Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Jerome asked the council not to discuss new evidence, such as that represented by Ms. Ortiz’s personal experience traveling on Beltline. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to direct staff to perform further analysis of the application’s consistency with the criteria, considering citizen involvement and transportation- related impacts, impacts caused by mining of the aquaclude within 150 feet of existing resi- dences, noise impacts on existing residences, and the impact approval would have on the supply of residential land. I further move to direct staff to, if those analysis warrants, return to the City Council with revised findings for Ordinance No. 1 (Council Bill 4791) determining that the ap- plication has failed to meet additional criteria. Ms. Bettman said her motion assumed the council would retain its findings related to adequacy of the resource and dust, and directed staff to review the record for additional findings if warranted. Mr. Zelenka agreed that the company in question was a good one but the decision before the council was not about the company. He pointed out that both the Lane County and Eugene planning commissions agreed that the dust could not be mitigated, and the Lane County Planning Commission, by a vote of 4:2, agreed the flooding could not be mitigated. He thought Ms. Bettman’s motion allowed the council to get more information and develop findings that were more “robust” in its denial because he thought the application had many faults. Mr. Clark indicated he could not support the motion. He said his recollection of the record was that the company would be doing construction near the perimeter, but the motion spoke to mining. He asked Ms. Bettman to clarify that point. Ms. Bettman suggested the issue was one of semantics; the company would remove gravel from the ditch it dug for the aquaclude and selling it as a resource. She thought it could be categorized as mining, but the company called it construction, and it still had the same impact as mining would have on the residents. She noted that the site was within one city block of the residences. Mr. Clark said that the assumption Ms. Bettman was making would preclude mitigation of any kind because it would not allow anyone to construct anything by way of a mitigation barrier. He could not agree with Ms. Bettman’s conclusion. Ms. Bettman asked if Mr. Clark could support the motion if “mining” was changed to “excavation.” Mr. Pryor expressed appreciation to Ms. Bettman for her effort to develop something more comprehensive and thoughtful but indicated he would still vote against it because it denied the application. Mr. Clark indicated he would be unable to support the motion. The motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Clark, and Mr. Pryor voting no. Mayor Piercy indicated that she would work with staff to schedule a follow-up work session. The meeting adjourned at 6:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 21, 2008 Page 5 Work Session