Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

other criteria, and if the application was remanded the council could review those findings and broaden them. The council was not prohibiting from looking at a number of options during a remand if those options were raised in the context of the remand and the public was given an opportunity to comment. Mr. Zelenka confirmed with Mr. Yeiter that the Planning Commission found the issue of noise could be mitigated. Ms. Jerome said if that finding was challenged at LUBA, the council could revisit it. Mr. Clark was uncomfortable with Ordinance 1 because it contained information in the record but the council had not deliberated on them. He was opposed to Ordinance 2 as he continued to disagree with the conclusion that the site lacked adequate resources, which he thought was a decision reached in an arbitrary fashion. Mr. Pryor wanted to be diligent and practical and recognized that the council must proceed in steps. He pointed out the resource issue was about a threshold. He said that if the council was required to review the other issues on remand, it would do so. Ms. Jerome clarified the issue would be narrowed to those remanded by LUBA. Mr. Pryor reiterated his remarks about the threshold question of the resource involved and said he would be willing to revisit that issue and others but believed the council would spend considerable time in discussion knowing what the council outcome would be. He supported Ordinance 1. Ms. Solomon clarified with Ms. Jerome that the council had merely to identify one basis for denying the application and did not have to address the other criteria in the findings. However, Ms. Jerome said, the council was not prohibited from looking at other criteria. Ms. Solomon said the application process had become a “travesty.” She believed that Delta Sand and Gravel had sufficiently demonstrated the resource was in place using conservative estimates. She believed the company could co-exist with its neighbors. She thought it astonishing the State regulatory agencies and the County could approve the application but the City could not. She thought it a “bad day for Eugene.” She believed that the issue should be passed on to the State and indicated she would not support any of the ordinances denying the application. Ms. Bettman asserted that the neighbors and many others believed the use of gravel mining was not consistent with the criteria. She believed the application “fell apart” because Delta Sand and Gravel failed to speak up at the hearings that resulted in residential development so close to the site it planned to expand its mining operation onto. She said “they should have let somebody know.” She believed the company should have recognized the huge conflict that would exist as the area was built out residentially. She thought there was enough fault to go around for those who did not think ahead to avoid the conflict. Ms. Bettman said the problem with Ordinance 1 was that it meant the council was voting on the entire application, including a statement that the transportation impact analysis was sufficient. She said that even if the company’s statement about maintaining its current levels of production was true, it put the onus on others to ensure its veracity. She said that if the company decided to increase production the City lacked a baseline transportation impact analysis to use for evaluation. She thought the background noise unaccept- able and said the excavation planned near the residents violated the buffer. Ms. Bettman said the issues involved had been deliberated extensively. If her motion passed, staff would consider the record and the discussions reflected in the minutes to revise the findings. Mr. Zelenka preferred modified findings restricted to the issues of dust and the lack of a resource. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 21, 2008 Page 3 Work Session