My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 01/16/08 Joint Elected Officials
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2008
>
CC Minutes - 01/16/08 Joint Elected Officials
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/10/2010 10:27:52 AM
Creation date
2/21/2008 2:16:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Joint Elected Officials
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/16/2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
they receive since the record is closed and they should avoid any types of ex parte contacts. He <br />indicated state and County staff received a letter concerning the process. He added because the record is <br />closed, the letter is not being provided unless they vote to reopen the record for all participants to submit <br />additional testimony on the issue. <br /> <br />Howe explained in regard to the Goal 5 process and general steps, Step 1 deals with the adequacy of the <br />post acknowledgement plan amendment application and the information provided. He indicated that <br />both the city council and the Board determined that sufficient information was submitted by the <br />applicant for the application to be considered adequate, allowing the determination of site significance <br />and the minimization of potential conflicts under the Goal 5 Rule process to proceed. He explained that <br />after they conclude there is adequate information to proceed, Step 1 asks if it is a significant site. He <br />added after Step 1 it moves into steps that are potential impacts, and if those impacts could be <br />minimized. He said if they can be minimized, then the site should be protected, justifying the plan <br />amendment to protect the significant Goal 5 resource. <br /> <br />Howe noted there are two characteristics considered when determining significance. He said one is <br />quantity. He said an aggregate resource site shall be significant if there is 2 million tons of the resource <br />at the site and if it is in an area where it is an expansion area and in agricultural soils Class 2 or better. <br />He added if more than 35 percent of that mining proposed area is Class 2 soils, then it has to have an <br />average thickness of aggregate layer within the mining area of 60 feet. He noted that both the council <br />and the Board concluded from the record that over 8 million cubic tons of material is present at the site, <br />an amount well in excess of the 2 million cubic tons requirement. He added that the findings support the <br />conclusion that an adequate quantity of the gravel resource exists on the site to meet that step. He noted <br />the average cumulative depth of the aggregate layer is 70.5 feet. <br /> <br />With regard to quality, Howe explained that the quality of the resource has to meet ODOT standards. <br />He noted those are standards that are specific for highway construction and the record shows that the <br />methodology used to acquire and analyze the resource sample followed the industry standard and was <br />conducted in a manner that supports the conclusion that the quality of the gravel resource meets the <br />threshold designation as a significant gravel resource site under the Goal 5 Rule. He added that the <br />analysis of the gravel at the site was peer reviewed by both ODOT and DOGAMI and the representative <br />samples used in the analysis of quality are in the record. Howe stated the Board found there was a <br />significant site, meaning both in quality and quantity. He said the council found the site was significant <br />from the standpoint of quantity but not quality and through a straw vote, the city is at that step. <br /> <br />Howe reported Step 3 is minimizing conflicts. He said there were seven potential conflicts that had been <br />identified in the record. He reported that under the Goal 5 Rule, conflicts are considered to be <br />minimized if they meet the local, state or federal standard. He added that most of the conflicts have a <br />state standard. He indicated the conflicts were traffic, groundwater, wetlands, flooding, agricultural <br />practices, dust and noise. He noted the next question in the process is whether any of the conflicts <br />extend beyond the 1500 foot impact area that is required by the rule. He indicated the answer by the <br />County was no, the 1500 foot impact area was measured from the boundary of the proposed mining <br />expansion area and none of the potential conflicts were determined to extend beyond the 1500 foot <br />impact area. He recalled that the Board determined that all of the conflicts could be minimized to <br />acceptable levels and or minimum thresholds through the proposed conditions attached to the County <br />ordinance. <br /> <br /> <br />2 <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page <br /> Joint Elected Officials Meeting <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.