Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, it is 4 o'clock on November 10th. I will go ahead and call this meeting to order. I'll go through roll call of planning commission members present. Um Joey Edwards, uh Steve Stevens here, Jason, David here, Brian Hill. Okay. And county commissioners, Commissioner Tharp, Commissioner Lee here. Commissioner Bulock. I see him there. Here. I'm here.

Great. Thank you. Um, we have a change to the agenda. We're going to move, we're going to switch the files around. So, we will be um entertaining file 24-03 and then file 25-34. Is there any are there any other changes to the agenda? Okay. Any updates from staff for tonight's meeting? No, nothing substantial. Um, you should be receiving your invites. We have some more action planning for community project for next week. Um, and so you should be getting those invites. I think that's all we have.

Um, great. We're going to move into our new business then, which is file 24-03, the Box Creek Travel. Let's approve the minutes. Oh, thank you. Yes, we do. Well, and I think we have two minutes. There's minutes 10:27 just and I think there were the ones from Or maybe it was just those. Oh no, they were just in there twice. You're right. This one? Yep. Yeah. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes from October 27th? I move to approve the minutes from October 27th. A second. Second. Uh all in favor? I I

Okay, great. Now we'll move into file 24-03 which is the B box creek gravel mining conditional use permit. Um make sure I read the right one here. I hereby open the hearing for the case file 24-03 that was continued from April 28th, 2025 when testimony was heard from staff, the applicant and members of the public. The evidentary [snorts] portion of the public hearing was closed. The planning commission deliberated after the board of county commissioners left the chambers. The planning commission continued the public hearing to May 28th in order for the applicant and staff to consider solutions for the major concerns raised during the public hearing. The two major areas of concern were noise generated by the new operations and safety concerns at the intersection of US 24 and Kro 10. On May 28th, the planning commission continued the hearing at the applicant and staff's request to July 28th, subsequently to August 11th and September 8th again on October 20th and finally to today, November 10th. The reasons for the continuations were to resolve these two major areas of concern and to resolve public notice errors in the process. This statement I am reading shall be incorporated into and made part of the record on these proceedings. The planning commission and the board of county commissioners have jurisdiction to reopen the evidentary portion of the joint public hearing on the conditional use permit application under section 3.1.10 of the Lake County land votment code. The purpose of reopening the evidential portion of the hearing is to hear new information pertaining to the two major concerns that prompted the continuing of the hearing. In reopening the evidentiary portion of the hearing, the commission will allow testimony that pertains to the two major areas of concern. [clears throat] Then the commission will close the evidentiary portion of the hearing and deliberate considering all the testimony presented starting on April 28th and continuing through this evening. Then it will make its decision by addressing the approval criteria as it is set forth in section 3.6.1.f F of the Lake County Lane Development Code. The procedure to be followed in this hearing will be one, members of the commission and the board

will disclose if they've had any exparte communications. Two, the county staff will make an initial presentation on new information that pertains to the two major concerns. Three, the applicant may then make their presentation on new information that pertains to the two major concerns. Four, after that, any other persons either supporting or opposing the application may present evidence on the new information that pertains to the two major areas of concern. Five, supporting and opposing witnesses may be questioned by the commission and the board. Once questioning is concluded, no further questioning is permitted unless granted by chair. The applicant may then present any rebuttal evidence. The parties and witnesses are asked not to submit evidence other than the two major concerns and to not submit redundant, irrelevant, or cumulative evidence. If someone has already made the point that you wish to make, please simply say so. The chair will also require that all comments be made to the planning condition commission and the board and that there be no dialogue between the applicant and members of the audience. At the conclusion of the ev evidentiary portion of the hearing, the chair will entertain a motion to close the evidentiary portion of the hearing and the commission will discuss and weigh the evidence. The board of county commissioners will then retire from the meeting and the chair of the planning commission will entertain a motion on the application. The motion may take the form of one of the following recommendations. One, approve the application with no conditions. Two, approve the application with recommended conditions. Three, approve the application with newly identified conditions. Or four, deny the application. The planning director shall make a record of any substantial discussion on the motion and then include that in the record with the recommendation of the commission. The commission's recommendation will be in the form of a statement of motion. Are there any objections to the jurisdiction of the commission or to the form or substance of these proceedings? kind of a clarification.

So, the two major points exclude the [clears throat] uh increased truck traffic on Harrison. So, does that imply that the county commissioners don't feel that that's an issue? No, there's no implications as to which way. Um, well, first of all, it this will be the planning commission then making a recommendation to the county commissioners, but there's no assumption as to where the planning commission sits at this time. They have those understandings and that was a pretty clear understanding and concern that was brought forward as were many other things. But the couple of things that were outstanding that was not clear and needed further clarification were these other two items. Then we will take everything together and make a decision based on those things. Anything else? Okay. Hearing none, I will now ask each planning commission member and then each county commissioner if you've had any exparte communications to disclose and if so, please disclose them now. Uh Steve Stevens,

none. Uh David, none. Heather Lind, none. Other than I will say, I'm sure most people have seen that there's comments on Facebook. I don't engage and I don't read into them much, but they exist. Um, Commissioner Lee, [clears throat] none. Commissioner Bulock, none.

Okay, great. Um, and at this time, for those of you on Zoom, if you're mainly someone with CM KSL K, if you can write your names um, first and last um, as your Zoom or chat um, those in, that would be helpful for public record, please. Um, and I will turn it over to staff for catch us up on the presentation.

Okay, very good. Well, um, thank you everybody for being here and for your patience and the time it's taken to get us to this point. Um, if you could open the presentation mind just briefly. We're going to re reorder what I was thinking. Um, we go to the first slide. We have a traffic consultant who is going to present. he did this safety analysis um for this application and so he has is here for a short period of time and so I wanted to have him go pretty quickly but my second slide um talks a little bit kind of reiterates what what Heather just said a bit on um you know how we got here and I I think that was pretty clear but what's what's going to be um you know this is a quas a judicial process. And so we have to follow certain rules as we go through this. And that's a piece of why it got continued because of um the two issues, the noise and the and the traffic at that intersection. And so that's why the the evidence that we're going to be presenting and that um you can speak to ha has to do with those two issues. We had a staff report on April 28th. There's a lot of documentation as some of you have seen on this application from April 28th to today and all of that is what the planning commission and the board will consider after we close the public hearing. So there will be more conversation for them um after we get to that point. But at this point we're going to be talking about those two new areas. And um and the other thing I wanted to make sure everybody understood is that this application is for the gravel mining. It isn't for the gold mining. Um the gold

mining is a cup that was approved in 2018. It it it's um it's that's what they operate under. And so we're not talking and this is tricky. I realize all these things are tricky, but we're not talking about the gold mine. talking about the proposal to do the the gravel operations. So, let's go to the next slide very quickly. Um, I think everybody is pretty um pretty educated on this. We could go to the next slide. Um, yeah, but again, this is an application for the processing of gravel or aggregate materials as a byproduct of the gold mining. So, it's about the crushing, screening, washing of [clears throat] those construction materials and then the exporting of that the the hauling of it offsite um as as a salailable product. That's what this is for. They're permitted for approximately 300,000 tons that could leave the the site annually. They're using County Road 24, which is where they when they meet leave their site. That's the the first road which connects to County Road 10 and then um onto US 24. So we're going to hear a lot about um that intersection as the afternoon goes on. Um the mining currently operates from approximately April or May through October, November. Um so it's the same seasonal activity um with a gravel mining operation. So, we'll get into more detail about that, but let's go to the next slide, which I think is where it's going to have Titan speak, but instead what we can do is shift over to the other presentation, if you would. So, we'll

And I think Adam's on. You're on, correct, Adam? Correct. Can you hear me? Okay. [clears throat] Yes. Just a minute. I'm so sorry. Sorry. See, we have four presentations. It was out of there. It is. Yeah. [clears throat] All right. All right. I'm turning it over to you, Adam, and then then it'll come back to me.

Sounds great, Melissa. Thank you. Um, so what we'll focus on, Melissa did a great job opening what we'll be focusing on here, but the investigation for the intersection, Melissa stated, was US 24 and CR10. What we looked at was more of the safety aspect, safety components of incorporating this volume, but also the types of vehicles that were actually going to be making these maneuvers uh through the intersection. And the primary focus that we wanted to look at if we can go to the next slide um was the you know as I mentioned not just the volume but the size of the trucks um as we may know you know US 24 is I believe that through this space posted at 65 uh but that is posted so posted is very subjective it you know most folks are going through there maybe 70 maybe a little faster maybe a little slower but 65 is considered a very high-speed condition and so So the concern is the overall safety of these vehicles turning onto a a a state route or a US highway at that speed and being able to accelerate and blend with the existing traffic that's navigating through the intersection at the posted or higher speed. So what we looked at is we looked at the volume, we looked at the maneuvers and the time periods that these trucks and vehicles would be navigating the intersection. We can go to the next slide. So, as we see, um, the most most of the volume is actually going to be making the left turn, and that is going up towards or a left off of CR10, County Road 10 onto US 24. And there's an existing curve that's approaching a pretty steep significant grade as you approach that bridge that goes over the existing railroad. And so, what we wanted to look at was what are the existing conditions from a sight distance perspective. And the sight distance perspective gives uh us an indication of whether proper sight is

applied for not only the turning vehicle but also the approaching vehicle. um and to make sure that they can see each other simultaneously to make a judgment call whether they have the space available to make the left turn and merge into US 24 or for even a vehicle on 24 driving down towards the intersection at 65 miles an hour that they can see the vehicle and stop come to a complete stop in an appropriate amount of time. So based off that stopping sight distance, we're able to develop a triangle to make sure that there are no visual obstructions when it comes to making sure that these two vehicles can see each other. So what you're seeing on the on the right of the screen is going to be that sight triangle from the driver's perspective making the left turn. So this is the distance and space that a driver needs to be able to see to make that left turn onto this onto the US highway. we go to the next slide. So what we wanted to explore was are are there any kind of existing crashes or incidences at the intersection today with the existing conditions with the existing volumes that does not include um any of the the proposed trucks or or volume. Uh we were only able to find one and that's going to be based off the C do crash data. Um but that one that one incident actually involved multiple vehicles and that was a vehicle uh going southbound on US 24. Um and it was a essentially a rear end but it involved three vehicles and so there was a serious injury reported uh but uh only one with a reported uh injury and then three minor non-reported injuries. So the existing conditions there's not much at the intersection today but looking at the volume the volumes are relatively low. Go to the next slide.

Um just trying to get else we get a commissioner author at our meeting. So the land owner and the permit are also waiting. Yeah. Oh okay. I tried joining as well and couldn't [clears throat] get in.

Yeah. That's weird cuz they didn't pop out this. [clears throat] Did we change the part participant permissions permissions? I think let's see. Just sharing. Did you change the Zoom link? It's the recurring one. It's the one we're probably trying to access. I don't think we I I don't know which thing in the future and one for the invite that we're using. Um could invite Elsa at least. Yeah, but if we had other people that are meeting just um link on the website on the website

um who else do you have? Okay. I'm sorry. We'll just have a quick pause on your presentation while we try to No problem. We're having a little bit of a difficulty. [clears throat] So I can copy the invite and I can send it to um let me just anybody that may need to send it to whoever. Yeah, I need to send it. Is there anybody who can access the website? Stick it on there.

Not at this time. Apologize. Yes, please.

Visb. Um we commission meeting um currently and link is not working.

Yes. on the agenda started. So, however, I don't know how that started. There we go.

Okay. Yeah, you so I just joined from the agenda that was posted on the website. Okay. So the link on the agenda is working but the link the one that Lance was trying to use as the main needs to go to the need to go to the agenda. Sorry it's okay. Um, [music] so that's different than the posted one on your planning. So right on the main planning website, there's a link to it's the active one.

I I don't know which one you use. You should either on the agenda or it's on the plasate agenda template. I'm wondering that's the one that he's using. That's on your main planning commission website. Yeah, that's not need to go to the and I I just sent him that other I'm guessing that's the issue that's right on your planning commission website for

meetings people and Jeff all joined I'm just texting another [snorts] Who are we trying to vent Elsa? coffee. still in there.

There's someone texting me that they're trying to get in. So, if they're trying to click the main link on the website, ask them to open the agenda and click on the link that's the agenda that came out today. I sent up Laura Flynn who has a whole bunch of people on her the agenda. So yes, we need to go on today's agenda. There's a link

at the top. It's just one of those. Whatever can go wrong. two people. Perhaps it's safe to resume. Okay.

Uh thank you everybody for your patience. Um if you know anybody who's trying [clears throat] to join the Zoom call and unable, please direct them away from the link that's on the main planning um page and put them on the agenda link. The agenda for today's meeting has a link at the top for the Zoom and that is the correct link to use. Okay, back to Adam. Adam, are you still there? Thank you, Adam. Sorry. Yeah, no, no, no problem at all. I think we're on slide five.

Go one more pass. One more. One more. Perfect.

All right. So the intent of the study was to essentially evaluate a potential mitigation strategy to identify something that could be done to the intersection to provide a safety benefit. Like we mentioned, you know, like I mentioned earlier, the intersection is high speed and integrating traffic into the intersection. We want to make sure that there's a way for that integration to happen um with a little bit more of a safety provision. And so what we explored were four alternative uh geometries to the intersection utilizing E do DOT's state highway access code. And so we looked at essentially adding in an acceleration lane. So for that traffic that is turning left along US 24, they can turn left into their own designated lane and essentially uh build build the acceleration and speed to transition smoothly into the single lane condition uh that traffic is is traveling at 65 miles an hour. So using the C. Shack standards, 65 miles an hour would require a fairly large um improvement which would require additional widening along the corridor which would essentially interfere with the existing bridge that's out there. um when we were able to reduce it to a 55 mph acceleration lane. Um it does it does avoid the bridge, but it does require uh still a pretty large amount of of widely. We then looked at adding in a non-standard acceleration lane that's very similar to a condition uh just just to the south of the existing intersection on US 24 um at CO82. And then we also looked at uh other strategies that which included additional warning signs especially as vehicles approached the intersection just to be aware of of the large trucks turning in. If we go to the next slide, we can show a little bit more

illustrations of what each one of these alternatives look like. So the four major constraints here, you're going to have the bridge that's essentially overpassing the railroad. You do have a fairly steep embankment as you build the grade to get up there. So B is kind of highlighting some of those embankments and and fill slope potentials. You do have a posted speed of 65 miles an hour. And then all the way to the right there with condition C, you see that there is the existing alignment is very close to the existing railroad. So right away is a concern. Next slide. looking at the 65 mph uh condition for you know what would be required per the the CEO do shack standards it would essentially require bridge widening um on that existing overpass which just from a feasibility standpoint is is not feasible. It would require a lot of coordination very expensive and would be something that would be very difficult to construct in a timely manner. We go to the next slide. looking to more of a non-standard condition. Uh it it does provide something that is much more feasible but it it is not something that is essentially preferred by C dot. You know an existing condition that's out there today on Q24 and CO82 is actually being converted to um actually a roundabout. So the existing condition is is not something they're interested in. So we wanted to just explore it but not preferred. Go to the next slide please. Looking to reduce the posted speed by 10 miles an hour does provide something that is a little bit more feasible in the sense of it doesn't require bridge widening. Um and it does allow for everything to fit within a respectable range when it comes to the amount of

widening to get an acceleration lane. But it would require for [snorts] this speed posted speed to be reduced by 10 miles an hour which is not something that's technically preferred the speed out especially if the extents of the corridor are are already 65 miles an hour. Uh so just reducing it for this section would be considered uh not feasible. And then if we go to the next slide, we did look at another condition uh which would not technically require a speed reduction, but it would provide more warning signs to essentially provide drivers with the understanding of what they're approaching or what they could potentially be approaching with vehicles of this scale. And again, we're talking more of those 75 foot long vehicles purging into the existing condition. [clears throat] Um, so this is more of a warning sign, not a posted speed, but it does provide drivers with the understanding that there are large trucks turning in. Be aware of trucks and these could be fitted within the existing rideway and it wouldn't require any widening. So this would be much more of a feasible alternative. Um, and again, this would be applying warning signs. And you can see in the illustration there, essentially four signs, six if you include the uh 60 mph warning provision.

Adam, this is Steve Stevens. I had a quick question if you don't mind. Uh would those signs be lighted flashing yellow signs or would they just be yellow signs? So because of the high speed, the 65 miles an hour, they would be they would be recommended to be flashing. Okay. Uh this illustration doesn't show them, but they would have the the two beacons on each sign that would have the back and forth flashing designation. Okay, next slide.

So we did do some we did do some we had some meetings with COT to essentially go over each alternative. As mentioned, Ced was not necessarily interested in in going with something that was against standard and when it came to the 65 versus 55, um 65 was completely infeasible just with the bridge widening potential and then 55 was still considered a little too high speed uh for the comfortability comfortable um understanding of vehicles merging in um and the potential for sideswipe. So from that point of view, the acceleration lane not a preferred alternative and what they were looking more for was the incorporation of potential warning signs. Um but when it comes to potential, the 55 miles an hour does provide the potential to incorporate some sort of acceleration lane with widening. Um but for the time being, the preferred alternative was the additions of the warning signs. And again, this is more from SEO's perspective.

Adam Steve again, uh, why is the 55 mile per hour not something that's feasible? You're saying not feasible?

Yeah. I mean, you you mentioned I thought I thought earlier that the taking that area and turning it to 55 miles per hour is a slowdown from [clears throat] the 65 that's on the rest of the road. Why why is that not feasible? So to reduce speed, C dot is not in favor of essentially placing a reduced posted speed for that short a period. Um it would be it would be required to extend that that posted speed to 55 for a larger extent to be considered. So in this case you're converting 65 miles an hour to 55 for you know less than a quarter of a mile and then speeding it back up to 55 miles an hour. Why couldn't you extend Why couldn't you extend it beyond a quarter of a mile? I mean, that's a that's a warning to everybody in addition to the signs that there's danger ahead with trucks coming in and out of that intersection. I mean, that's all over the country. I do Illinois dot all your dots uh do that quite regularly on on state roads that are two lane. That's not unfeasible anywhere else in the country. Well, I mean it it would require more study, more investigation, and that would have to come from C DOT. Uh, but just based off what we were providing and where it was located, it wasn't necessarily something that they were considering at the time. But I do think that there's open they're open for conversation, but for the time or for him speaking to them, it was not necessarily supported. I I will say that we have a a representative from CO here, I believe.

So, he I was going to have him speak um after. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Adam, are you ready to be for me to progress? I believe that was it. Yep. All right. All right. Thank you, Adam. Yeah, we're not quite at the question too much of the question and answer some I'm sure is okay. But um I think we should address it when the topic comes up though.

Yeah. Yeah. So bringing it back to staff, I do want um to give Mark an opportunity [clears throat] to introduce yourself and to speak. Um as you've read in the staff report, some of you didn't have the opportunity to read the SE staff report. uh we a month ago or so on on October 20th, Mark was able to come out and take a look at the intersection for the first time. And so um based on that and their work um is here to talk to us about what they what they learned, what they position that C is taking,

right? And I think I think it's just fair to say Kimley Horn is who we like counting it to for our for the additional safety analysis to bring more information to CO just so that we understand kind of what um why we um Adam was involved in looking at the [clears throat] safety analysis and then we've taken that information um to [snorts] C dot and so Mark is here to talk to us about that. So stay here or come up either one. Yeah, I think you can also stand or [laughter] stand. So, not speaking if anybody's uh

so my name is Mark W. I work for C do out of region 3 headquarters in Grand Junction. I am the region traffic safety engineer of two main roles. One is I manage all the safety funding that comes to this region of seed dots and the second is I supervise the highway access unit. So I get directly involved in certain access projects, some of the more sensitive ones, some of the more complex ones. So C dot's opinion is that there should be a left turn acceleration lane, but as Adam mentioned, it would be unfeasible to construct it to standard because of the railroad bridge. uh a different consultants many years ago, I shouldn't say many, several years ago did a study up um in the Walden area and they measured the trucks on their acceleration, the time to get up to speed and determined that a fully loaded gravel truck would take about twice the distance.

So providing to C do standard, the truck is still not going to be going anywhere near 55 60 miles an hour. So you're really going well beyond that bridge. So our opinion is that a short acceleration lane is worse than no acceleration lane at all. We would prefer that the truck sits and waits until there's a large enough gap and then it pulls out and it's in the lane and has established itself. As Adam mentioned, 82 and 24 right down the road has a short left turn acceleration lane and there was a serious crash there. about two years ago, maybe two and a half, where someone had pulled into that left turn acceleration lane thinking they had sufficient distance. They did not. They moved over and caused that crash at um at at that location. And as Adam mentioned, C do is under design right now to construct a roundabout at that intersection because we want everybody to slow down in addition to being able to more safely get people on and off the highway there. Another location up on Highway 40 in um Grand County had a fatal crash related to a situation where a lane ended unexpectedly and it created a chain reaction and a couple was killed and they were coming the other direction just unfortunate that they were wrong place at the wrong time. So that kind of backs up our idea that a short acceleration lane in most circumstances is going to be worse than than none at all. So that was our opinion and that's why we issued the access permit as we did without any left turn acceleration. It was after that that's you know Kimley Horn with Adam you know working with the county that provided us information. We once again took a look at

the intersection, the situation, is there something that different that could be done? And before I tell you my next statement, I want to back up and give you a little bit of context to the highway access units. Six, five, six years ago, C DOT, our access unit, got sued over an access up in Grant County over an easement. Through that lawsuit, we were successful. The appeal was successful and even the state supreme court was successful. The point I tell you about this is after that lawsuit and the proceedings that we went through, we began coordinating with the AG's office a lot closer. So there is a rep assigned to C. Access that we go to for all of our legal questions. And starting after that lawsuits, they we have a C dot access meeting for all of the C dot access folks statewide and they meet about every two months. And the AG's office sends their rep to that meeting and they discuss legal topics related to highway access, easements, all the possible things. So, anytime we have a question, we can go right to them. Sometimes we wait till the meeting, but we're in close contact with them on sensitive projects to make sure that we don't get sued or that the decisions that we make are backed by state law. So in this case, when we first discussed Adam's information, the question I asked was, could we revoke, resend, revise the access permit that we have issued? I don't want you going away thinking that we don't agree with what we've done. And it was just a question in that legal framework to understand as it relates to this project to other projects in anything going forward could we revoke a permit and that was taken to the next access manager meeting a couple weeks later and the AG's opinion was it would be very difficult. It is a binding

contract that both parties have signed and unless we have information that was not available to us at the time that is, you know, drastically changing things, the AG's office felt that we would need to stand by the permit unless something drastic changed. And our conclusion that we've come to is that Adam prevent Adam has presented great information, but it's not something new that we did not consider beforehand. And so we feel like we need to honor that permit. The other question that was asked was the county had designated authority to the applicants to apply for and receive the access permit because county road 10 is a county road. And so I asked the question, could the county revoke that delegation? And the AG's office said, not for us to weigh in on. That's a county matter. So, and I'm not putting that on the county to even consider that. I'm just saying that I'm letting you know all the questions that we asked, the things that we looked at as as we went through this permit. A few notes. I want to make sure I cover everything that I wanted to to talk about. Speed limits 65 versus 55 versus whatever reduction would be. Um all speed limit designation speed studies is handled out of the SE dot headquarters units. There is a unit specifically assigned to come out investigate and determine what is an appropriate speed limit. That way it's not on the region level where we can feel the political pressure and other things to make changes when when the local folks want it. In working with them for eight, nine years on these types of issues, I know that they're going to say no because there's no context change to the road that would

tell a driver something is different other than maybe a warning sign. And the big factor in this is people drive what they feel is safe. And so unless there's something that physically changes in the design, the context of the road, they're most likely going to say no to reducing the speed limits. If that include the sign as it were proposed, if if the two were in conjunction, would that be an adequate reason to drop the speed limit?

It it would not be, unfortunately. Some of the examples that we give is you working with communities where highway 50, highway 40, other roads go through their downtown areas where it's just, you know, quarter mile, half mile. These communities are having to construct bulbouts, um, bring trees in closer and just make the roadway feel much narrower, tighter, so that people feel that it's unsafe to drive at a higher speed. And that, you know, that's part of the design redesign of a road to bring the speed limit down. So out on this section, just because there's going to be more trucks getting on and off the road is not going to be enough for them to to bring it down.

So as an example, Climax drops your speed limit to 45 as you're heading up towards Clim Climax Mine on Fremont Pass.

Help me. I would have to look at that specifically and ask the speed study units what why that is the case. There are several locations around the region that I look at and I go I wonder why that's the case. Driving in today on Highway 24, there are certain sections out there um north of town. I'm like why haven't we raised this up to 65 instead of maintaining the 55 or gone 45 up to 55 on some of those straighter stretches. So there are questions that I have regarding some of the things that they do, but from my experience in working with them, I I don't see that going to 55 is as a possibility. Um, and not worth a discussion with them, I guess, right?

It's certainly worth a discussion and and the process for that is that the local agency has to request C do construct conduct a speed study. So that would come from the county submitted to the region and then we pass it on to headquarters.

So it is I I would never discourage you from doing it but I want to tell you that in my experience it may not be successful. So after Adam's information, you know, Kimley Horns, we also discussed would it make sense to relocate the county roads if that was moved farther south and connected at a different location and had sufficient distance to build a full length left turn acceleration lane, that would be better. How does that work? Well, it would be a matter of the county working on that. The applicants, not exactly sure how that would work, but the county would have to be the one to initiate moving that county road in order to get sufficient distance to build that left turn acceleration. So, [clears throat]

warning signs. Um, if we were to go the route of adding the warning signs, um, CEO's not in favor of continually flashing signs because it only takes once or twice where you drive past a flashing sign and you don't see that actual condition that drivers then begin to tune it out. So, we would look to do something a little fancier where we would have a radar that would be pointed at the side streets that detects a truck and then it turns on the flashers so that it's an active um active response instead of a passive where it be flashing all the time. We've got two types of those systems across the region. And I think this would be a great accent to the condition. Um, and so if we wanted to pursue that, we could we could definitely look at taking the signs to the next level. That was all that I had for notes. Um, you want me to address questions or just

What about the trees that are now down? Do you want to speak to that? Yeah. So, the the trees that were blocking sight distance, the applicant went out and cut those down. Um I think that was actually September that they did that October 20th under a permit, not just randomly up and down. We applied for a ride away permit to

And who gave him that? It's part of it was part was a condition in the sea dot access permit that those trees couple of those trees had to be cut down to provide the sight distance line and so they were working under the sea dot permits in order to cut those trees down that land there um around that curve pushing towards the railroad is is seed dot rideway and so that's those were cut down probably should have been done years ago so with those down we've uh the the sighteline is adequate and um that that fulfills that term of the of the permits. [clears throat] There are others that still have to occur. Thank you. You're welcome.

Can I make a comment?

Um is it public comment? We're we'll we'll get to public comment here in a little bit. Well, the reason for uh the reason for me chiming in is I was unable to access this meeting until just now due to the fact that the Zoom meeting link which is publish uh published on the Lake County Commissioner's calendar is incorrect. So many people that want to attend this meeting have been unable to get into this meeting due to that incorrect link. When you click on the link, it says uh waiting for the host to arrive and that was all the way up until five minutes ago. So this has uh been unfair access to this meeting that other participants would be here if it weren't for this um mistake in the uh presentation of the link to the meeting.

Thank you. Yeah, we were trying to figure out where the where the Zoom link was incorrect. Yeah, we believe it's correct on the agenda. So if if Mike you're talking to others or they're communicating with you, we've been trying to communicate with the people that were trying to get in, which I I think pretty good job at, but people

there there are a lot of people that would be attending this meeting, I'm sure, that you all may not even be aware of. And when you go to the um the calendar and it it indicates this is the Zoom link and you click on that link and it takes you into Zoom and it puts you in a waiting room in which it says we're waiting for the host to arrive. One is just sitting there thinking that this meeting has been delayed. What's going on here? You know, we've had so many issues now with lack of proper notification, lack of information being put out to the public. This just does not feel right. I I feel like this is just another thing to add, another bullet point to add, which is keeping the public out of this discussion.

I guess I would revert to you as to what our situation is at this point. I mean, there's always going to be people who can't attend meetings for whatever reason. Um, certainly there was nothing intentional done uh to limit public access. Uh, you know, but the the link is incorrectly posted. Can you Well, Mr. Woodland, I'm going to ask you to please Thank you. You've you've spoken and we understand the frustration. It It's not been incorrectly posted. It was correct on the attorney. That's the important part. Okay. Thank you.

Um for those of you on Zoom who have their names, iPhone 7, Zoom user, any of those, please um if you can go ahead and type in your full first and last name on there so that we have that for public record, please. And to the extent Mr. Woodland makes further comments, he can do so during the public during public comment.

Yes. All right. Well, back to the presentation because there's a lot of material that's um being talked about tonight. So, I want to keep us moving. Um and I want um and raised a good point. After the public hearing on April 28th, we did produce Adam produced for for the county that safety study. And so, that's been the primary focus of new information with CO as you've just heard. So the the second issue we're here to talk about tonight has to do with noise and so I'm gonna a noise study was commissioned by the applicant and Ben um with Lumiki is going going to present on that. So if we could go to his presentation

we have a little bit of traffic but I'll go through that quickly as well because those are the two topics. Yeah, I wanted to do both of those things before we get to kind of the approval criteria and conditions. [clears throat]

So, I'm going to start just talking briefly about uh gravel market and partially our belief that having a gravel source within the county is not necessarily going to change the overall traffic in the county. Right. So, there's certainly a traffic increase on the county road onto Highway 24, but a majority of the uh specification materials like wash materials are coming from out of county up Highway 24 as it is right now. And so while we do obviously acknowledge that there's a chunk of county road which will have increased traffic, it's unlikely that having a second gravel source changes the overall demand inside the county. So that's what these first couple slides are about. Um and so there is uh there is a gravel pit in the county [clears throat] uh operated just north of it near the county pit. However, that that site is uh not using washed products. it's producing a different product stream. So, you can't make concrete uh out of it, for instance, or or meet some of the other specifications. Um the other one, just to make sure we're everyone's clear on it, is that what is being uh applied for is the ability to process and sell the m the gravel material. So, right now, the gravel is mined, it's processed, gold's removed from the gravel, and it's put back in the ground. that some portion of that material would would get processed under this application into specification gravel products. So, road base, screen rock, washed rock, wash sand, all the components for building blocks of the roads and homes and sidewalks. uh it's not likely that mining of new resource just for making gravel is in the plant because it was going to go through the gold processing units anyways which is essentially a large uh wash plant. Um [clears throat] sometimes also the production of gravel is imagined to be

this large very longreaching regional piece but the average price for a ton of gravel is pretty low and so the cost to send it uh really limits the distance that it would go to. Right. So, we're not it's not going to Denver. Uh it's probably not even leaving the county. Uh because your cost to haul something's quite expensive and so uh there's there's a radius around it where it becomes uneconomic to go past that. So, roughly halfway to the next grapple pit or something like that. [clears throat] Um these are just some of the slides. The county pits are generally dormant. Uh there was a pit uh up towards Tennessee Pass which is closed. Uh there's a 110 which

the Titan Mining are now giving their presentation. Please make sure you're all muted on Zoom. I think you can do a mute all.

There is a 110 permit which is a limited impact permit uh that's part of uh the River Park Recreation Access. it's not really uh used for public material supply. There's obviously a slag reprocessing uh permit which has gone through and that's in the slag piles south of town. Um and then Pine Ridge which is an ACA site uh which is uh has a fair amount of imported specification materials uh and then is producing uh road bases uh on site.

Yeah. [clears throat] Um, everyone probably in this room is well aware of where this is. Uh, the next slide. Predominantly what's being mined for gold is on the margins of the historic dredge piles. So the dredge piles are the big rocky piles that you can see from the road. Those were processed by floating dredges historically. The material that's being processed now is on the edges of that which was either unaccessible to the dredges or uneconomic at the time the dredges were running. Um, and what's gone on previously since 2018 is that the material is dug up, run through the plant, put back in the hole. Um, and so some portion of that material flow we would like to process and put into the local markets rather than to just put it back in the hole. That's a aerial view of the same thing. the boundaries on there. There's lots of limitations on this site related to wetlands, historic mapped areas, and so there's constraints on what can be mined. Uh, in fact, we can't even reclaim historic dredge piles that are too close to the uh historic buildings because those are included within a historic designation area. And so there's a fair number of rules as to what can be mined and and where. So I think some of this background was done the first time. I'm sure there are people that work here then. Um moving to the noise is probably

uh so we'll move towards the noise report. Um you can skip that. We've talked about it. The gravel. So noise. Um there are two governing standards on the noise. And the reason there are two is that the county has its own noise ordinance and the state has a noise ordinance. And there are different portions of either time or [clears throat]

uh noise spectrum that govern. And so in some ways the state is uh more restrictive and in some ways the county is more restrictive. Um and so in the case of the modeling we follow the most restrictive requirements. Uh typically the requirements are met at the property line and so you have to meet uh a DVA standard on the property line. However, in the case of residential, the modeling takes uh takes place all the way at the house and drops it to residential level. So there's a limit at the property line which is the industrial or the industrial line and then at the houses there's another modeling step that occurs. Uh the decibel system is a little bit tricky. So it's logarithmic. So uh 60 dB as compared to 70 dB 70 dB is 10 times louder than 60 dB. So it's a little bit tough when you look at the number. It's hard to in it the difference between those two, but a drop of 10 is really 10 times as much of a drop. And so that's just to sort of keep in touch. So we had um Sirhon Acoustics did our study. We typically use them in uh very tight areas on the front range where there's housing developments immediately on the property line. And so we use very similar techniques to that. Uh one of the major techniques is to keep uh earth and berms or stock piles in between the noise generating source which would be the crushing and screening operation and sensitive areas like residences. And so that comes from that study resulting that we need to keep the plant behind uh BMS if they're getting close to that southern boundary where most of the residences are. Uh and that's included in the conditions of approval. Uh things like having that burm in between it. It also has limitations on processing hours. uh and then areas that where we have to keep noise constraints in check uh in the maps. So if you can slide to the next the next slide. So that's what you're

seeing in here. There is a noise compliant operational area which allows for mining within that area and processing particularly because that's one of the noisier parts uh must occur within that space. uh reclamation activities and burm building activities can occur outside of that uh as part of the protection against noise. So if if the site was to move closer to the hedge, we could go outside that green boundary um and then build [snorts] a burm to provide additional noise protection if that was uh required. It's not anticipated that that's going to be required. Most of the operation takes place on the north end. Gravel sales, gravel processing would take place on the north end. that gold mining is going to take place where the gold deposit is uh but within those boundaries. Oh, sorry. Could you just slide back? Just uh as I referenced before, those green dots are home sites. The number beneath them is the modeled decibb. Uh so 55 is the limit. Uh for residential uh 50 is about um seven times lower than 55 uh when it's not on a decibel logarithm scale.

10 scale. Uh next slide, please. Oh, and sorry, forgot. Uh, I'm trying to rush through this so we don't spend anyone time. That blue boundary is not us. There is another plaster mine with permits that's allowed to operate in the county uh called Willow Creek. Uh, not us, adjacent to us. And so there's sometimes confusion that that's all the same person that's not all the same person. So the noise changes. uh rather than beeping back up alarms, there's an alternative that makes sort of a swish sound that [clears throat] reduces the uh carrying distance of the noise. So, it's not as disruptive to the surrounding area, but still meets uh OSHA and amure requirements for sufficient backup alarm noises. And so, the uh site is switching would switch to those. Um the max the noise source power levels that is to say that we would be using modern uh processing components that meet the noise standards. Um the orientation of the grizzly and dump truck filling um is going to be tucked away from things. Uh all sailable loads. So any of the finished products for sand and gravel would be loaded onto highway trucks uh on the far north far north end of the property where you can see a couple of office trailers right now. Um the 20 foot tall noise barriers between processing and sales area. So you'd put the plant behind piles so that the plant didn't have line of sight to anyone's home for uh noise impacts. Um the updated hours of operation for gravel processing. Originally the application um was looking at 6 days a week. It's reduced to 5 days a week. Um the earlier hours in there that 6 a.m. portion is just for startup of machines and warm-up

and safety inspections and that the there's a limitation in the condition approval for processing times as well as startup times. Um no hauling on Saturday or Sundays. uh and their operation the gra operations to remain within the green [clears throat] noise compliant operational area and this noise studies referenced in the condition of approvals and so is it bound into the county permit that was recorded with the county permit next please. Uh principal hauling will leave the site from that loading area kind of by the office trailers. It will go on uh CR 24A which is a short gravel road that's 100% maintained by uh the operation then north on CR10 which is covered by a road maintenance agreement with the county and that's that page section and then enter into the intersection with state highway 24. The traffic impact study anticipated about 75% of the trips going north 25% going south. on highway 24. Uh there's a cedar access permit issued uh for that site. Uh there is one clarification on the Kim Laaporn presentation. They reference 55 trucks as being the maximum. 55 trucks in the study is actually the annual average assuming sec six days of operation across nine months at a typical 25 tons per load. So that's a tractor trailer combo. And so uh limiting it at a max uh of that is probably of the order of 50% reduction from the 300,000 tons. But you'll see that in the conditions of approval that 55 come up again, but it's used in a different way in that condition of approval.

Clarify that you said 55 per day. We're we [clears throat] have to we have to save public comment and questions for the public comment period.

Yes. Uh, next slide, please. Uh, we've talked extensively about it. Um, the C dot access permit is at that intersection. That photo up on the top uh is from before the trees were removed. And you can see that they do block the site distance of that intersection. Um, the traffic volume uh is designed at 96 design hour volume. And the reason there's a little bit of confusion on the 55 is that uh the modern version of traffic access permits are based on peak volume impacts, not on total trips per day. And the biggest reason to think about that is is that you could take all of your loads in the day and send them out right at 8 a.m. or right at 7:30 in the morning when everyone's driving into work or driving into Leadville. And that's much more impactful than the total number that occurred during the day. And so the typical traffic access permits now are issued on peak volume impacts, meaning when the road is full, you can't push too many trucks onto the road. And so that's why those permits are ch the the language has changed. If you look at older permits, C.org, some county permits, they'll have the total trips per day, but that doesn't constrain the impacts to the community as well as having peak peak hour volume limits. Um so Titan put in the application, paid for the traffic study, paid for the design work, uh and has supported uh the county in the application. The we've been part of uh included in part of the meetings with Kimley Horn and SOT. Uh and mostly our goal is to remain compliant with the permits that we've applied for and been approved. Um, and so whatever those conditions of approval are, we're going to stick with. The next stage, if the county permits approved, would be to get begin formal design for the intersection, which would then have more review periods that occur with it, and that would give us uh final

construction details, including things like signage. Um, I very much uh like the idea of the having the blinking lights uh signaled off of actual trucks. I think that's a uh that's a very modern way to do it. It gives you warning when there's actual things to be warned about rather than just noise while you're driving. Um next slide, please. Um we look Kimley and safety study. I think it is worth noting that the one accident that was recorded in the last 5 years uh was a deceleration on the uh coming southbound and so that's where the rear end occurred. And so the additional uh deceleration lane might might have helped that specific accident. Um the site distance uh tree impact hazard was noted in the application, further noted by Kimley Horn. Uh and then we mitigated uh those concerns under uh under the rightway permit that was granted. I see that. Next slide. Sorry. Um Kim Horn did a better job than I could on this. I think they did a very fair and uh balanced approach. I think Kimley Horns uh was looking to reevaluate safety to ensure that everything possible was being done. I think their conclusions came in pretty accurately and then we obviously saw C do support of the conclusions. Um next slide please. uh tree removal [clears throat] occurred just prior to LA the last meeting that um was delayed for noticing uh issues. Uh those trees were removed under that permit. Um that I think it all happened within basically a day of uh removal of the trees from site under permit. Um next slide please. And that's the difference in sight distance uh taken before and after roughly a month apart. And so uh it is

probably a certainly a good safety improvement uh for those left-hand turns going into town. Um I think everyone always a little sad to see trees get cut down, but this is a these ones are just like fire mitigation. Sometimes trees have to get cut down to improve safety. Uh this is super important. Um I'm not sure if we need to ret talk about it or not.

I don't think so. So, we can hop through it, but part of the agreement with the county is that the the site acknowledges traffic impacts to county roads and that's taken care of through a county road maintenance agreement uh paid on a per ton fee. Uh the first portion of it p uh immediately addressing the paved section of road on uh of the county road and then any overage from that is contributed into the road and bridge fund for use within the county. So it's anticipated that it should generate additional funds for other county road repairs. Uh but the first place is to fix the direct impact from the site. Uh and then the gravel section of the road that uh gravel section is 100% on the operator for maintenance uh Florida uh dust of those items. So only the pave section is county maintenance paid for by county. The operator has responsibilities for the whole grave section of that road. Next slide. [clears throat] Um, yeah. So, this is traffic uh pieces that are in here. Um it would be anticipated at the full production that it would be about $150,000 a year to the budget with a portion of that applied to the actual road that uh is being traveled by the trucks and then the remainder available for county use uh for other road road maintenance. [clears throat] This is the list of permits that are in place or waiting to be in place. [clears throat] So the DRMS mining permits in place. The things that are open would be the gravel permit that we're here for today. Um there is an air missions permit in place. It may be amended as needed depending on the uh the way the processing is going to be planned once the permits approved. Uh division of

water resources. There is a gravel well uh and substitute water supply plan associated with water consumption on site. uh that augmentation plan is in process with the court water courts right now and it's uh purchasing water from PBLO uh in exchange for the consumptive uses associated with uh processing the materials. Uh no Army Corps of Engineers permits required. We're staying clear of their wetlands or their jurisdictional wetland wetlands. Uh and then no discharge permit because it's all uh closed loop circulation within the wash ponds. Thank you. All right, one more piece to the staff piece. [cough and clears throat] Go back to my presentation. So, what I want to touch on um are the approval criteria. As most of you know, there are nine uh criteria for approval that can go forward. Um let's just go to Let's see. No, go forward. Forward. Let's do that. Let's go. Let's go on. Here we are. So, there are nine criteria that the planning commission and the board have to consider when in an application like this to make a decision. And so, I'm going to pretty [clears throat] briefly go through these. we're sitting here a long time listening to a lot of information that is relevant here kind of this starts to tie it up. So um needs to be consistency with the comprehensive plan which the primary reason this is consistent has to do with the employment that's generated by the mining activities.

Can I ask a quick question on that? Is there a plan for those to be is there an actual plan to hire Lake County personnel to go run trucks or whatever you're going to do in the mining operation or those be shut the [clears throat] do you want me to answer that now I'd be up to yeah that generally the employees are local um I know that uh I know that the site manager I think his house is actually in Silverthorn but he commutes this direction Uh but then most everyone there is local on site uh as best we can. There's not a you don't have a hiring minimum or number goal.

I mean the goal is always to hire locally, right? It's the life lifestyle of having local people is a lot easier than having transient people working for you and any sort of thing. Um and so that's always the desire with that sort of setup. It's it's often tough, right? We all have employment issues in Colorado in general, but the mountain towns is even worse. Um, and so desirable you would hire as many local folks as you could possibly get to come do it. Um, we're going to let Melissa go through the conditions and then we'll be able to have questions before we open it up to public comment.

Okay. The second criteria has to do with compliance with the land development code. Um we talked in the first hearing about the the it is inconsistent with the RUR but that the existing COP was approved under um the A forest resoning and so that's what we are honoring in this case. Um and the other portion of that just has to do with that they have they have um submitted all the necessary paperwork and done all the necessary studies for this application. So we can go to three. This gets into a lot more of the meat of this issue which has to do it has is there adequate public safety and transportation for this application. And so we've talked a lot about that tonight and in the previous night. Um we know that there's an access permit um associated with this. We we've talked about the the safety study that has been done to look at it. We we've got seed dot here speaking to it. So a lot of analysis has gone into that and we acknowledge the complexity of the safety issues here. Particularly we we've got a road that is you know US 24 is not county jurisdiction but the county does have jurisdiction over um a cup application. So the the effort is to figure out have we adequately um addressed the concerns of safety for this intersection to allow um the cop to be approved. So, um, that's number three. Number four has to do with public health, safety, and welfare. Again, I think public health has a lot to do with the noise issues and the safety issues that we talked about at the intersection. So, again, that noise study was done. That study went into great detail about um how it meets the the noise generation will meet

the decibel levels at the property line. But we know noise isn't isn't that simple. I've heard with heard from many many of you about you know what it's like to live around this mining operation. You know we're looking at a gravel mine operation that has not um the processing of gravel anyway and the hauling of it that hasn't occurred yet. So the study helped give us some direction on how to mitigate that. And so condition number 12 which I will talk about um really ties that study to this uh cup and the approval of the cup and also condition nine which has been talked about where we removed Saturday as one of the um days that they can call this gravel. And so I think both of those things are going to help reduce um the the impact. You know, again, the question is, is is that enough? Does that really address adequately any detrimental impact on on public health and safety? So, let's go to number five and six. Um, it says in harmony with surrounding uses. You know, I mean, [clears throat] again, this is a complicated issue in many ways because we have a we have this kind of industrial operation happening next door to large residential area. And so again, um we believe that a lot of the noise mitigation efforts move us in the right direction. the safety analysis and some of the strategies we've talked about around that have um helped begin to reduce some of that impact. So um and and as well as the intensity these things really kind of roll up into one level of discussion. Um and and these two issues really are I think the primary issues related to the impacts

the external impacts that this application will have on the community and the roadway system. So are the the mitigation measures as we talk about in the conditions where they [cough] adequate. So again that's condition five and six. We can go to seven. um will not result in traffic congestion. Again, um we we've been talking about that this evening. We'll look at one of the conditions that really sort of [snorts] gets into um reducing the number of trips, particularly in the first year, so that uh we can [clears throat] have some time if it's approved in the operations to see how it goes. Um what we haven't said very much tonight but that access permit does require a right turn in turn lane. So that there you know [cough] there is one ex uh auxiliary lane that is proposed and required with this application. You know that that's going to make some difference. Um like C dot said a left turn R lane would be the best outcome but there's complexity to why that can't occur. So again these are these are difficult criteria to meet in some ways and and to just sort of wrap our minds around it. So that there's no unnecessary scar on the land. again this they have to comply with the CRM permit and that permit a lot of that has to do with land reclamation so as they complete their operations in different portions the reclamation plan um is part of what they're required to do so that uh you know the scar on the land eventually will be less so and then number nine has to do with any natural man hazards and

again the mind safety these kinds of operations are heavily regulated and so they are required as part of the condition to maintain that permit. So I think the next slide has to do with the recommended conditions which um like I said early on u there there is an existing COP that's the file number and they are required to be in in a good standing [clears throat] there is a substitute water supply plan that they are working through the process of getting approved. it isn't approved um right now but that it is in process and it'll be required prior to their operations um the notice for any final adjudication augmentation water through Colorado law we want notice of that so that we are in the loop prior to any export of the salailable gravel they have to get an apen which has to do with air quality so there that is in process and um will be required to maintain. We talked about the access permit that's required to be maintained until the access improvements that right turn in is um constructed. Uh again the construction of the intersection is required prior to commencement of any of the gravel operations. So that construction will happen before they start hauling if [snorts] this is approved. Um, number seven, they commit to providing an annual report. And this is an important part of what ties all this together because that report is actually going to occur on a quarterly basis. It's how we'll know how many truck trips that and that they're in compliance with the truck trips that are allowed. we'll be able to collect the annual sales um and all the data that we need to really com

ensure compliance with C dot as well as the cup application. So that's that's an important one that they're all important. Um eight, a fully executed road maintenance agreement. We talked more about this last time, but that 50 cents per ton. Again, number seven helps us track that. So we we know how many tons are coming off that site and uh that money gets collected and and then eventually spent. So that road maintenance agreement isn't finalized right now. It's in pretty much final draft, but it needs to be approved prior to any operations. And the hour number nine are hours of operation, which again we talked about. Um and and you know there's any special events in Leadville. Apparently, these trucks aren't like overweight vehicles, which I think I found surprising, but it's designed that way and and so they will be able to use our detour routes as part of their operations. Number 10, should a bypass route ever be, you know, become feasible that they will we will revisit that the hall route uh in in accordance with whatever that bypass route looks like. So that would help potentially keep it out of downtown. Number 11, that one is just sort of a catchall for us in case something is said here that you know needs to be captured as a condition. 12 we've talked about as a part of the noise mitigation. Again, those A, B, and C come right out of the noise study. Um these things help you know ensure that noise compliance area that green area that you saw is part of um where they will be operating in that noise barrier. We didn't put the 20 ft but because it could be could be

bigger you know it could be different but the point is to help block um the that operation from visibility from the residential homes. So we we think that's a it was recommended and we're adopting it here. So and then the backup alarms, we talked about that. So we're getting close to done here. Um and so any road improvements that COP could require at a future time that while they're still operating could they would be required to contribute a proportional share of the cost. So let's say we get down the road so to speak you know 10 years or something and it becomes really apparent that that interception needs to be improved that they would be at the table and they would have a portion of that. We can only you know require what's what's fair at that point but um this condition allows us to ensure that participation. And then finally number 14. Um we we wrestled with [clears throat] this a long time but what we have done here is take um and limited the number of truck trips below what the access permit allows to begin with for the first year of operations. So that we do have this sort of startup period to look at how how's it going. Um, and we have opportunities through that road maintenance agreement and the reporting that's required to take a look at that at least on a quarterly basis. Of course, anytime CA has the authority to be able to say we've got to stop and look at, you know, should there be, you know, a terrible accident of some kind. You know, there are things that trigger

a relook at the permit. But what this does is say basically the trucks the trips are more limited for of the first tier of operations and it's based upon the traffic study that was initially presented to us. So those are all of the conditions and all of the criteria. So thank you for your patience.

Thank you. [snorts] Um, so I'm just going to start with planning commission and county commissioners if you have any question for staff or the applicant at this time before we move into public comment. One more question um relative to covering your trucks and I guess minimizing never eliminate it. rocks coming off your trucks as they're going down Highway 24 should be covered loads just like all the other roads. [clears throat] I mean, is it covered such that the the roads just like it would be a target? Yeah, we would comply with any state requirements

any of the state requirements for it. So that means [snorts] the trucks have to be on weight loss trucks have to be tarked if it's a required tarp load. um overwidth, over height, all those things just as if we were anyone else. Cool. Um for the scale of that 55 truck limitation, it's about half of the unlimited one. So if you took the other constraints of total tons and truck trips, that's 30,000. If you look at taking the average, which that 55 represents, the average across nine months, it'll end up being closer to a having of the total production of the site that first year. But we understand the need for uh the limit the county, but that's the scale of it. It's at about half.

We on that will you just remind me what is the seed dot permit limit? It is uh related to the peak hour volume. So it's uh 22 trucks an hour I think is the 110 total vehicle movements which is in and out and then a gravel truck is three passenger cars equivalent. So do a little bit of math there. [clears throat]

96 sorry 910 96 divided by three get you 30. But right now, if we're limiting it, I I just want to use numbers to numbers. So, if right now the condition is proposing to limit it to 55 trucks, what can it go up to based on the seed dot permit?

What could it go up to? It could go up to whatever that peak hourly amount amount is. So if for some reason all of it needed to all that gravel haul which happened in May, maybe all all 300,000 would fit within that seed dot permit if it was like right at the top. But the biggest part of the limit on up on gravel trucks is really in the morning where like everyone all those trucks line up because they want to get the first load to get to their project. That's coincides with identically with everyone's driving to work. And so that peak truck limit is placed at that hourly piece. So it's not a apples to apples. That's the problem is that in the in the traffic analysis study it says 300,000 divided by 9 months divided by six days in the week over 9 months gets you 55 as an average across nine months of college. And then that nine months is prorated across the months based on C dot tables and then prorated across the hours in the day by C do C dot tables to determine the traffic volume to be expected at the intersection. And then that traffic peak hourly traffic volume at the intersection is used to determine impacts to the quality of service at the intersection and the maintaining of the quality of service at the intersection on all of the turning patterns. The only turning pattern which required additional turns was the the deceleration southbound lane was the only required lane. However, additional safety studies indicated that and a left-hand lane would be great, but it doesn't fit in. And so, but it's all of the application we've followed all of the rules to put in the application for it and have not asked for any variance from any of those. Mhm.

Um but the the extra 55 limit was at the request of county planning staff uh because I wanted it to be less well and it's 110 trips. So it's 55 out and 55 in. You get to 110 and the permit is issued at not average single day average single day. So our application was average their limit is single day. And so the difference is our application put in the word average. Average is being taken as

limit. I'm not trying to confuse anything. That's how it's laid out. I if it was our preference, we would just adhere to the C dot traffic permit and the tonnage. It's unlikely that we will hit that peak tonnage because it's a it's a market demand issue, not a there's not an unlimited market for selling ground. But theoretically, instead of talking about an average C dot requirement would allow you to do 22 trucks an hour. Yeah. Okay. That's all I'm trying to say. Yeah. Yeah. I think continuing on of that, because the example you gave was 6 days and now going down to five, does that mean that there are more trucks being allowed because there's now less days?

There's not any more truck there's 20% less trucks allowed by limiting today. So again, that limitation, even if there isn't the additional limitation of 55, we're still limited to 300,000 tons annually and then the peak hour volumes required from CEO. And on top of that,

there's another one that's takes the number which was an average and turns it into a max. So it's essentially gets continue to cut down. So that that and but that one gets released if everything stays okay after the first year that 55. Um and that's a comfort issue for the county. Um it's unlikely that that number gets hit anyways. Um because it's market driven, you know, depends on how many houses get built in the county. Big decide. The real the real risk is the 22 per hour the sea dots per house. That's the real risk here. Yep. That's the big that's to me the safety and impact community that is the principal limitation

is maintenance with that and that's why the way the reporting language in the COA that I know that Ann worked very hard with us on was to make sure that the applicant was required to submit the sufficient data that we can show compliance on a daily basis that we never let 22 trucks leave or 23 trucks leave within an hour window. And so that means timestamped scale tickets, scale tickets that have total tonnage on them for ship tonnage to under the 300. And so the reporting characteristics of the COAs are super important, right? Because there's lots of limits based on different math. If the applicants not providing the sufficient data due to math, then it's very hard for the county to see if they're compliant or not. And so Ann and Melissa worked with us for a very long time getting that wording right on the on [clears throat] the language. It has to go on the reports.

Okay. Thank you. [cough] Uh any other questions for um planning commission or county commissioners? You can go.

Okay. on on criteria seven about the conditional use will not result in traffic congestion or hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. The applicant responses the study concludes that increased hollage will have little to no impact to the traffic on surrounding roads. [clears throat] So right now there's zero gravel trucks hauling on County Road 10. Now there's going to be 110 on average. I I wouldn't classify that as little to no impact based on the criteria of a access permit and the service level of the intersections. There's little to no impact except for the uh southbound acceleration lane which requires an improvement. So the only thing that we could statistically measure or or measure results in a little to no impact except for southbound deceleration.

Okay. And then Mark from C DOT [clears throat] began by saying it's the opinion of C dot that there should be a southbound acceleration lane, but it just can't be fit or done economically. So there there's not going to be one. So to me, that's a compromise in the traffic congestion at the intersection of 24 and 10. That's a statement. That's not a question. Um, just said, [clears throat]

"No, you meant southbound." It's very difficult to make that turn if there's a vehicle in that intersection already as is. If it's a assembly line, that makes a big difference. And there is a real plan on the I have to ask you to please respect the situation. If we all start talking at once, we will be in here until midnight. And I really don't want to do that. I will promise you that you're going to have two minutes to talk. Two minutes. Everybody's going to get their two minutes to speak. Um that's not enough.

And that's the process. Um if it's not, I apologize. you're welcome to write into staff any additional comments that you may have. Um, but this is where this is where we're at. Um, so if we can continue, we'll make sure that we have time to keep going up. [clears throat] Number one, point number one, the approval criteria. Next slide up there. There. Um, so this is a question for you. Um, forgive me, but could you help explain to me what some of the benefits just very quickly would be by approving this that would go back to the community?

I I think the most immediate one would be local aggregate supply for construction. Um, the the price of hauling in gravel from Buista is not cheap. Um, that's probably the most impactful that the community would feel. There was there is employment on site right now. There would be some additional employment for the gravel processing. Um but probably the biggest one is is supplying construction materials for roads, homes, sidewalks, uh public infrastructure. That's always the number one reason why you have a gravel pit somewhere near development, right? Is that we consume it.

And from what you said earlier, it becomes unfeasible and unprofitable the further you take the gravel out. Yeah. So, you would the price point of gravel, it feels real expensive when you're building your own driveway. Yeah.

Uh, however, the a lot of the expense that you feel coming to your driveway is is the addition of the hauls from the gravel pit to your house. It's often uh doubles the price, right? If you had your own truck and got loaded to the gravel pit, half of that price of getting it is getting it delivered. if you double the distance of getting it delivered. Now, twothirds of the price of that gravel is the delivery charge versus the part. And so that that's how you would feel it as a community would be a reduction in the holage cost to building a gravel or gravel road or something like that. But if you you know, if you're like, "Oh, we're going to haul it to Denver." Well, there's gravel bits in Denver that are a lot closer than there. Um even if you're to say haul it in some county, there's gravel supply in some county already. um you probably don't get over climax pass

um before the break even point or the cost of hauling the load goes there. Same thing goes going into Eagle County, right? Is that there's pits in Eagle County that can haul in a lot cheaper than that. So the limit is an economic limit that this is a local supply um bulb commodity that is highly impacted by holage cost. Got it. And I'm just this is a a statement, you know, just looking at all the people in the room. I'm sure for personal reasons that they don't necessarily want a ground to put right next to their house. But I just I think back on

all the things that we have done and made decisions on in the past and how other counties have basically come used our resources and we've been left holding the bag. And when the plan was said to, you know, hopefully we intend to hire locally, you know, for me that just that kind of hits home where I hope that that is a big emphasis because the external people coming in, they use our resources and then they're gone. And and I do think that the site predominantly is local employees that are [clears throat] coming here. Um, and the desire would be to hire locally.

Okay. I think one of the reports said it'll increase the employment by one person, the operator of the crushing plant. So, one person one or two. Okay. A question. Yes. And are there any operations in this county that have 100 10 truckloads trucks a day? um under a similar permit. Um Slack, we didn't that I I don't have that number um with me today, but I I don't think that their volume is as high as that, but nothing in operation right now.

Okay. So, again, I think and ACA I don't you know, ACA also holds um CB as well. Um not to the best of my knowledge. I don't think that's something that you've looked at is that um what what those um volumes are. The most recent one was Slag and I know that volume isn't quite as high as this, but I I I don't I can't verify either confirmed or deny I wasn't aware that AC ACA ACA imports spec gravel. I'm not that they they permit anything in this county.

They do come back to the board of county commissioners whenever they pick up like a C dot um contract and ask for an extended um trucking a different volume of trucks. So they have done that before when they've had like a seed dot permit or something like that. They've come back in and asked for readjustment. Okay. I have another question from [laughter] an applicant. I know that the studies show that the noise will meet requirements. Will the crushing operation increase the noise level above what's currently occurring at the gravel path?

It's not likely to um because the crushing and screening is occurring on the far north end of the property. So, it's further away from the mining area is closer to the homes where the ground where the gold and buring ground is. Um, for the scale of a pit, just to give reference to it, a 300,000 ton max limit pit is would be a typical limit that you'd see uh serve anywhere on the western slope. Uh, even in small rural counties, it's often that limit. Um, and the reason for it is that you occasionally have like a highway project where you have a large consumption in one year where paving 24 happens and then it drops back down to much lower levels on on average. But you wouldn't want to go through four years worth of hearings for a seed project that lets in 12 months. Um, because we've been at this process for about four years to get a gravel production permit with the county. Um but the number of 30 300 is a very typical uh rural county uh size permit in the study and this is also you guys as well. Do we have any hard numbers on if this is approved the gravel that is being used ultimately put back into the county and the community will reduce operational costs here here or by this perception of that?

No, we don't have anything quite like that. But I will say that I I do believe the swag unless permit is about half of it. It's around 150,000 tons. And no, we don't have any kind of concrete. It's a competitive market, right? So people will be buying what they can afford and when it's available. And so it's difficult to say exactly how that's going to play out. as like the 300,000 they may or may not ever think that

it's just it's it's call me crazy. It's just it's concerning that we don't know that because of that is the benefit that is going back to the community maybe just having something in that area. I I know

I think it is constantly changing um of what our local demand is. I think it certainly fluctuates um but it's not necessarily a planning um review that we would do within the scope of the code to you know because that [clears throat] is obviously a variable. Um obviously if there's I think the bigger picture would be to consider um the cost of trucking and that you know reasonably these materials are used locally but what our actual production is um from these other uh sources or how much different materials used locally. I think um Michael Irwin is joining us um too. I don't know if Michael has an idea of just from um uh his experience in doing public infrastructure what kind of local um tonnage is used but that's just not just that's all I had feel free to open it up anybody else has anything um commissioners

I was just going to say like a typical rule of thumb [clears throat] it's probably worse now than it was a few years ago about 25 cents a ton mile gravel and So for every mile that your gravel travels to use is about 25 cents. So it's quite quite a big penalty to have to haul it a long distance and that comes from you know it's roughly 100 bucks an hour for a dump truck and you can get 22 tons on one and you can drive travel at a certain speed. So that's like a reasonable thumbs up sort of number to get an idea for what that is.

Yeah. And to then turn and equate [clears throat] that monetarily. I think it's just really hard because our market even just for construction has changed so much over the last like seven years that there's no there hasn't been enough time for an average. It's gone up and down and now down and so it's just kind of like I think it would be I think you could get one consultant to say one thing and another one to say something else and I don't know how much weight we would really be able to put on that um just from that variable. If we were a very consistent market of construction then I think it might be a little easier and especially if they grab a pit shut down and we were replacing it'd be a lot easier to figure that out. I just don't know how we would do it here and how there be numbers that that at least I would feel like are valid. You know, I think it' be really hard

probably big create that. It's probably not going to be a huge river, but there is a benefit. Any uh questions from county commissioners? None for me. Thanks. I've got one. I've got two.

Do it. Uh first question, would you have the ability to make road base including a class road base? And the second question is the ACA pit closes at 5 and they want you in there at 4:30 or you're not getting served. So they're basically open from 8 to 5. So that second part of the question is would you be willing to to reduce your hours to five and uh and start at 8 you know 7 to 5 instead of what's 7 to 7 now and then just for the record uh this is a statement I've been to ACA a lot this summer they'll have whole whole days where there aren't any trucks so that that come and buy gravel. So, just a quick statement there. Thanks.

Thanks, Matt. Was that aimed at us? Some of those questions.

Uh, as far as the materials produced, uh, it would be ever whatever the market was asking for. um from landscape rocks to uh road base uh wash sand uh C is it C3 sand per septic fields whatever is that the market demands um I think the hours that we worked on are what we'd like to stick with they're less than previous than asked for already we dropped out a day and dropped out hours off of them already I don't think we're super interested in reducing further Sure. Um, is there another question that was in there?

No, that was just to you. [clears throat] Um, I think I think Commissioner Lee said no, but um, Commissioner Tharp, did you have any questions before we turn it over to Okay, sorry. Thank you. No. Yeah. Okay. Um, I have a checklist or sorry, signup sheet here. Um, has everybody who is in this room had a chance to write your name on here? Please add my name to the list. My name's on the list, but I want to speak. Oh, just write a guess next to you. Okay.

I'll probably go through everybody's name even if you said no, just in case you changed your mind. Um, and then for those of you on Zoom, um, I still have an iPhone 7 on there without a name. If I could get you to rename yourself. Um I will go through um the people in the room first and then I will open it up one by one for Zoomers if you have any public comment. Um if staff can be our timer for two minutes. Um and again please um direct your comments or questions to uh to us and we will keep track of them and um we will then allow at the end of that responses from the applicant and staff. Um we don't need dialogue within the room. Um so we'll start with that. I have Jeff James. Um, members of the planning commission, fellow residents, my name is Jeff James. I'm speaking on behalf of my family and my parents, Jerry and Denise, who are property owners directly adjacent to the Box Creek Mine and 1499 Lake County Road 24. They couldn't attend today, but they are joining by Zoom. This we've lived with the impact of this uh of this mining operation since 2019, and we're here to urge you to deny conditional use permit 2403 for its expansion. We fully support the detailed opposition letter and the letter that we submitted, the one that was submitted by Paul and Meredith Teranova on September 3rd, 2025, which methodically outlines how this project fails every one of the eight approval, which now more criterion that were added tonight um that were that were presented. Their analysis is spot on. This expansion contradicts our community's draft values from the ongoing comprehensive plan update like our connection to nature, nurturing our roots, and caring for our neighbors. It

also is imposing a crushing noise dust that has impacted our indoor air quality as well as as well as the outdoor air quality [clears throat] and those uh who are directly around us. It perpetuates a zoning error from the 2019 permit where the site was wrongfully classified as an agricultural forestry instead of a rural and making gravel processing a byproduct of prohibited mining. These studies are incomplete and flawed. The noise assessment ignores higher elevation homes multi-story structures like the one that we live in as well as the ones in Panarch potentially violating the 55 decel limit which was presented here today which I can guarantee you it is higher than that. I can hear it inside my home. can hear it inside my conference center and I can hear it inside of each of the cabins on our property. The traffic study dismisses the one that was presented tonight dismisses a number of things that are associated with it including but not limited to trucks waiting on the road on on Highway 10 as well as the traffic going through the city of Leadville especially not just impacting the dates of special events that happen in our in our city and our county but the adjacent or shoulder dates that are associated with those. It also does not necessarily appro improve any of the life or quality of the area. And I would ask these questions as my time is is in as based on the conversation that was happening today.

I have to sorry I have to cut you off. If there's somebody else who can ask your questions in there too. Yes, this gentleman right here can ask my questions. Um Ken Ken, he's here. You can just leave it as a yes. I will add it. I don't see Kenya. Oh yeah, I do. Okay. Increase. Yep. Go ahead. Increase in cost to manage the indoor air quality for residents. Question number one. [clears throat]

Does CEDA uh do any study for the traffic through Leadville? [snorts] What is the e economic impact for the increase or loss of tourism monthly versus an average of 55 didn't address the waving trucks on the road? Has the county thought about how they will manage the permit for the applicant's consistent compliance increase in expense to the county to monitor this and the 300 ton demand in Lake County. What is the 10-year average? Okay, thank [clears throat] you. And is it a county a commercial need or or public need your name to the record please?

Ken I have him on here. Ken Bay b a ye. Um all right I have Mark Tillery. U Michael Liry. Yes ma'am.

Um I am one of the green dots on the map. that this young man showed. And I don't know where he got his data from, but I'm going to play something for you if you don't mind. Excuse me one second. [clears throat] [clears throat] This is on my deck.

And I'll guarantee you that I'm not even the closest resident to the mining. Uh I'm going to approach this from a different viewpoint. Uh I assess the value of the homes on logical. lodge pole is the street is closest to the mining and the assessed values by the county is $10.7 million. Um that includes also two houses that weren't on that map uh that aren't part of the Panarch subdivision. One of those houses is up for sale and he has had two people per se come to his property and they soon as they heard the mining noise they left the property with no no I do not want to buy that property they asked what would you be able to do and they said maybe 15% reduction the average home on lodgepole is 767 $7,000 those 14 homes on Lodge wall. If you lose 10 to 15% on those homes, you're looking obviously over a million dollars

assessment or property value and that's just one street. Okay. I'm sorry your time is up, but I get I get the point. Thank you so much. Thank you. Um, Kathleen Larry, do you want to continue? No, I'm not on it, but I'm just concerned about the tourist traffic on the road. It's heavy. It gets heavier every year and them having to They don't know this area and that's what I'm I'm also concerned about other than our home. Yeah. Um, Ben Miller,

that's me. Sydney O' Conor or No, just Sydney Connor. Yeah, I don't have any comments. And I have uh sorry if I butcher this. Um Christian Barowski. Okay. Uh Warren Flint. Yes. Yes.

I have concerns with uh the traffic on um or the intersection. Um, how long does it take a fully loaded truck to clear that highway? 24. And you know, you get somebody coming down 65 miles an hour. How far away do we have to be? So, if they don't slow down, they can clear that truck or the truck can clear them. And are they going to be ging? There's Mount Elbert right there. if they're don't pay attention, are they going to pile into one of these trucks?

And that's not talking about the northbound ones that are coming to 65. And as far as noise, um I live in people like myself. The mining activity doesn't bother me, but I do go to lunch every day and the trucks on that highway, the diesels, you know, putting out their smoke. They'll be stopping, you know, in the summertime. It's not just the red light. It's the people crossing at the normal streets that are going to stop those trucks. So, they'll have to start up every time and you're going to get the fumes for the diesels. And again, a lot of the I won't say a lot. There's several restaurants that have outdoor seating. Yeah.

Um it's going to be a pain, I think. But I I think my main concern is the uh 10 and 24. I think the way it is now, sooner or later there's going to be a serious accident. It's all you. Thank you. [clears throat] Um Anita Mason, I said no. Okay. Joan Weber, that doesn't happen often either. Well, sometimes people change their mind, so I usually just go through the list. June.

Okay. From from what I've heard here tonight, there have been no solutions for the traffic at County Road 10 and 24. No real concrete solutions that solves the traffic problem. Am I wrong? I mean, have have and without that solution, I don't see how you can even consider this. Secondly, who is out there at the mine, the gravel pit and all that monitoring to see that everything's being complied to? Because I know it's not. I mean, already they have a weight thing out there to weigh their trucks with rocks in it. And this hasn't even been approved, but it makes you think, well, what's going on here? But I mean and a lot of comments coming from you sir are very vague like we can probably do this or maybe that or may

likely it's likely I mean that doesn't work. We need facts and we need guarantees about what's going on here. If but to all the people who are voting on this, if you care about our community, you will not pass this. And I'm not just talking about Panark community, but I'm talking about

Leadville, the whole Lake County. This is going to affect. Yeah. kids walking through streets, they don't look to see that there's a big old truck coming. I mean, it's it's dangerous. So, I urge you to vote against this. Okay, Jackie, I assume you're here for something else, but I sure am. Okay. Um, David, stop.

Yeah. Um, sorry for interrupting earlier, but we're getting railroaded and our our county elected officials, commissioners, you need to stand up for the people that have already invested in [clears throat] this county. This will affect the entire southern half of the county. It affects our property values. It affects our air quality. It affects wildlife migration habits. What's going to happen with the elk? What's going to happen with the analopee that routinely migrate across that road? I've had numerous encounters in the 25 years I've lived in Panark. The noise is already intolerable. And I don't live close to the mine. I live well into Pan. It goes from sun up to sun down, including in June, the longest day of the year. That's ridiculous. I urge you all to vote against this. Protect your neighbors. Don't sell out.

Okay. Thank you. Um Mark, and that two minutes is not long enough. I'm sorry. You did great. You It's all right with No, I got a lot more to say. Mark Bunell. Oh, that's you. That's you. Sorry. Um, Peter Day,

I'll address both noise and safety. The staff report states that the conclusions of the noise report have been added as conditions of approval. That report recommended a 20ft tall noise barrier. However, condition number 12 amidst the 20 foot tall requirement. The requirement should be reinstated. Onto the 24 and 10 safety study. The staff report states that the staff remains concerned that the traffic hazards have not been properly mitigated and believes that these safety concerns remain compelling. Risk will increase for the number of vehicles using the intersection. Three traffic safety studies and the applicant have previously assumed only 110 trips per day. Condition 14 introduces phased read that to be increasing traffic operations that only begin with 110 trips per day. This is new. The assumptions used in the traffic studies will no longer be valid. County staff would be allowed to approve the export of 300,000 tons of aggregate per year with no constraints on the number of trucks using the intersection intersection as long as C do DOT's 96 DHV limit is met and there are no additional safety concerns. A significantly higher number of trucks in the intersection has not been previously considered. This waiver could be approved after just one year of operations with no year with no guarantee and in that first year 100 trips 110 trips per day had even occurred. County staff should not be empowered to wave the trips requirement. If the applicant wishes to increase trips, it should present additional studies and seek BOCC approval. As a point of reference, a condition of the slag aggregate CUP approved in 2022 is the BOC must approve any increases in truck trips. Condition number four should be a limited and only 100 trip 10 trips per day allowed. Finally, negotiation of the road maintenance agreement should proceed BOCC approval of the CUV. The BOCC should understand final terms for C CUP approval. Condition 8 should be revised. I hope you have read and considered my more comprehensive written comments. The CUP should be denied, but if there is to be

approval with conditions, conditions 8 and 12 meet work and condition number 14 eliminated. Okay, thank you. Finn McN uh Salem some that's me. Thank you.

Um [clears throat] I'm here to talk about an aspect of road safety and noise quality that it I haven't really heard addressed yet is the impact on wildlife and how that affects not only wildlife but human safety in regards to it. Uh, according to S DOT, Lake County, just last year had 12 wildlife collisions just reported, not the ones not reported. Um, and through 2010 and 2014, they had 183 related to wildlife collisions. And that's before adding all this traffic into an area that is highly important for both elk and mu de mu deer migrations. um with the the animals involved, they're extremely um set in their migration routes and they will try to cross whether there's an increased amount of traffic or not. And if they try to move to a quieter place, there's no telling where they could go and what part of the road is going to be affected from there. You actually had an interesting question about stopping speeds. I have I have things printed out. I can leave them for anyone who's interested. did a couple of studies and some maps. And according to one study, a vehicle traveling at 60 mph has a stopping distance of 145 to 172 m after the driver first detects, in this case, an animal in the road. This is a longer distance than the detection distance afforded by most vehicle highbeam headlights and all vehicle low beam headlights. In other words, at this speed, most vehicles are outrunning their headlights and drivers cannot avoid a collision unless the animal or vehicle moves out of its current path. This also applies to giant trucks turning onto a road where the speed limit is 65 miles an hour. And as for reducing the speed limit, this same study finds that reducing the speed limit does not affect wildlife collision rates because people, as it was mentioned before, will drive at the speed they think is safe,

not what the speed limit says. And as for noise quality, uh animals are highly impacted by this. Thank you. [laughter] Betty. Okay, George. Oh, no. He answered my he asked my question. Or he stole my question. Our or pretend planning commissioner.

Um, okay. Zoomers, hopefully y'all know how an iPhone 7, you're still iPhone 7, I guess. Um, if you have public comment, I would ask that you raise your hand and then I will call on you individually for your two minutes. We'll give you a minute to figure that out. Down at the bottom there's reactions and that's where you can click to raise your hand. Carrie Slifka, I am one of those green dots in that boundary on pan on um Lodgepole and the noise is ridiculous in the center and you know we were there this last two weeks ago and it was so early 6 in the morning I could hear the trucks and they woke me up in the house with the noise and the beeping. It's just ridiculous. The traffic increase like Joan and Mike have talked about in the summer. There is so there are so many cars that are using that road now to get up to the forbay and all the camping that I can just see a collision waiting to happen. So the noise from where I am, the property values, you know, I don't want my property values going down anymore. Just like Mike, it's ridiculous. You know, we shouldn't have to

deal with property value decreases because of a gravel pit or not being able to sell our house like the Luths because of the gravel pit and the mine. We should be able to sell them and get fair market value because that's why we bought out there for the quiet, the pristine, and the nature of the area. not to listen to trucks and gravel and crushers and noise consistently that do go past their aotted time in the evenings.

Okay. Thank you, Carrie. Uh Laura Flynn.

Yes. Uh thank you for letting me speak. I have three points. I just want to reiterate that I had given the county commissioners well over 500 signatures earlier. There would have been more, but the uh we were trying to make your first meeting which was pushed back four times. There would have been more than 500 signatures of the citizens. Uh and these are people that voted for our county commissioners and we expect our county commissioners to protect us. Uh number two, the noise sample. I sent a noise sample to the county commissioners to listen to. I would be happy to provide that to any of you that would like it. It's only 1 minute and 33 seconds long. It is from Miss Slipka's phone and from my phone, an iPhone on our decks. And you will see it is the same as Mr. Olir's. Very, very loud. Uh, and it does bounce off the mountain, even amplifying it. And number three, the whole cost for gravel, I mean, versus 20 years of this noise does not even compare. I will pay two or three or $400 to get gravel hauled in if I have to. There are three other pits around here. We don't need another one. I appreciate it and I would love to know if you would like to have that sound sample. I will reach out to Melissa if you would let her know and I will send it to you. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, Laura. [music]

I have Clara and Steve Kern. Yeah, I just want to say that uh my wife and I have been residents of Panard for over 40 years and uh never thought we'd have to deal with something like this, but uh several of the uh the residents have already spoke and brought up very valid points and uh I think the biggest thing for us is uh the noise as well as the safety. When you pull out onto County Road 24 and and you're going up over that overpass, you can't tell me that those trucks are going to accelerate up to speed in a reasonable amount of time. They won't accelerate until they're going down the other side of that overpass. Uh so that's that's a half a mile away from where they pull onto the road and I I can't see any way to make that safe. Uh the other thing is uh which was talked about is the noise but the noise is such a u such an issue at that altitude. It travels well beyond u

the normal boundaries. So, uh I don't think their BMS are going to help. It's just an excuse. Uh and we would uh urge you to uh definitely vote against this. [snorts] Thank you. Okay. Thank you. S Mike Woodland, can you hear me? We can. Yes.

I urge you to vote against this proposal. The applicant stated the supply of construction materials would be the primary benefit to our county. The detrimental impacts to the county and residents far exceed the benefits. To me, it's a no-brainer that the supply of construction materials should not come at the detriment of health, safety, and welfare of residents and the people who visit Lake County. Air quality would be impacted by dust, emissions, exhaust from constant flow of heavy trucks and equipment. Noise and air pollution from this operation including 110 trucks, sound of heavy equipment and machinery, crushing, vibrating, etc. This noise pollution would change the environment from pristine, quiet, and peaceful to dirty, noisy, and unbearable. The noise would be detrimental to humans, wildlife, the environment, Leadville, and surrounding neighborhoods. Water could also be impacted in the area. Vibrations and shaking, even if only detected by monitors, have impact on humans, wildlife, vegetation, etc. A seed dot stated, "There are no effective ways to handle traffic congestion, safety hazards, serious fatal ha hazards will exist there." As a realtor for over 30 years, I can attest to the fact this operation will negatively impact the desiraability and demand for Panark and surrounding neighborhoods, which will result in a decline in property values, taxable revenue, and possibly even trigger foreclosures and tax payment defaults if people can't sell their home or land and can't pay afford to pay for higher taxes. This proposed operation is

in direct contrast to all of the land use of the surrounding site. It is inconsistent. Please, I urge you to vote no on the proposed project. Thank you. Thank you. Um I will I don't see any other hands up on Zoom. Are there any other Zoom public commenters? Might I just ask when you will be making your decision? I'm sure a lot of people wonder.

So the process for this evening is here in a minute. If there's no more public comment um and no more conversations between planning commission and the applicant, we will close public hearing. We will deliberate and presumably make our motion of recommendation to the county commissioners. Then the county commissioners will take that recommendation and presumably hear it at their next county commissioner hearing which would be it's not scheduled right now. Okay. Can I make one clarifying question? Yes. So even if you don't approve this permit, it changes nothing about what is currently happening. Correct. If you have any

continues as it is now. Yes. If there are any complaints that perhaps that existing permit has violations, those are things that you would want to take up with the county. Okay. Um any other is there any enforcement mechanism within the county? For instance, noise the current noise. Well, any any enforce or I'm sorry, any complaint I mean the county operates and I'll let staff answer that maybe better than I will.

Um Gabe, I'm happy to answer that question. So, we are complaint driven. Um we have an enforcement part of community planning and development. So, we receive a complaint from the community. We do investigate it. um the existing conditional use permit does have to remain in good standing and there are conditions of approval for it as well as those um decel levels that are also um have to uh be in compliance. So if we receive um complaints we do investigate those open cases. You investigate

where did there's also enforcement. the conditional use permits by their very nature um have to stay in good standing or we take it before the the board of county commissioners for a due cause hearing for potentially revocation of those permits. Um so there are depending on the outcomes and the finding of the board there is very strict enforcement on conditional use permits. The reason I asked is because um I'm sorry I forgot your name,

but you kept talking about putting the toothpaste back in the tube that um you mentioned when you're going through your list, you mentioned a number of times that we can always go back on this if we find that they're not in in compliance. We can always take the permit away or we can we can deal with this. That is the due cause. Okay. And I'm wondering how that works because I don't see it. I don't see it. I think you're blowing smoke I think you're blowing smoke up our ass when we

Okay. I think if if there's questions about that process, I will ask you to take that up with staff. Um outside of this hearing, but that is, as Ann explained, that is the process that the county takes on. If there's a complaint, they investigate that complaint. if there's findings that they're um not in compliant with their permit, then they bring that to the county commissioners for a hearing to potentially revoke the commission use permit. I believe there's even been one revoked in the past um since I've been on here. But that's that that's the process. If it needs changing, then that's not tonight's conversation. But that's the current process with

No, but what is tonight's conversation is whether this vote is approved or not. And that should certainly be a factor in your decision making. All right. On whether that you can actually get compliance from this company because that has not happened to this point. Okay. That's why I bring up the history. [clears throat] Every single person talked about the noise. Thank you. I did write that all down. I promise. Um, any questions from county commissioners or planning commission or the applicant before I entertain a motion to close the public hearing portion of this? Yeah. Thank you.

None from me. Okay. None from me. Okay. Great. Thank you. Do I have a motion to close the public hearing portion of the of the meeting? I so move. Um, real quick, can I can I address can I could I have someone address to me the fact that the link to this meeting was not correctly posted on the calendar because there would be many more people speaking out against this project um had that link been posted correctly.

Well, it was posted correctly. The legal notice is the agenda under [clears throat] the Colorado open records or open meetings law. And the the agenda had the correct link. The fact that some people were clicking the generic link, you know, I think we're all sorry that happened, but certainly we took a lot of steps to mitigate it. The uh hearing was stopped for a number of minutes. Uh you folks could have reached out to other people during that time period if you knew other people were trying to access. They could have joined the meeting. They could have commented. You know, they literally had an hour to do that.

But the calendar gives the link to the Zoom meeting. That link is incorrect. You are directing people to a dead link. It doesn't say it does not say in the calendar to go to the agenda for the correct link. You've got two completely different links and people are going to go to that calendar and click on the link that you say is the link to this meeting. We understand your concern, Mr. Woodman. It's been heard. My legal opinion as the county attorney is that the legal notice to this meeting was proper.

Yes. And again, we're sorry that there was a there was confusion with that. It certainly was not intentional. Trust me, we didn't want to continue this any longer than anybody else. Um Kevin Ker, you're kind of coming in right after we've already asked for public comment, but I will go for it.

Thank you. I just want to second Mike's point. Um, I understand that you're talking about whether the notice is legal or not, but um, you also have to maintain an appearance of impropriety and, you know, look like you're trying to do the right thing by the community. And, uh, Mr. County Attorney, your response doesn't show that. and you know the way the board and the planning commission is responding to that concern doesn't show that appearance of impropriy along with everything else that's going on. So I just want to make sure that's you know super clear to everybody that yeah you have legal notice but it really looks frankly shady um that you're doing it and the way that you're responding to people who have concerns about this. So thanks.

Well Kevin I'll respond then. Um I have I don't know how many people sitting in this room um who have come to this meeting and we've had to continue it I don't know how many times and to stop this meeting and forward it to a future date because one of the Zoom links online was incorrect and not intentionally incorrect um felt like it would be a far bigger disservice to the people who have put the energy and time into this application this evening um than to continue this to yet another date. So, I'm sorry that the link happened that way. I'm not sure what else we can do about that. Um, but at this moment, I think that the the most appropriate move forward is to continue with the application. I think there were so many points heard tonight and several of them are repeated. So, I'm hoping that everything was covered in that public comment. Um, and I appreciate the concern.

Thanks. That sounds a lot like you're catering more towards the applicant than the people that just Kevin, we had county commissioners that could not also join. That's great. The residents of the community that voted for the county commissioners and the people who put the planning commission in place are the ones that should really, you know, have and make sure that everybody's aware. Would not the county commissioners not also be able to join? Yeah. Elsa, [clears throat] go ahead. Okay,

thanks so much. I just wanted to follow up about um what attorney Matt Hobb said. I and has just been noticed. I had a hard time getting on as well, but um I reached out and found somebody to help me get on and I always have my phone available. Nobody texted or called me. These are public hearings and I am happy to be available to help people with technology problems. So my phone number, email are all very available publicly and people can reach out anytime if they're having a technical difficulty. I totally hear that it's a bummer and um you know we we should just reach out to each other to help make sure we're getting access to the public process. So people have any time.

Thank you Elsa. Okay. Uh there was a motion to close the public hearing. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Any discussion? Okay. All in favor? I. Okay. So, at this point, um, you're all free to still sit here and listen to us deliberate. We just cannot communicate or take any additional comment. Um, but you're welcome to sit and listen to us deliberately and make a motion. And staff have one item for county commissioners. We do have another public hearing this evening. Um, I promise to keep it very short and sweet, but we do have one more. So, we'll just need the the county commission. Yeah, we'll have to get the county commissioners [clears throat] back on. We'll have to text you here in a little bit.

Understood. [snorts] Okay. So, we'll just give them a quick minute to exit the meeting and then we can start deliberations. Okay. I think they are all three. Thank you. Um, who wants to start? Start. [laughter] I think the

Sorry, just had one more time. Not me to interrupt you, but earlier um you had asked a question about a um a local finding. I just want to at least um provide that, you know, those findings need to be met locally and and not really um they're not under the jurisdiction of what C do might find out about an you know their findings may be about an access permit. So I just wanted just a point of clarity that that our land development codes are specific to local findings.

Not remembering what it was that I asked. you had asked a question about um a finding whether there was any vehicular pedestrian um safety that hadn't been addressed and yet the applicant answered that it was based on the seat's findings. Oh, right. Okay. I just wanted to highlight that those are should be based on local findings. Okay. Thank you.

All right. So, um, lot of studies, but I don't think that the study's conclusions and even though they meet code and state requirements aren't really addressing a couple of the key issues that the community is concerned about and hundreds of the community and I'm concerned about also. I I drive County Road 10 every week and I know that intersection pretty well and I I don't want to throw around phrases flippantly, but I I think that is a critical aspect of this. And if if it can't be addressed in a way that C dot's happy or I shouldn't say happy that doesn't include their preferred solution, I don't think it's an adequate solution.

Yeah. I mean, I'll I'll go a second. Um, I wrote down a handful of things. I mean, I think on one hand, you know, there's been some things like I like the fact and hopefully regardless of the this turnout, the backup alarms change and, you know, having that right hand return lane or um, sorry, um, the right hand turn lane um, for southbound, man, that needs it so bad. um whether this application goes forward or not. Those are are some of the things that I see there. But I um I have a hard time with 6 a.m. I have a hard time with starting out with 55, but could go up to we don't know. Um and and to you know some of the other points um who's out there counting that per the high traffic volume hour per the you know who's doing that math out there. Um, I have a hard time because I do believe that, um, having this material for our community is is a really huge benefit. Um, I think that if you know ACA does move forward with their, you know, their potential planned, you know, drop in size andor um, you know, running out of material over there. Uh, you know, that just increases our building costs even more than they already are. And so I can I can um sympathize with that and appreciate that that could offer some huge benefit for our community um to have that material local um, road bridge, all of those things. I just I have a really hard time reconciling the the um the detriments to the benefits um of this particular location. Um I understand that work is already being done so why not just add this extra there is something there but uh in my opinion a gravel pit

needs to be located somewhere else within the county. Um, and that's just a tough it's just a it's a really tough location there. I can appreciate the County Road 10 is become much busier than it ever has um over the last several years and I think that is a a concern even just that dirt road portion of it. Um, so yeah, I mean I think the the 8 to 5 p.m. thing is my I just can't even imagine 6:00 a.m. to 700 p.m. um noises. Yeah. Uh I don't know. There's a lot of a lot of things there. I don't know that the road maintenance agreement um amount, you know, I think $150,000 sounds big, but I mean how much I don't know how much it costs per mile to repair a repaved road, but it's more than that. So, um yeah, those are just my spewing thoughts out loud.

So, my thoughts were from day one was public safety and I don't think C do has addressed that adequately. Um, I understand the reg rules and regulations, but that's a disaster waiting to happen. And I I can't consciously vote yes for something that's in my mind I know is going to happen. There's going to be a death. There's going to be a family killed. Our traffic is not locals per se in the summertime. It is tourists who really have no understanding of this area, what's going on. and I can't consciously vote for it just from a safety standpoint on Highway 24 and 10.

I'll close this out. Um, love your presentation. Thank you. Um, but respectfully echoing all these things that have been said, I cannot in good faith move forward with something like this. Unfortunately, where you guys have found gold is in a location that raises more concerns and red flags than benefits. And while I respect the fact that you guys are thinking about the community in the sense of having the gravel stay local, I can't help but think in the back of my mind that it is about that goal there. And when we think about our comprehensive plan, there are there are things that are not being abided by in that comprehensive plan that go beyond just noise safety. Yes. But when we think about what the community ultimately looks like, preserving the natural resources, the wildlife impact that was mentioned, that is a very real thing. Um, and I think the the final nail in the coffin for me is just hiring locally. You know, Climax, it's not near any residential homes. There's no sound problems. They have everything figured out from a safety standpoint. And here's the real kicker. They employ approximately 400 people locally, 800 people across the state. We have a gravel pit. Would it be unfortunate if ADA had a minor inconvenience? Absolutely. But I think it was Matt or Andy. I don't know which one it was. There are days when he's there, nobody's around. It's not like we're overflowing with demand either.

And I hike that area right by Mount Elbert Forbay. And I can empathize with what's being said about the dust. That dust is real and we're right there and it's being kicked up and I can only imagine what it will be like, you know. And the thing that was not mentioned [clears throat] um finally is any of these prophets, you know, these are real people. I look at them and they got a lot more wrinkles on my face. They worked hard for everything that they have. They've been here a very long time. And to take a hit financially, that does not help our community at all. It would be different if the pit was there first and then people decided to build homes. That's not the case.

No. And that is a real problem. I mean, we're experiencing that um uh for sure with uh with real estate sales in that area. It's already becoming a concern um with with the current operations in place. So, um ready? I'm ready. Ready for a motion?

I think we all know. I move that the planning commission recommend denial to the board of county commissioners of file 2403 conditional use permit application for the processing of aggregate material produced as a byproduct of Titan Gold's plaster mining operations and the export of construction materials. The location is 8.5 miles southsoutheast of Leadville, north one half of section 3, 4, and five, township 11 south, range 80 west, and the south half of section 32, 33, and 34, township 10 south, and range 80 west of the sixth principal meridian. The planning commission further finds that the approval criteria pursuant to Lake County Land Development Code section 3.1 3.6.1F have not been met as evidenced in that staff report dated April 28th, 2025 for file number 24-03. One, that the proposed conditional use is not consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies contained in the Lake County comprehensive plan. Two, that the proposed conditional use does not conform to the requirements and provisions of this code. Three, that adequate public safety, transportation, and utility facilities will not be available to serve the subject project while maintaining sufficient levels of service for existing development. Or that the proposed conditional use is likely to be detrimental to the public health, [clears throat] safety, or welfare of county residents or to cause hardship for neighboring persons. And five, that the proposed conditional use is not consistent with and in harmony with neighboring land uses and future intended land uses in the area. Six, that the proposed conditional use will result in overly intensive use of the land relative to the surrounding

area land. Seven, that the proposed conditional use will result in traffic congestion or hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Number eight, that the proposed conditional use will unnecessarily scar the land on which such use would be located. Nine, that the proposed site of the conditional use is not and will not be free from natural or man-made hazards or that such hazards can and will be adequately mitigated. Do I have a second? Second. I [clears throat] don't know how material this is, but April 28th staff report But it didn't say November 10th staff report.

Okay. So just maybe amend that. Okay. November 10th 2025 staff report. And I'm I'm thinking that a couple of these can be stricken from the motion. Um, so you are amending your motion to include the staff report dated November 10th. Yes. Of both staff reports. Okay. Can you second him? I second. Any discussion on the motion? Okay. Roll call. Ryan Hill here. Steve Stevens here.

Um, sorry. Dave George here. Just doing a We're trying to do a vote on the motion. Sorry. Sorry. We'll call a vote, please. Ryan Hell. I mean, I thought, you know, here here, you know, like that kind of works. So, I deny. Oh, deny. Yeah. Well, you're eyeing his motion. Yes. Um, Steve Savings. Deny. And Dur.

Hi. and Heather Lindai. Um, okay. So, this is just our recommendation. It goes to the county commissioners where they will make their decision on whether they agree or disagree with our recommendation. This will move us into file. Just just one point. You might want to clarify for the record because it's fully transcribed and the I deny thing is a little when you read it, it'll be really confusing. So, the motion is on the table that you approve his motion. You're voting yes or no to his motion. I approve his motion to deny. Yes. Ryan Hill. I approve his his motion to deny his will. Okay.

I approve. And I approve. Okay. Okay. Take a 10 minute break. [laughter]

Yes, we'll take a 5 minute break. 5 minute break. I just I need to Okay. Okay. Welcome back. We will go ahead and open up file 25-34. I guess I need to do this is the land development code amendment for Proposition 123. The Lake County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners will now conduct a joint public hearing. The statement I'm reading shall be incorporated into and made part of the record on these proceedings. The planning commission and the board of county commissioners have jurisdiction to conduct a joint public hearing on a land development code amendment under section 3.8 of the Lake County Land Development Code. The purpose of this hearing is to consider whether the proposed amendment should be approved. In considering the matter, the commission will address the approval criteria set forth in section 3.8.9 of the Lake County Land Development Code. The procedure to be followed in this hearing will be the county staff will make initial presentation. After that, any persons either supporting or opposing the application may present evidence. And three, any supporting or opposing witnesses may be questioned by the commission or the board. Once com questioning is concluded, no further questioning is permitted unless granted by the chair. The parties and witnesses are asked not to submit redundant, irrelevant or cumulative evidence. If someone has already made the point that you wish to say, please simply say so. The chair will also require that all comments be made to the planning commission and the board and that there be no dialogue between the applicant and members of the audience. At the conclusion of the evidentiary portion of this hearing, the chair will entertain a motion to close the evidentiary portion of the hearing and the commission will discuss and weigh the evidence. Then there will be a motion to close the discussion phase of the joint public hearing. The board of county commissioners will then leave the meeting and the chair of the planning commission will entertain a motion on the application. The motion may take the form of one of the following recommendations. Number one, approve the application with no conditions. Two, approve the application with recommended conditions. Three, approve the application with newly identified conditions. Or four, deny the

application. The planning director shall make a record of any substantial discussion on the motion and include that in the record with the recommendation of the commission. The commission's recommendation will be in the form of a statement of motion. Are there any objections to the jurisdiction of the commission or to the form or substance of these proceedings? Hearing none, county staff may make it presentation. Thank you so much. So, I want to talk to you a little bit about Proposition 123. It was approved by the Colorado voters in the general election in 2022. Um and what it did is it created um affordable housing programs. Uh things uh created uh grants and loans available to governments and nonprofits for programs like home ownership, land banking, um planning, homelessness programs, um just a variety of different uh housing projects. It took um up to.1% of the state's exa existing uh state income tax roughly 300 million dollars to fund these programs. Um so um in order to participate you had to for to be eligible for these funds you had to make a commitment um and that commitment requirement was to increase your existing housing stack by 3% um with either new affordable housing units or renovation to the creation of existing houses into what would be defined as um affordable housing units. Levelville and Lake County together uh did an IGA to um make that commitment. The total amount of our commitment to realize that um 3% annually um is 46 units that we have to bring on board by the end of next year. Um and that's shared equally between the two jurisdictions. So 23 a piece and you'll recall um that the 102 project um in

unin to itself just that project has 25 24 units of affordable housing that meet these requirements under this statute. We are also required to have a fasttrack approval process. Um and so we have to introduce that into um the Lake County uh development code and into concurrently is being um introduced into the municipal code in the uh city of Leville. And there is an incentive for us to adopt this code by the end of the year um which will result in a $50,000 additional funding that we'll receive if we are doing that. So that is kind of why we're bringing this to you now and wanting to further um the goals associated with our housing needs assessment and the 102 projects uh the Laura parcel just all of the different housing projects that are currently going on in the county. Yes, your question.

The $50,000 is if the fasttrack approval process is done and in place that's in addition to anything else that's being received. Y got it. Yeah. It's just that it's just a $50,000 incentive to to get your fasttrack done by the end of the year. We're required to do it anyway. Um because we signed up for Prop 123 funding. Um and locally what that means so far to us is that we realized $980,000

for the uh housing and tin 2. Um so we're already realizing the benefit of that in our capital staff for affordable housing. But the second part of meeting our obligation was to fasttrack certain types of land development applications. So this code amendment is looking to define what a affordable housing unit means. And so we have to tie that to what the statute defines that as. And that's 100% um uh individuals will come in and buy these [clears throat] units who earn up to 100% of the area median income or less. and that they're spending 30% of their um gross income on their inclusive amount that they're spending on housing. So that's their principal, interest, homeowners um and uh utilities and and homeowners associations, things like that and taxes. So um if we are uh that defines this hasn't previously been defined in the land development code or the municipal code. So that would be part of what we introduce into um the code and this will define what a an affordable housing unit is under the

[clears throat]

uh statute for Prop 123 funding. And there's a there's a little bit of a nuance here. So typically um Prop 123 is available for 60% AMI for rental units. However, Jackie applied for and we were approved for a petition to raise that AMI because we fall more in that role resort type of economy. And so um we were able to raise this to 100% of area and median income or less just based on the cost of living in our area. Um, so that was really beneficial. But you will see there's a caveat in here that it is subject to whatever our status is on our petition AMI with the state because we have to redo that annually, but there is a possibility that could go back down to 60%.

Um, another question either by under what circumstances would it necessitate going from 100 down to 60 if if our application to the state or petition to raise it would not be approved. It has been approved but we have to reapply on an annual basis. And um if so the 23 units per jurisdiction have to be built by the end of 2026. That's correct. And the ones that you mentioned for the 102 are in the city.

That's correct. So, how is the and what happens if the county can't do that? So, I think that there there's so it's we're not getting just credit for the those units, but we also get in um credit for anything that is um renovated into our existing housing stack. So like all of the units that the county built on built or excuse me bought on Elm Street, all of those multi-units when we've done major upgrades to those, they can be counted as part of our commitment under there. So there's there's a lot of different um projects that we feel like it's fine and then what is what happens if not?

Um that's a really good question. I think that if we don't make that commitment that we could be subject to having to look at at the funds that have already been given to us. No.

Yeah. So there's there's no there's no if if we don't meet the commitment then we just can't get the funding for the next cycle. We have to sit down a cycle. Got it. We can reapply in three years. So the funding cycle is three years. Um so we we have applied for and opted in for this cycle which ends at the end of next year. Um the the AMI petition raising our AMI coincides with that and then there's there's no downside to it. Got it. So assuming assuming that that is met for 2026, the application again will be for uh 27 8 and 9. Right. Okay. Right. That'll be twoear cycles. So there's 3% over.

Is that also applicable for the fasttrack application where if this window is missed, you're out for the whole cycle. What we miss is the $50,000 for for getting it done this year. So, if we don't get it approved, you know, this year, then we can there's still some time next year perhaps. Um, but but really this is what we're trying to get that free money if Gotcha. for for this calendar year. Okay. [snorts] And that's and it's a one time thing because you're changing the code. Got it. Okay. So, one approval and then

um so expedited review. Um, and what this means is, um, so first we've defined what, um, affordable housing projects meet. Um, but in order to be able to get an expedited review through community planning and development, the projects have to come in with 50% or more of the total units qualifying under this 80 100% AMI for either home ownership or for rental. Um, and then there's also the ability for under the statute for the applicant or the county to need some additional time. The applicant can ask to wave the 90-day review if they need additional time. Uh we as the county if we find out that an application as we're going through review some substantial information comes forward and additional review time is needed we can ask for that information and then we can extend it up to 30 days. Um but an applicant can ask for a 90-day extension or they can actually wave it to so either thing. Um so these are the only types of land use applications that this will apply to. It doesn't apply to subdivision or planned unit development. Basically, because our statutory obligations under the review process and the due the public hearing process with those types of applications, we couldn't possibly meet this expedited review. Um, so the only permits that this applies to are conditional use permits, site plan reviews, building permits, and variances. So again, they have to come in the project as a whole has to have 50% affordability. It has to it has to meet all of those other criteria. It has to meet the AMIs. And if that's true, then we commit to processing it within those time frames. So, it doesn't it's not going to hit um conditional use permits are obviously a

board camp commissioner's decision. Site plans are um your decision on site plans. Building permits are internal and then variances are adjustment. So those are our deciding bodies on each of the different processes. But again, this does not apply to PUB, subdivision, um reszonings, those kind of um decisions and processes. So it's pretty minimal. Um that your conditions of approval of course for any code amendment is that you're consistent with your comp plan and any other adopted or acknowledged plans. So particularly this code amendment is um aligns with both 2.14 and strategy ENF of the existing comp plan which is um goal 2.14 is promote the development of diversity of housing [clears throat] types providing for residents and different economic and housing needs and giving Lendville and Lake County employees the opportunity to live affordably close to where they work. And strategy E, work with regional, state, and federal housing entities and developers to expand the inventory of affordable rental housing in and near Lville. And then strategy G is evaluate affordable housing needs based on the HUD affordability standard. Housing expenses, including rents, mortgage, and other utilities should not cost more than 30% of household income. So it directly aligns with comp plan. It direct it aligns with the housing needs assessment which I also pulled out in the staff report and just talked about what that final findings were um with the amount of housing that's needed in our community um which is develop at least 160 rental units with AMIs [clears throat] ranging from 30 to 80%

and 80% um to 120%. The goal needs to be paired with an affordable home ownership program for local renters, which would free up a share of existing rental units to contribute to housing needs and then develop at least 260 new home ownership units affordable to 60 to 140% EMI households. Um, so those were all findings in the housing age assessment. Sorry, what was the math on that really quick? Sure. It was um you said 160 rental units and then what was the other one? 260 for single family for new home ownership. Yeah.

Got it.

Yeah. So those are our two um thresholds that uh our housing needs assessment really elevated for us in their finding. So this particular code amendment aligns with that goal and um also the purpose um that is just within uh chapter one of the [clears throat] uh land development code which really talks about encouraging implementation of the comp plan and the adopted land use and development policies that are consistent with the code and um maintain and manage growth in a way that improves the county's quality of life and maintain and promote stability within the county's neighborhoods and agricultural areas and predict uh promote predictability, consistency and efficiency in the process for residents, neighbors, businesses, agricultural and development opportunities. So really it aligns with all three of those particular policies and plans. And then basically this is kind of at the heart of what all of these housing amendments are meant to do. It's really here because of changing social values planning concepts or other social and economic conditions. It speaks directly to what what the basis of this um amendment does and it does overall promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. So what this proposal does is just creates a fasttrack um ability to take in affordable housing projects that meet those thresholds. I can't currently tell you that I know of any that we have nor any projects. [clears throat] Probably the only one that came close that was a PUB was the silver keying redevelopment application. It wouldn't have been eligible for this.

that keeping in that in mind when we have a a project that comes in that has deep affordability in it that we can all generally see would be um an advantage to our community. We're absolutely going to prioritize that that application and try to get it through the process as quickly as possible. But this is a statutory obligation. So we want to meet that in part to receive that $50,000. also to just be in um compliance with Prop 123 and the opportunities that it currently has provided to our community and may um provide in the future. So, there's been a lot of Yes.

Does the 50 grade go to housing? Yeah. Oh, it's just part of that bucket. Okay. I didn't know if that was being allocated for something specifically in conjunction. I will say that actually um that's what we believe it will event that that's how the money I believe will come to us from DOA. So I think there will be strings attached to it but that that it will be already earmarked for that. A quick question too is is there a is there a streamlined process you defined already?

Um you know I would say that not that's been within the code. I think our policy within our department or our uh typical operating procedure is to try to move things through as quickly as we can. Um when there's elements that we see a um strong benefit to the public health and safety and welfare. So that's adequate for the for the state to give you $50,000.

Yeah. It's almost it's honestly almost a model code. It really is. They defined they defined the housing unit for us. They decided it's in statute this 90 days. They give the exception for the adjusted time frames. So, you know, it's already predetermined for us. We're just implementing into the code basically. I think that answered my question. Forgive me if I'm trying to steal parts of the elephant and understand this, but to Steve's point, so the state has a fasttrack process already and all that's being done is we are saying we are going to implement internally. Got it. Okay. way to say it if they define they give us the parameters defined in statute

like you said it's a sounds like a win so a quick question then one more question as a followup so does that include presenting those things to this board yes okay yes okay

it does so um two of those have significance for you the site plans and the conditional use permits we're already ahead of the game um in most most jurisdictions have separate public hearings for their board of their planning commission. So, this streamlined approach of having a single hearing um you know, we're we're way ahead of a lot of jurisdictions that are trying to figure out how to manage two public hearings in that time frame. And so, we already have an advantage. I I don't see where we'll have any problem. And I would say, you know, generally in those two processes, those are the timelines that we're already trying to meet. Honestly, we're always streamlined.

We're always trying That isn't a conditional. It's approval criteria. There are no conditions. Oh, no. These are Yes. These are the approval criteria. I'm so sorry. These are the approval criteria. What amendments. I think if you read the Okay. So, we don't have public comment anything like that. You can absolutely open to public comment. I go back and she open to public comment. You've heard from staff. So now you can definitely you should go ahead and open public comment and take [clears throat] um if anybody in the audience would like to speak take notes on.

All right. So Heather had to leave so I'm going to take over her role for the remainder of the meeting and open this file up to public comment. Are there any public comments on Zoom attendees? Okay. Hearing none, seeing no hands raised, I think at this point we can call for a motion. Go ahead and take a motion to close the public. Oh, okay. Can I Yeah. motion. Can I get a motion to close the public a motion comment? Second. All right. All in favor say I. Do you need a roll?

No. All in favor? All in favor say I. I. Okay. Passes. Now we can entertain a motion. One second. Commissioner Dart.

So y'all, hey, I just wanted to give an update about this from a commissioner's standpoint. Um we're having conversate commissioners across the state are having conversations about this um uh the criteria the 3% growth and currently municipalities and counties cannot jointly consider all the work done towards meeting that 3% growth. You can't consider those two efforts together. But we are trying to change it legislatively in the next legislative session to be able to have counties and municipalities combine their efforts to try to meet that 3% growth rate. So just wanted to let you all know about that.

Elsa, I have a follow-up question to that then. Yeah. Does that mean we can double dip and get more funds since we can't, you know, have city and county uh ultimately count towards that 3%. So the city and the county both [clears throat] can apply for this. Oh, so the city is already So we can double dip. Mhm. Wow. So it's $100,000, right?

Yeah. So the the city will be eligible for this opportunity as well. and they are concurrently um they've already had their first reading on their um proposed code and so they are looking to adopt for the end of the year also. So what's nice about the what's nice about being able to combine efforts is that they you know it's a 3% is a lot to accomplish for a small city like Leadville and a small county like Lake. So um yes we can double dip. will still be able to double dip, but um we won't have the same time pressures because all of our efforts can be considered jointly in the future if we get the legislation passed at the state um at the state level.

And forgive me if I'm wrong um Elsa and Jackie too, there's there's a lot of discussion around the 30% um um cost burden as well. Yeah, we're I mean I'm trying to bring that up in every single meeting and um I think that especially for mountain towns and rural towns that 30% is it's just not the same um barrier for urban areas. So, so one of the ways in which we can really push anything through the legislature when it comes to Prop 123 is issues that affect everyone who's using Prop 123. And so the 3% um calculation [clears throat] is where we're finding a lot of nexus with different types of counties. But I am bringing up the 30% and our you know our mountain communities are hearing that and champion championing it as well. But I just don't know if we're going to be able to get that changed this year. I don't have a sense of the the legislators yet. Awesome. Thank you so much Elsa for that update. That was really helpful. Um so yes, this could, you know, potentially there's going to be movement around this. Um but this um checks the box and um we meet the deadline and we can continue working through and and the benefit for the board to receive that $180,000. This funding is pretty exciting. Okay, that's it for Do we need to close the discussion phase or we just go ahead and move? Okay,

no. So, I make a motion. I move the planning commission recommend approval to the board of county commissioners for file number 25-34 an amendment to the Lake County Land Development Code adding expedited affordable housing view to sections 3.1.14 processing cycles code adding expedate expedited uh affordable housing review to sections 3.1.14 processing cycles 3.3 building permits application and processing requirements 3.6 6E conditional use permits procedures for review and action 3.15.3 site plan review and action 3.21.4 for zoning variances review and action and adding affordable housing unit to chapter 9 definitions and further find a the proposed amendment shall be in substantial compliance with the express purposes of intense goals and policies of Lake County comprehensive plan and any ancillary county acknowledged or adopted documents pertain to natural resource protection affordable housing infrastruct infrastructure management or any area specific community plans and of this code. And B, the proposed amendment is necessary because of changing social values, new planning concepts, or other social or economic conditions. And C, the proposed amendment will promote public health, safety, and general welfare.

Do I have a second? Get a second. I second. Okay. All in favor? I. Thank you. All right. So, can we adjourn the meeting? Okay, I don't see the time, but 7:14. 7:14 to adjourn. Oh, motion to adjourn. I make a motion to adjourn. Second. Okay. All in favor? I I Thank you.