My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2007
>
CC Agenda - 01/22/07 Meeting
>
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:25:55 PM
Creation date
1/18/2007 10:10:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/22/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
56
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
changed and they couldn’t count any of the gravel below that. He said that turned out <br />neither the way LCDC or the County Commissioners determined at that time it was <br />determined to be done, it was to count all the rock in the mass from the top to the bottom. <br />He noted that all of the standards that are being referred to all start with that the geologist <br />is to use their professional judgment for the materials to be used to do the sampling <br />programming. He added it goes on to discuss distinguishable layers. He agreed if they <br />moved from the gravel above to the bedrock to sample it if they are going to mining the <br />bedrock. He indicated that they weren’t intending on doing that, they were going to mine <br />the gravel. He commented as a professional geologist he would be remiss if he didn’t <br />recognize they are operating and using the gravel from top to bottom. He said it is <br />common to mix the rock for sampling. He said in the standards for the rock itself, not <br />the pre processed rock sampling, it is best if they actually sample the processed rock they <br />are going to use instead of the raw material. He said they sampled the raw material and it <br />still meets standards. <br /> <br /> Cornacchia recalled there was a statement made that the elected officials were placed in <br />position to decide between experts on the issue of significance. He said in this case they <br />have Christenson, who is. He didn’t believe that Mr. Reed was an expert under Oregon <br />law. He understood that geologists in Oregon had to be licensed and to give expert <br />testimony, someone needs to be licensed. He thought it was possible that Reed could <br />have become licensed since the Eugene Sand and Gravel application, but at that point that <br />issue was raised. He noted in the appeal of the Eugene Sand and Gravel application, <br />there was a variety of assignments of error and one was that the Board of Commissioners <br />did not accept Dr. Reed’s position. He said that LUBA found that was not an appealable <br />error. He understood when Dr. Reed was questioned by his licensing agency, he said he <br />was not given expert testimony, that his testimony consisted of a political speech. He <br />commented that the impression has been given that at no time was any sampling done in <br />a manner which sampled the different layers. He said they went to ODOT and DOGAMI <br />was for their independent testing. He noted in the packet of November 1, were the first <br />three ODOT reports are the different tests. He stated each of them had the following <br />conclusions: “Samples submitted is representative of native aggregate material. Test <br />results meet base aggregate specification. “ Section 02630.10(c ) 2002 Oregon Standards <br />Specification for Construction. He said those were the rules from the regulating agency. <br />He indicated the sampling was done in three layers: from 3 to 30 feet, from 61 to 67 feet <br />and from 76 to 85 feet. <br /> <br /> Cornacchia commented they were seeing false arguments. He asked the elected officials <br />to read the ODOT report. With regard to the traffic analysis, he said they did one. He <br />indicated they were not going to create any new traffic, as there will be no new trucks. <br />He said they are not asking to create a new operation, they are asking for a continuation <br />of their existing operation. He recalled that LRAPA has a production level on them and <br />they cannot produce more rock than the permit allows. He said that Lane County <br />transportation looked at the analysis and agreed with him that with no added trucks, there <br />is no impact. He added that both planning commissions agreed with them. <br /> <br />Page 20 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 <br />WD bc/m/06121/T <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.