Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mayor Piercy noted that the Eugene Planning Commission had indicated by a 3:2 vote that it considered <br />the site to contain significant material and the Lane County Planning Commission had indicated their <br />feeling that the site was an inadequate resource by a 4:2 vote. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asserted that the significance of the resource was important because it would be used to <br />justify and rationalize the loss of the “grade 1 farmland” and to determine if the expansion of the gravel <br />operation was “worth” the noise and dust to the agricultural and residential uses that were around the <br />property. She did not think the resource was significant enough to justify or rationalize the impacts. <br /> <br />Mr. Yeiter pointed out that the elected bodies had received more information in that regard than the first <br />hearings of the planning commissions had. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling asked how much of the area contained the “grade one” soil. Ms. Schulz responded that the area <br />primarily featured Class 2 quality soils. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling asked if the samplings had been conducted according to the criteria for such a process. Mr. <br />Howe replied that the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASTO) <br />American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) handbook had guided the determination of the <br />quantity and quality of the aggregate materials. He underscored that this was the journal/textbook for <br />conducting such samplings. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling said in looking at this as a civil action in which a determination would be based on the <br />preponderance of evidence that would be 50 percent plus one, given that three samples were taken even <br />inclusion of the one sample that had been conducted by someone that was not recognized as an expert <br />there were two samples that indicated the resources were adequate. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked what weight testimony from someone who was not considered an expert should be given. <br />Ms. Jerome replied that it was up to the elected officials to make a decision that a reasonable person would <br />make. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy called for a straw vote on the determination of whether the resource site was significant. <br /> <br />Straw vote: the vote on whether the resource site was significant was a tie, 4:4; Mr. Poling, <br />Mr. Pryor, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Clark voting yes and Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Taylor, <br />and Ms. Bettman voting no. Mayor Piercy voted no and the vote failed. <br /> <br />Mr. Yeiter noted that Step 3, which sought to determine if identified conflicts from mining could be <br />minimized to acceptable levels of no significant impact, was split into seven areas of potential conflict: <br />traffic, groundwater, wetlands and sensitive habitat, flooding, agricultural practices, dust, and noise. He <br />suggested the council address the impacts individually. Regarding traffic, he pointed out that a TIA could <br />be required at a future point as the area experienced increased development and the gravel operation <br />potentially experienced an increase in production. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor observed that it was questionable as to whether the application would affect traffic intensity. He <br />surmised that the application sought to extend the lifetime of the mining application and not necessarily to <br />increase production. He believed the potential traffic impacts could be dealt with at a later point. He <br />reiterated that as it related to this application, market conditions were not a factor. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 21, 2007 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />