Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ms. Bettman said she did not base her conclusions on opposition to the application; she felt the applicant’s <br />sampling and testing was inadequate because it mixed high and low quality material and averaged the <br />quality of the aggregate to demonstrate that the standard had been met. She did not think that was an <br />accepted way to determine if there was a significant resource of the particular aggregate that met the <br />standard. <br /> <br />Mr. Howe clarified that ODOT did conduct sampling in addition to the applicant and verified the applicant’s <br />sampling. He said DOGAMI reviewed both ODOT and the applicant’s sampling and verified that they were <br />done correctly and according to AASHTO provisions. He commented that under the standard practice for <br />sampling aggregate, there were specific provisions that addressed how sampling was done. He referred to <br />information in the packet identified as Exhibit 33, which specifically allowed the combination of samples <br />from various locations to be reviewed for their overall ability to meet standards. He said samples were not <br />required to be taken from one specific location and or prohibited from being combined with materials from <br />other locations. He said the applicant’s methodology was entirely acceptable. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution that <br />finds there is not sufficient evidence that a significant resource exists on the subject <br />site consistent with the attached draft findings. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked if all of the official agencies involved in the process stated the applicant had conducted <br />appropriate testing and verified the results and the Planning Commission agreed the testing was acceptable <br />and a majority agreed there was a sufficiency of resource. Mr. Yeiter said that was correct, but the findings <br />as prepared by staff determined that the applicant’s methodology mixed such high quality materials with <br />lower quality material that it was unacceptable. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked if the applicant’s methodology met ODOT standards. Mr. Yeiter said it did. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor said he was proceeding on the assumption that no one would be changing their vote from the 5:4 <br />straw poll taken previously and the application would fail. No one indicated they would change. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that findings needed to be consistent with the Metro Plan and the significance of resource <br />according to the plan was not the same as ODOT’s standards. She said the plan required both quantity and <br />quality. She would support the motion. <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor asked that the language of the motion be changed from resolution to ordinance at the <br />request of legal counsel. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Pryor agreed to accept the revised language as a friendly <br />amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved that the findings could not be sup- <br />ported because on further review there was sufficient evidence that there was sig- <br />nificant resource on the site and to direct the city manager to schedule work ses- <br />sions for continued deliberations on the remaining issues. The substitute motion <br />failed, 5:3; Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon and Mr. Clark voting in favor. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2007 Page 10 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />