Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

process would involve between 20 and 30 hours of council deliberation to reach the same conclusion. He said it was the council’s policy and scheduling choice whether to go through the entire process if the site did not qualify. Mr. Zelenka asked if the applicant could appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) if both the City and County denied the application. Ms. Jerome said the appeal could also go above LUBA, but local decision-making would end at that point. She said LUBA could also remand the issue or if a decision became final the applicant could reapply. Mr. Clark said it strained at the idea of common sense that there was not sufficiency of resource at the site, which was only yards away from the site of decades of operation and production. Ms. Bettman said the operation was not being shut down as the applicant indicated ten years worth of aggregate remained. She shared Mr. Zelenka’s concerns about deliberating the other criteria as some of them would weigh heavily for denial of the application. She asked if the council could act on the significant resource issue with a plan to deliberate on the other criteria at a later date, perhaps following action by the County. Ms. Jerome said the County would prefer to have the City deliberate all of the criteria and was willing to postpone action until that occurred. She said legally the council could establish the plan to deliberate at a later date but was not certain how it would proceed on a practical basis. Ms. Bettman said she was only willing to take that extraordinary step if the council was willing to vote in favor of a six-hour workshop to deliberate the entire packet. Mr. Pryor said as an individual councilor he was in favor of the application, but the decision would be made by the body. He agreed with Ms. Solomon that some issues could be mitigated, but not the question of sufficiency of resource. He felt it would be unfair to deliberate further and hold out hope to the applicant that perhaps a different conclusion might be reached. Mr. Poling found it disappointing that the application was being denied without fully exploring the issues. He reminded councilors that based on the information available, the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) determined that Delta Sand and Gravel and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) consultants’ testing had underestimated the amount of resource. He noted that the Eugene Planning Commission agreed that the existence of a significant resource had been demonstrated, but an uncertified person had disagreed. He pointed out that the site was located between the current production site and the river, making it unlikely there would be no resource in that area. He said a preponderance of the scientific evidence and a recommendation from the Planning Commission indicated that there was a significant resource available. He would not support the findings and felt it was a disservice to the process to declare the issue dead at this point. Ms. Bettman stated there was no guarantee where the river would deposit its resources and that did not meet ODOT’s criteria for its aggregate. She asked if ODOT tested or sampled the site. Ms. Schulz replied that ODOT did not test, but reviewed the tests that were conducted. Ms. Bettman said she did not base her conclusions on opposition to the application; she felt the applicant’s sampling and testing was inadequate because it mixed high and low quality material and averaged the quality of the aggregate to demonstrate that the standard had been met. She did not think that was an accepted way to determine if there was a significant resource of the particular aggregate that met the standard. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2007 Page 9 Work Session