Item A: Delta Sand and Gravel - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(b) Significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use.) As stated previously in these findings, the established agricultural use of tax lot 900 and the established mining operations of the adjacent existing facility have co-existed for many years without conflict. We find that approval of this application will not change the relationship between the two adjacent uses and will not result in conflict between the two uses. Accordingly, approval of this application will have no effect on the farm practices occurring on tax lot 900, will not change those practices and will not significantly increase the cost of those practices on tax lot 900. We further find that the historical relationship between the two uses, as testified by the applicant and the owner of the adjacent agricultural land, coupled with the immediate location of each to the other, provides a factual basis for the reasonable conclusion that approval of this application is consistent with ORS 215.296. Step 4 Weigh the Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy (ESEE) consequences of unminimized conflicts and determine whether to allow mining (only need to do this Step if there are conflicts that are not minimized) (d) The local government shall determine any significant conflicts identified under the requirements of subsection (c) of this section that cannot be minimized. Based on these conflicts only, local government shall determine the ESEE consequences of either allowing, limiting, or not allowing mining at the site. Local governments shall reach this decision by weighing these ESEE consequences, with consideration of the following: (A) The degree of adverse effect on existing land uses within the impact area; (B) Reasonable and practicable measures that could be taken to reduce the identified adverse effects; and (C) The probable duration of the mining operation and the proposed post- mining use of the site. The City Council has already found that the expansion site is not a significant Goal 5 resource. Even if it was such a resource, significant conflicts caused by dust have not been minimized. The applicant did not provide an ESEE analysis. Based on relevant evidence in the record, the City provides the following findings weighing the economic, social, environmental, and energy (ESEE) consequences of allowing the proposed mining, particularly as such an allowance would relate to the conflicts created by dust. As an initial note, the record does not contain any proposal for a limited expansion. The proposed minimization measures could arguably be considered a limitation on the expansion, but, as discussed above, those measures are all discussed above and do not adequately minimize the conflict. The record does not include evidence as to how the expansion could be limited. This is a very technical feasibility question in the case of the expansion of a mining operation; the city cannot simply propose its own idea for an alternative smaller expansion area, as the alternative may be geologically unsound. Without some evidence regarding an alternative proposal, the City cannot find that a limitation on the expansion could: - reduce the degree of adverse effect on the existing land uses within the impact area; Ordinance - 23