CC Minutes - 01/16/08 Joint Elected Officials

Home Browse Search

they receive since the record is closed and they should avoid any types of ex parte contacts. He indicated state and County staff received a letter concerning the process. He added because the record is closed, the letter is not being provided unless they vote to reopen the record for all participants to submit additional testimony on the issue. Howe explained in regard to the Goal 5 process and general steps, Step 1 deals with the adequacy of the post acknowledgement plan amendment application and the information provided. He indicated that both the city council and the Board determined that sufficient information was submitted by the applicant for the application to be considered adequate, allowing the determination of site significance and the minimization of potential conflicts under the Goal 5 Rule process to proceed. He explained that after they conclude there is adequate information to proceed, Step 1 asks if it is a significant site. He added after Step 1 it moves into steps that are potential impacts, and if those impacts could be minimized. He said if they can be minimized, then the site should be protected, justifying the plan amendment to protect the significant Goal 5 resource. Howe noted there are two characteristics considered when determining significance. He said one is quantity. He said an aggregate resource site shall be significant if there is 2 million tons of the resource at the site and if it is in an area where it is an expansion area and in agricultural soils Class 2 or better. He added if more than 35 percent of that mining proposed area is Class 2 soils, then it has to have an average thickness of aggregate layer within the mining area of 60 feet. He noted that both the council and the Board concluded from the record that over 8 million cubic tons of material is present at the site, an amount well in excess of the 2 million cubic tons requirement. He added that the findings support the conclusion that an adequate quantity of the gravel resource exists on the site to meet that step. He noted the average cumulative depth of the aggregate layer is 70.5 feet. With regard to quality, Howe explained that the quality of the resource has to meet ODOT standards. He noted those are standards that are specific for highway construction and the record shows that the methodology used to acquire and analyze the resource sample followed the industry standard and was conducted in a manner that supports the conclusion that the quality of the gravel resource meets the threshold designation as a significant gravel resource site under the Goal 5 Rule. He added that the analysis of the gravel at the site was peer reviewed by both ODOT and DOGAMI and the representative samples used in the analysis of quality are in the record. Howe stated the Board found there was a significant site, meaning both in quality and quantity. He said the council found the site was significant from the standpoint of quantity but not quality and through a straw vote, the city is at that step. Howe reported Step 3 is minimizing conflicts. He said there were seven potential conflicts that had been identified in the record. He reported that under the Goal 5 Rule, conflicts are considered to be minimized if they meet the local, state or federal standard. He added that most of the conflicts have a state standard. He indicated the conflicts were traffic, groundwater, wetlands, flooding, agricultural practices, dust and noise. He noted the next question in the process is whether any of the conflicts extend beyond the 1500 foot impact area that is required by the rule. He indicated the answer by the County was no, the 1500 foot impact area was measured from the boundary of the proposed mining expansion area and none of the potential conflicts were determined to extend beyond the 1500 foot impact area. He recalled that the Board determined that all of the conflicts could be minimized to acceptable levels and or minimum thresholds through the proposed conditions attached to the County ordinance. 2 MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page Joint Elected Officials Meeting