Ordinance No. 20413 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The purpose of these OAR aggregate standards is to ensure that an adequate depth and volume of high quality aggregate is present in a potential new or expanded site before it is converted from high quality agricultural land to aggregate use. Here, the applicant's sampling methodology was based, in part, on methodology appropriate for testing processed, instead of unprocessed, aggregate. The applicant failed to provide samples of the full vertical extent of the aggregate layers. The applicant has failed to provide a representative set of samples of each layer. By mixing of material from distinct layers prior to testing, it is impossible to know the composition of the individual layers of aggregate. Without knowing the composition of the individual layers, and without a representative set of samples, it is not possible to determine whether the aggregate deposit meets the standards of OAR 660-023-0180(3). For these reasons, the Council concludes that the applicant has failed to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of OAR 660-023- 0180(3). The estimated quantity of the resource must exceed 2 million tons to satisfy this aspect of the criterion, since the site is located in the Willamette Valley. The applicant's report concludes that there is over 6 million tons of material, and possibly more than 9 million tons of material, present beneath the expansion site, an amount well in excess of the 2 million ton requirement. DOGAMI, while acknowledging that resource evaluation is not typically part of the function of the Mined Lands Regulation and Reclamation Division, estimates the resource to be over 15 million tons on the 53 acre site. DOGAMI based their estimate on EGR's assumed aggregate resource depth of 82 feet, not the 51.5 foot depth observed by DOGAMI on the site. DOGAMI estimates did not subtract silt and clay occurrences, which, DOGAMI writes, may not represent separate layers and may be treated as internal waste in the production phase. By not subtracting the silt and clay occurrences, the Council concludes that the applicant has failed to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of OAR 660-023-0180(3)(a). (Exhibit 144 - DOGAMI geologist review of onsite aggregate deposit) o (b) The material meets local government standards establishing a lower threshold for significance than subsection (a) of this section; or Neither the City nor the County has established a lower threshold for significance. Therefore, this section does not apply. (c) The aggregate site was on an inventory ofsignificant aggregate sites in an acknowledged plan on September 1, 1996. The expansion area was not on an inventory of significant aggregate sites on Septenlber 1, 1996. Therefore, this section does not apply. (d) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of this section, exceptfor an expansion area of an existing site if the operator of the existing site on March 1, 1996, had an enforceable property interest in the expansion area on that date, an aggregate site is not significant if the criteria in either paragraphs (A) or (B) of this subsection apply: Because the City Council has found that the application does not satisfy sections (a) or (b), findings under section (d) are superfluous. Nonetheless, to provide a complete evaluation of the application, the City provides the finding that the applicant has not shown that the operator of the existing site (Delta Property Company/Delta Sand and Gravel Company) did not have an enforceable property interest in the expansion area on March 1, 1996. See Exhibit 1, original Delta application dated August 12, 2005. Exhibit A to Ordinance 20413 - 11