43] analyzed in our traffic study and included in all of the analysis for the road improvements.
[10:34:48] So, as far as impact on the road, it should be addressed then.
[10:34:52] So to clarify that's part of the 80 truck trips per day.
[10:34:57] The 80 truck trips refers only to the trucks transporting coal for ultimate disposition,
[10:35:04] but the traffic study, which is the complete analysis that recommended the total package of improvements
[10:35:09] that is being required through the RIA, which takes into account all of the traffic generated by the mind,
[10:35:14] including employees, water hauling, deliveries, et cetera, also includes these numbers.
[10:35:19] So it's not in the 80, it's in the total.
[10:35:33] So with GCC, if number seven is in,
[10:35:41] what should those items that you proposed to middle on,
[10:35:44] do you think relates to number seven?
[10:35:48] Five and six?
[10:35:52] Sorry, yes.
[10:35:52] No, I'm sorry, I'm asking GCC.
[10:35:56] Mr. Chairman, first of all, condition number,
[10:35:58] A finding number seven is one with which GCC agrees and concurs and we have no dispute or question.
[10:36:07] If it is the inclination of the board to allow in items six and seven proposed by Mr. Danielson,
[10:36:15] then we would ask that you also allow in items four and five submitted to GCC, which relate to the same issue.
[10:36:22] items 1, 2, and 3 on your list here, we're all related to a different issue.
[10:36:28] So if I may, I'd just say we have no objection to putting in 5, 6, and 7, 4, I'd say,
[10:36:36] is the wild earth guardian's complaint about which we've heard nothing today and we certainly
[10:36:41] aren't going to say anything about it.
[10:36:43] You're right. That's my mistake. That is a different matter. So it's just our item number
[10:36:47] five, just five, then I would just, you know, I think the issue of the waste
[10:36:53] drop has been raised enough for Commissioner ask a question, and it certainly
[10:36:57] was in the documents we got, I would go ahead and change my mind and just move
[10:37:05] that we accept numbers five and seven into evidence.
[10:37:11] Five, six, seven, seven, seven, seven, seven, seven, seven, seven, seven, seven.
[10:37:13] You just said five.
[10:37:14] You said number five only, correct?
[10:37:15] I was, so our documents are four and five.
[10:37:20] Their documents are six and seven.
[10:37:22] If you take six and seven, we want you to all take five.
[10:37:25] Got you.
[10:37:26] All right.
[10:37:27] Then, then let's go with making that five six and seven.
[10:37:31] Okay.
[10:37:32] So based on that, the May 27 letter from Trent Petersen on the King 1 will become
[10:37:39] Exhibit 85.
[10:37:52] The May 27th, the May 27th letter from Peter Sin on King 1 becomes Exhibit 85, the May 30th letter from Duke Luke Daniel Sin is 86 and the written statement from Carl Mount is 87.
[10:38:14] That was my motion.
[10:38:17] And items 1-3-4 are excluded and 8-9 will wait till tomorrow.
[10:38:21] All in favour?
[10:38:25] Aye.
[10:38:26] Aye.
[10:38:27] Thank you.
[10:38:31] Respect to the motion for tomorrow's agenda.
[10:38:34] Can I get a close of evidence?
[10:38:36] That's what we were aiming for.
[10:38:37] Go ahead.
[10:38:39] I'm going to move again.
[10:38:40] That we close evidence.
[10:38:43] All in favour?
[10:38:44] Please say aye.
[10:38:46] Aye.
[10:38:46] Aye.
[10:38:48] The motion for an executive session on June 1, 2016 at 10.15 a.m.
[10:38:53] We'll be for the purposes of the board receiving legal advice on specific legal questions.
[10:38:59] President Colorado revised statute 24602 for B for the purpose of discussing GCC compliance
[10:39:06] with state and federal permits and the La Plata County Code and for determining positions
[10:39:10] relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations
[10:39:16] and instructing negotiators for certain to Colorado revised statute 24602 for E regarding
[10:39:22] the road improvement agreement with GCC.
[10:39:26] So moved.
[10:39:29] All in favor?
[10:39:30] Aye.
[10:39:31] Aye.
[10:39:32] Thank you.
[10:39:38] I move that we continue this matter to tomorrow at 12 30 p.m.
[10:39:45] All in favor?
[10:39:46] Aye.
[10:39:47] Aye.
[10:39:48] Thank you.
[10:39:49] Thank you all for coming.
[10:39:54] I'm not sure if we're all those who says not to die.
[10:39:56] I know.
[10:39:58] Thank you very much.