Item 1: PH on Ordinance Amending Metro Plan (Delta Sand and Gravel)

Home Browse Search

applicant’s existing facility, used by the applicant to provide the resource that it processes on its existing site into a marketable product. No change or modification of the applicant’s existing aggregate processing methodology or facility will be required as a result of the proposed expansion of its resource extraction site. Approval of the application will result only in the applicant’s use of the proposed expansion area as an additional, continual and consistent source of aggregate material needed for the continuation of the applicant’s business, at its current level of operation and production, at its current facility. We find that that use will not result in any increase in the number of vehicles leaving or entering the applicant’s facility for the purpose of delivering its finished product to market. Furthermore, we find that that use will not result in an increase in the number of third party vehicles servicing applicant’s business. Because no increase in product delivery or service is associated with the applicant’s proposed addition to its source of aggregate material, no conflicts to local roads will result from approval of the application. C) Safety conflicts with existing public airports due to bird ( attractants, i.e., open water impoundments. This paragraph shall not apply after the effective date of commission rules adopted pursuant to Chapter 285, Oregon Laws 1995; The Eugene Airport is the only existing public airport in the general metropolitan area and is located several miles from the proposed expansion area and outside the impact area. Due to that distance separating the airport from the proposed expansion area, we find that any bird attraction by open water impoundment on the expansion area will be negligible if at all. Furthermore, this provision is no longer applicable since the December 23, 1996 effective date of adoption of division 13 of OAR Chapter 660, which carries out Chapter 285, Oregon Laws 1985. (D) Conflicts with other Goal 5 resource sites within the impact area that are shown on an acknowledged list of significant resources and for which the requirements of Goal 5 have been completed at the time the PAPA is initiated; No other Goal 5 resources shown on a Metro Plan acknowledged list of significant resources exist within the impact area. Nonetheless, opponents have argued that a meandering scar of the Willamette River is located on a portion of the northwestern boundary of the expansion area and that it constitutes a wetland. The opponents further argue that the existence and operation of the aquaclude (see discussion below regarding the aquaclude) will negatively impact the water levels and, consequently, the functions of the wetland. EGR, in testimony provided during the planning commission joint public hearing and deliberation, testified that the aquaclude would not produce the types of impacts to the wetland argued by the opponents. EGR and the applicant provided further testimony during the elected officials’ joint public hearing that the aquaclude would be constructed in a manner that leaves the top elevation of the clay-filled aquaclude one foot below the measured elevation of the wetland, approximately six to eight feet below ground surface. EGR testified that, even if the opponents were correct in their arguments that the aquaclude would negatively impact surface water that flows through the wetland (which EGR argues they are not), the modification to the aquaclude construction that positions the aquaclude beneath the measured elevation of the wetland will ensure that its existence and operation will not negatively impact the wetland. Based upon the cumulative testimony of EGR we find that approval of the application will not result in negative impacts on the wetland. (E) Conflicts with agricultural practices; and Page 13 – FINDINGS OF FACT