Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman asserted that the significance of the resource was important because it would be used to justify <br />and rationalize the loss of the “grade 1 farmland” and to determine if the expansion of the gravel operation <br />was “worth” the noise and dust to the agricultural and residential uses that were around the property. She <br />did not think the resource was significant enough to justify or rationalize the impacts. <br /> <br />Mr. Yeiter pointed out that the elected bodies received more information in that regard than the first hearings <br />of the planning commissions had. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling asked how much of the area contained the “grade one” soil. Ms. Schulz responded that the area <br />primarily featured Class 2 quality soils. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling asked if the samplings had been conducted according to the criteria for such a process. Mr. <br />Howe replied that the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASTO) <br />American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) handbook guided the determination of the quantity and <br />quality of the aggregate materials. He underscored that this was the journal/textbook for conducting such <br />samplings. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling said in looking at this as a civil action in which a determination would be based on the <br />preponderance of evidence that would be 50 percent plus one. Three samples were taken including one that <br />had been conducted by someone who was not recognized as an expert and two samples that indicated the <br />resources were adequate. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked what weight testimony from someone who was not considered an expert should be given. <br />Ms. Jerome replied that it was up to the elected officials to make a decision that a reasonable person would <br />make. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy called for a straw vote on the determination of whether the resource site was significant. <br /> <br />Straw vote: the vote on whether the resource site was significant was a tie, 4:4; Mr. Poling, Mr. <br />Pryor, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Clark voting yes, and Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Taylor, and <br />Ms. Bettman voting no. Mayor Piercy voted no and the vote failed. <br /> <br />Mr. Yeiter noted that Step 3, which sought to determine if identified conflicts from mining could be <br />minimized to acceptable levels of no significant impact, was split into seven areas of potential conflict: <br />traffic, groundwater, wetlands and sensitive habitat, flooding, agricultural practices, dust, and noise. He <br />suggested the council address the impacts individually. Regarding traffic, he pointed out that a TIA could <br />be required at a future point as the area experienced increased development and the gravel operation <br />potentially experienced an increase in production. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor observed that it was questionable as to whether the application would affect traffic intensity. He <br />surmised that the application sought to extend the lifetime of the mining application and not necessarily to <br />increase production. He believed the potential traffic impacts could be dealt with at a later point. He <br />reiterated that as it related to this application, market conditions were not a factor. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman felt the council was relying on the applicant’s assertion that traffic was not a factor. She <br />opined that this was not good government. She said with every development there was an assumption that it <br />would impact traffic. Otherwise, the City of Eugene would end up “holding the bill” for whatever kinds of <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 21, 2007 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br />