HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1: PH on Ordinance Amending Metro Plan (Delta Sand and Gravel)
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Public Hearing: Delta Sand and Gravel
An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro
Plan) to Revise the Goal 5 Significant Mineral and Aggregate Resources Inventory and
Redesignate from “Agriculture” to “Sand & Gravel;” Adopting Savings and Severability
Clauses; and Providing an Effective Date
Meeting Date: November 1, 2006 Agenda Item Number: A
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Kurt Yeiter
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-8379
ISSUE STATEMENT
Delta Sand and Gravel requests amendments to the Metro Plan, a change in zoning, and two variances to
allow an expansion of their aggregate resource extraction business (quarry) onto a property located
inside the Metro Plan boundary but immediately outside the Eugene UGB, along East Santa Clara
waterway north of Hunsaker Lane. Local land use regulations require that both the City and Lane
County act in concert regarding the Metro Plan amendments. The zone change and variances are the
sole purview of Lane County.
This meeting provides a joint public hearing for the City Council and Board of County Commissioners.
The decision is quasi-judicial. The hearing is “de novo” (i.e., based on the record formed by the Planning
Commissions), but the decision makers can decide to accept more evidence. Lane County is the lead
agency whose staff prepared the record, detailed staff notes, and draft ordinance for this hearing.
BACKGROUND
Please see the Lane County staff notes for a description of the application, state rules about the Goal 5
process for reviewing aggregate resources, and the Planning Commissions’ recommendations. This
AIS is a supplement for the Eugene City Council.
The City and County Planning Commissions held a joint hearing, left the record open to allow ample
opportunity for testimony, and met several times to consider the evidence. Each commission made a
recommendation to its respective elected body. Neither commission found that the applicant had
adequately mitigated all potential significant conflicts. Specifically, the Eugene Planning Commission
recommends that (in the order of the decision template provided by the County):
.
There is adequate information submitted in the application (unanimous)
?
The applicant has demonstrated there exists a “significant” Mineral & Aggregate Resource at the site
?
and an analysis of potential conflicts, with conditions to minimize those conflicts proposed by the
applicant, is warranted (3-2 vote).
There were conflicts caused by the proposed use due to dust; noise; impacts to groundwater,
?
wetlands and sensitive habitat; and agriculture, but conditions proposed by the applicant to minimize
identified conflicts were sufficient except for dust.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M061101\S0611011.doc
None of the conflicts extend beyond the 1500-foot minimum impact area as measured from the
?
perimeter of the expansion site (unanimous).
The state’s Goal 5 rules for aggregate resource extraction are very prescriptive. The County staff report
outlines a decision making process that complies with state rules.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
The subject property is currently designated by the Metro Plan as Agriculture, not Sand and Gravel. The
Metro Plan encourages the use of the Urban Growth Boundary and park lands to separate sand and
gravel resources from residential areas. The subject property is separated from urban residential
properties on the other side of the UGB only by the East Santa Clara waterway.
The Metro Plan offers these policies:
Sand and gravel sites identified as significant by the Metro Plan shall be protected in accordance
?
with the requirements of the Goal 5 Rule. (Metro Plan page III-C-11)
When development is allowed to occur in the floodway or floodway fringe, local regulations shall
?
control such development in order to minimize the potential danger tolife and property. Within the
UGB, development should result in in-filling of partially developed land. Outside the UGB, areas
affected by the floodway and floodway fringe shall be protected for their agricultural and sand and
gravel resource values, their open space and recreational potential, and their value to water
resources. (Metro Plan page III-C-16)
The Metro Plan and City’s growth management policies encourage efficient urban development inside
the UGB while “maintaining the character and livability of individual neighborhoods” (GMS policy
#6).
The Metro Plan provides this definition:
Sand and Gravel.
This category includes existing and future aggregate processing and extraction
areas. Aggregateextraction and processing is allowed in designated areas subject to Metro Plan
policies,applicable state and federal regulations, and local regulations. For new extraction areas,
reclamation plans required by the State of Oregon and Lane County provide a valuable means of
assuring that environmental considerations, such as re-vegetation, are addressed. It is importantto
monitor the demand for aggregate to ensure an adequate supply of this vital non-renewableresource
is available to meet metropolitan needs.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
After holding the public hearing, the City Council may:
1.Deny the Metro Plan amendments because the conflicts caused by dust have not been adequately
mitigated (the Planning Commission recommendation);
2.Deny the Metro Plan amendments for other reasons consistent with the state’s Goal 5 rules;
3.Approve the Metro Plan amendments by adopting the draft ordinance and findings;
4.Open the record to allow more testimony; or
5.Refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for review of specific issues identified by the
council.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M061101\S0611011.doc
Council action can be scheduled for another date and made independently from the County’s action. If
the City Council and County Board of Commissioners do not agree on the final action, the application
will be referred to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) for a recommendation.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Based on current evidence, the City Manager agrees with the Planning Commission recommendation
that the application be denied because the impacts caused by dust of the proposed gravel extraction
operation will not be adequately mitigated by the conditions submitted by the applicant.
SUGGESTED MOTION
“I move to deny the proposed Metro Plan amendments because the impacts caused by dust of the
proposed gravel extraction operation will not be adequately mitigated by the conditions submitted by the
applicant.”
The City Manager will prepare appropriate findings that reflect the council direction for final adoption at
a later date.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Agenda Cover memo prepared by County staff, including those exhibits:
1. Ordinance [translated from County Ordinance No. PA 1238 into city format]
Exhibit A – Metro Plan Diagram Amendment
Exhibit B – Official Plot Map #1005 Amendment
Exhibit C – Findings and Conditions (Findings will be provided by the applicant in a
supplemental packet).
2. Application for Metro Plan Amendment and Rezone [located in the Council Office]
3. Joint Planning Commission Minutes – Hearings and Deliberations meetings:
- November 15, 2005, Public Hearing
- January 17, 2006, Public Hearing
- July 25, 2006, Deliberations
- August 30, 2006, Deliberations
4. File Record Content Index
[The bolded exhibits referred to in the County’s staff report are referenced in this attachment.]
B.Vicinity map
C.Aerial photograph
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Kurt Yeiter, Principal Planner
Telephone: 682-8379
Staff E-Mail: Kurt.M.Yeiter@ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M061101\S0611011.doc
AGENDA COVER MEMO
____________________________________________________________________________________
DATE: OCTOBER 4, 2006 (memo)
OCTOBER 18, 2006 (first reading)
NOVEMBER 1, 2006 (second reading/public hearing)
TO: LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
DEPT:PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/LAND MANAGEMENT DIVISION
PRESENTED BY: STEPHANIE SCHULZ / PLANNER
TITLE: ORDINANCE NO. PA 1238
; IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) TO
REVISE THE GOAL 5 SIGNIFICANT MINERAL AND AGGREGATE RESOURCES
INVENTORY, REDESIGNATE FROM “AGRICULTURE” TO “SAND & GRAVEL”,
REZONE FROM “E30/EXCLUSIVE FARM USE ZONE” TO “SG/SAND GRAVEL
AND ROCK PRODUCTS ZONE”, AND ALLOW MINING ON 72.31 ACRES OF LAND
PURSUANT TO THE GOAL 5 OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES (OAR 660-023);
AND ADOPTING SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSES (File No. PA 05-6151;
Applicant: Delta Property Co.)
___________________________________________________________________________________
I. MOTION
1. For October 18, 2006: I move approval of the first reading and setting the second reading and public
hearing on Ordinance No. PA 1238 for November 1, 2006 at 7:00 p. m. in Harris Hall.
2. For November 1, 2006: Alternative motions after the public hearing:
A. I move to hold the record open for the submittal of additional information.
B. I move to approve Ordinance No. PA 1238 with the current findings.
C. I move to tentatively approve Ordinance No. PA 1238 subject to revised findings to be prepared
for final action.
D. I move to tentatively deny the application and direct staff to prepare an Order with appropriate
findings for final action.
II. ISSUE OR PROBLEM
The applicant Delta Property Co. requests that the Goal 5 Inventory for Significant Mineral and Aggregate
Sites be amended to allow a 72.31 acre expansion of the existing 474 acre sand and gravel operation. The
application is a “Post-Acknowledgement Plan Amendment” (PAPA) as provided for by LCDC Statewide
Planning Goal 5 Rule for mineral and aggregate resources, OAR 660-023-180. T he Metro Plan Designation
is proposed to be changed from “Agriculture” to “Sand & Gravel” and the zoning changed from
“E30/Exclusive Farm Use (LC 16.212)” to “SG/Sand, Gravel & Rock Products (LC 16.217)”. The proposal
requests a variance to Lane Code 16.217(4)(b)(v)(dd) to excavate within the 150’ setback in order to
complete a low permeability barrier to reduce groundwater flow into the excavated area. The Planning
Commission has forwarded this matter to the Board with a recommendation. This Ordinance, accompanied
by findings prepared by the applicant (to be delivered in a supplemental packet), sets the matter before the
Board for adoption, modification, or denial. The same information is provided to the City Council for
consideration of the Metro Plan Amendment.
III. PROCEDURE
Because this is a Type II Metro Plan Amendment, it requires approval of both the Home City of Eugene and
Lane County. The City of Springfield has elected to opt out of the decision process.
The Board of Commissioners has established and generally follows these hearing procedures:
1. Announce the purpose of the hearing and explain the rules of conduct;
2. Disclose any ex parte contacts and call for abstentions from the Board and Eugene City Council;
3. Request the Director or staff to present an introductory report, explain any graphic or pictorial
displays which are a part of the report, read findings and recommendations, if any, and provide
such information as may be requested by the Board and the City Council;
4. Allow the applicant to be heard first, on its own behalf or by representatives.
5. Allow the neighboring residents to be heard, on their own behalf or by representatives.
6. Allow staff persons of public agencies to be heard;
7. Allow other persons to be heard;
8. Allow the Director to present any further comments or information in response to testimony and
evidence offered by any interested persons.
9. Allow the applicant to rebut, on his own behalf or by representative, any testimony previously
presented to the Board and City Council.
10. Conclude the hearing of testimony at this time and close the record, unless the Board or City
Council wants to continue the hearing or leave the record open.
11. At the conclusion of the public testimony, the Board and Council have several options:
a) They can continue the hearing to a date and time certain for the purposes of hearing additional
testimony before commencing with deliberations; or
b) Leave the record open for additional written testimony. The Board and Council must
determine reasonable time periods for the record to remain open for the submittal of additional
written information by the applicant and opponents; or
c) Move directly to deliberations at a time specified by the Board and Council in either joint or
separate meetings, and make a decision based on findings of fact and conclusions in response to the
record and testimony.
12. At the conclusion of deliberations, the Board and Council have several options:
a) the Board and Council may adopt Ordinance’s for each jurisdiction with the supporting
findings of fact prepared by the applicant; or
b) the Board and Council may assign the drafting of revised findings of fact and conclusions to
the applicant for adoption at a subsequent Reading; or
c) the Board and Council may take action to tentatively deny the request, and assign the drafting
of Order’s for denial to the Director or counsel for the opponents.
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Definitions:
This report includes several terms or phrases that are defined in OAR 660-023-180(1). Definitions
applicable to this proposal are provided below:
Board/Council Hearing – Ordinance No. PA 1238 Delta Sand & Gravel Expansion
Agenda Cover Memo
Page 2 of 23
(a) “Aggregate resources” are naturally occurring concentrations of stone, rock, sand and gravel,
decomposed granite, limestone, pumice, cinders, and other naturally occurring solid materials
commonly used in road building or other construction.
(b) “Conflicting use” is a use or activity that is subject to land use regulations and that would
interfere with, or be adversely affected by, mining or processing activities at a significant mineral or
aggregate resource site as specified in subsection (5) (b) and section (7) of this rule.
(c) “Expansion Area” is an aggregate mining area contiguous to an existing site.
(d) “Farmland” means land planned and zoned for exclusive farm use pursuant to Goal 3 and OAR
chapter 660, division 033.
(e) “Mining” is the extraction and processing of mineral or aggregate resources, as defined in ORS
215.298(3) for farmland, and in ORS 517.750 for land other than farmland.
ORS 215.298 (3) Mining in exclusive farm use zone; land use permit. For purposes of ORS
215.213(2) and ORS 215.283 (2) and this section, “mining” includes all or any part of the process
of mining by the removal of overburden and the extraction of natural mineral deposits thereby
exposed by any method including open-pit mining operations, auger mining operations,
processing, surface impacts of underground mining, production of surface mining refuse and the
construction of adjacent or off-site borrow pits except those constructed for use as access roads.
“Mining” does not include excavations of sand, gravel, clay, rock or other similar materials
conducted by a landowner or tenant on the landowner or tenants’ property for the primary
purpose of reconstruction or maintenance of access roads and excavation or grading operations
conducted in the process of farming, or cemetery operations, on-site road construction or other
on-site construction or on surface impacts of underground mines
(f) “Minimize a conflict” means to reduce an identified conflict to a level that is no longer significant.
For those types of conflicts addressed by local, state or federal standards (such as the Department of
Environmental Quality standards for noise and dust levels), to “minimize a conflict” means to ensure
conformance to the applicable standard.
(g) “Mining area” is the area of a site within which mining is permitted or proposed, excluding
undisturbed buffer areas or areas on a parcel where mining is not authorized.
(h) “Protect” means to adopt land use regulations for a significant mineral or aggregate site in order
to authorize mining of the site. For purposes of subsection (2)(d) of this rule, “protect” also means to
limit or prohibit new conflicting uses within the impact area of the site and to limit or prohibit new
conflicting uses within the impact area of the site.
(i) “Thickness of the aggregate layer” means the depth of the water-lain deposit of sand, stones, and
pebbles of sand-sized fraction or larger, minus the depth of the topsoil and nonaggregate overburden.
Acronyms:
AASHTO
– American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ASTM
– American Society for Testing and Materials
ESEE –
Environmental, Social, Economic and Energy (a type of analysis)
LRAPA
– Lane Regional Air Protection Authority
PAPA
– Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment
SCRO
– Santa Clara Residents Organization
B. Background
On August 11, 2005, an application was received to amend the Metro Plan Goal 5 Inventory of
Significant Mineral and Aggregate Sites to include the subject property and designate it in the Metro
Plan for mining. The application is a “Post-Acknowledgement Plan Amendment” (PAPA) for gravel
extraction. Statewide Planning Goal 5 was amended on June 14, 1996, and became effective
September 1, 1996. Oregon Administrative Rule 660, Division 23 was also amended in 1996, and was
Board/Council Hearing – Ordinance No. PA 1238 Delta Sand & Gravel Expansion
Agenda Cover Memo
Page 3 of 23
subsequently amended in May 2004. This application is being reviewed pursuant to the May 2004
amended OAR provisions that were in place at the time of application (August 2005) under OAR 660,
Division 23 regarding mineral and aggregate resources.
The 72.31 acre subject property is located within the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan Boundary,
outside the Eugene city Urban Growth Boundary, north of Beltline Road on Division Avenue, west of
the Willamette River, in Township 17S, Range 4W, Section 12.
The subject property is identified as:
Map 17-04-12-20, tax lot 3600
Map 17-04-12-00, tax lots 3600, 3601, 3700
Map 17-04-12-31, tax lots 5600, 6200, and a portion of 100
Map 17-04-12-40, tax lots 300, 400, and a portion of 600
Pursuant to Metro Plan policy C-18, sand and gravel sites identified as significant on the Metro Plan
Diagram of Goal 5 Resources shall be protected in accordance with the requirements of the Goal 5 rule.
The Metro Plan designation for the property is Agriculture (Ag), and the decision to amend the Plan
Designation to Sand and Gravel (S&G) and the determination of significance of the resource site under
Goal 5 criteria is a regional two jurisdiction decision of Eugene as the Home City and Lane County. The
property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use (E-30) and lies within a Floodplain Combining Zone (FP-RCP).
The property is not located within the Willamette Greenway.
The property is bounded by residential development to the west, and south, residential development and
agriculture to the north, and the existing 474 acre Delta Property aggregate mining and processing site to
the east (DOGAMI ID #20-012). James Lane and Admiral Street intersect with the northern boundary,
and the western and southern boundaries run parallel with Echo Lane and Hunsaker Lane, respectively.
There are three residences on the site, owned by the applicant. The site is rolling farmland within the
floodplain of the Willamette River. The most prominent local features are an old quarry pit on the south
side of the site and an oxbow remnant waterway which encompasses the western boundary of the site.
The Lane County and Eugene Planning Commissions received public testimony at two joint public
hearings held on November 15, 2005 and January 17, 2006. The record remained open for the submittal
of additional materials until March 31, 2006. In joint public meetings held on July 25 & August 30, 2006,
the Planning Commissions deliberated on the application. See Attachment 2 for the minutes of these
joint meetings. Both Planning Commissions are recommending denial, for the reasons set forth under
each step of the Goal 5 analysis process described in this memo and in their meeting minutes.
C. Classification of Amendment
LC 12.215 Referral of a Plan Amendment. [Eugene Code 9.7720]
All Metro Plan amendments affecting land outside the city limits of either city shall be referred to the
other city for consideration of Regional Impact. Lane County shall participate in the hearing and
decision of all Metro Plan amendments outside the city limits. All Metro Plan amendments affecting land
inside the city limits of one city shall be referred to the other city and Lane County so that they may
participate as parties to the hearing. All referrals shall occur within 10 days of the plan amendment
initiation date. Any referral that is provided for the purpose of determining Regional Impact shall be
answered by the referral jurisdiction within 45 days of the receipt of the referral.
Board/Council Hearing – Ordinance No. PA 1238 Delta Sand & Gravel Expansion
Agenda Cover Memo
Page 4 of 23
LC 12.225 Metro Plan Approval of a Plan Amendment. [Eugene Code 9.7715]
(b) Type II. (ii) Between the City Limits and Plan Boundary. To become effective, a Metro Plan
Type II amendment between the city limits and the Plan Boundary must be approved by the Home City
and Lane County. Exception: If the non-home City, after referral of the proposal, determines that the
amendment has Regional Impact, and, as a result of that determination, chooses to participate in the
hearing, all three governing bodies must approve the amendment.
See Attachment 4 for the Public Notice & Referral sent to City of Springfield in November 2005 and
their response, which was considered by Springfield City Council for determination of any regional
impact on November 4, 2005. Springfield chose not to participate in the hearings at this time, leaving
Eugene and Lane County to conduct the two jurisdiction approval process.
Metro Plan Amendment Criteria
LC 12.225 (2) Criteria for Approval of Plan Amendment. [Eugene Code 9.7730(3)]
The following criteria shall be applied by the Board of Commissioners in approving or denying a plan
amendment application:
(a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals adopted
by the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
Review for conformance with the Statewide Planning Goals and the Oregon Administrative Rules
occurs later in this report. Lane County and the City of Eugene are required to comply with the Oregon
Administrative Rules (OAR’s) that implement the Statewide Planning Goals. Metro Plan Policy is
implemented by identifying significant aggregate Goal 5 sites as Sand & Gravel Resources by Plan
Designation and the appropriate zoning pursuant to the Goal 5 Rule.
OAR 660-023-180(2): “Local governments are not required to amend acknowledged inventories or
plans with regard to mineral and aggregate resources except in response to an application for a
PAPA, or at periodic review as specified in Section (9) of this rule.
This proposal is a request for a Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment (PAPA) to add this site to the
significant Mineral & Aggregate Resource Inventory. The property owner submitted the application as
a PAPA in August 2005.
D. Analysis
Lane County is required to amend the acknowledged mineral and aggregate inventory in response to
this application for a Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment (PAPA). The Rule evaluation criteria
for a PAPA are separated into seven analytical steps for this project:
Step 1. Determine if the PAPA information is adequate.
Step 2. Determine if the resource site is significant.
Step 3. Determine if conflicts from mining can be minimized.
Step 4. Weigh the ESEE consequences of un-minimized conflicts and determine whether to allow
mining.
Step 5. Determine the ESEE consequences of potential new conflicting uses within the impact area.
Step 6. Determine if the rezoning requirements of LC16.252 are met, and if the variance setback
request should be granted under LC 16.271(7). Only the Board will consider and make the
Board/Council Hearing – Ordinance No. PA 1238 Delta Sand & Gravel Expansion
Agenda Cover Memo
Page 5 of 23
decision on the rezoning and variance because it is a Lane Code Chapter 16 amendment and
decision implementing the Metro Plan amendment.
Step 7 Develop a program to allow mining.
STEP 1: ADEQUACY OF THE INFORMATION
OAR 660-023-0180(2) (a): A local government may inventory mineral and aggregate resources throughout
its jurisdiction, or in a portion of its jurisdiction. When a local government conducts an inventory of
mineral and aggregate sites in all or a portion of its jurisdiction, it shall follow the requirements of
OAR 660-023-0300 except as modified by subsection (b) of this section with respect to aggregate sites.
When a local government is following the inventory process for a mineral or aggregate resource site
under a PAPA, it shall follow the requirements of OAR 660-023-0030, except where those requirements
are expanded or superceded for aggregate resources as provided in subsections (b) through(d) of this
section and sections (3), (4), and (8) of this rule;
OAR 660-023-0300 (8) In order to determine whether information in a PAPA submittal concerning an
aggregate site is adequate, local government shall follow the requirements of this section rather than
OAR 660-023-0030(3). An application for approval of an aggregate site following sections (4) and (6)
of this rule shall be adequate if it provides sufficient information to determine whether the
requirements in those sections are satisfied. An application for a PAPA concerning a significant
aggregate site following sections (3) and (5) of this rule shall be adequate if it includes:
(a) Information regarding quantity, quality, and location sufficient to determine whether the
standards and conditions in section (3) of this rule are satisfied;
The determination of site significance due to quality, quality, and site location as contiguous
to an existing mining operation is discussed in detail under Step 2, below.
(b) A conceptual site reclamation plan; (NOTE: Final approval of reclamation plans resides with
DOGAMI rather than local governments, except as provided in ORS 517.780)
The expansion site is proposed for consideration as an amendment to the reclamation plan
File Record No. 17 and Exhibit 49.
approved by DOGAMI in 1987 and 1995. See
(c) A traffic impact assessment within one mile of the entrance to the mining area pursuant to section
(5)(b)(B) of this rule;
Lane County Transportation Planning has waived the traffic impact analysis requirement
Exhibit 30.
under LC 15.697 (1) – see Substantial improvements to the road system in this
area are planned and scheduled out for the next twenty years in transportation system plans.
(d) Proposals to minimize any conflicts with existing uses preliminarily identified by the applicant
within a 1,500 foot impact area; and
Proposals to minimize conflicts with existing uses are included in the application and
identify the potential conflicts that have been considered in the public involvement process.
Step 3 analyzes the conflicts minimization proposals in depth.
(e) A site plan indicating the location, hours of operation, and other pertinent information for all
proposed mining and associated uses.
There is a site plan in the application.
The Lane County Planning Commission voted 4-2 that there was adequate information
submitted in the PAPA application.
The Eugene Planning Commission found unanimously that there was adequate information
submitted in the PAPA application.
Board/Council Hearing – Ordinance No. PA 1238 Delta Sand & Gravel Expansion
Agenda Cover Memo
Page 6 of 23
STEP 2: SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESOURCE
660-023-0180 (2) (b) Local Governments shall apply the criteria in section (3) or (4) of this rule,
whichever is applicable, rather than OAR 660-023-0030(4), in determining whether an aggregate
resource site is significant.
The criteria in section (3) of this OAR is applicable to this PAPA application.
OAR 660-023-180 (3): An aggregate resource site shall be considered significant if adequate information
regarding the quantity, quality, and location of the resource demonstrates that the site meets any one of
the criteria in subsections (a) through (c) of this section, except as provided in subsection (d) of this
section:
(a) A representative set of samples of aggregate material in the deposit on the site meets the applicable
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) specifications for base rock for air degradation,
abrasion, and soundness, and the estimated amount of material is more than 2,000,000 tons in the
Willamette Valley, or more than 500,000 tons outside the Willamette Valley;
This criterion requires review of two characteristics of the resource: quantity and quality. The
estimated quantity of the resource must exceed 2 million tons. The applicant’s report concludes that
there is over 8 million cubic tons of material present beneath the site, an amount well in excess of the 2
million cubic ton requirement.
The quality of the resource must meet ODOT standard specifications for highway construction. The
original sampling methodology is described in Exhibit 1, Evaluation of Aggregate Resources: Delta
Sand and Gravel Expansion Area, by EGR & Associates. Issues raised under the quality criterion
include:
adequacy of methodology used to test the material
?
adequacy of bore hole coverage
?
adequacy of the data recorded from the samples taken
?
Elaboration of the issues are found in the following submittals:
Exhibit 1
-- Evaluation of Aggregate Resources: Delta Sand and Gravel Expansion Area, by
EGR & Associates, Inc. in the original application.
File Record No. 18
– Memo from Shane Hughes, PE, EGR & Associates, Inc.
Exhibit 19
– Letter from Mark H. Reed, Mineral Resource Geologist.
Exhibit 33a
-- Testimony of Concerned Santa Clara Residents Organization (SCRO) on Delta
Mining Expansion Proposal – Mark H. Reed testimony in response to EGR analysis (ASTM
Standard Practice for Sampling Aggregates)
Exhibit 46
– Letter from Karen Reed
Exhibit 47
– Letter from Ralph Christensen, Senior Geologist, EGR & Associates, Inc.
(ASTM Standard Practice for Sampling Aggregates)
Exhibit 50
– letter from Steve Cornacchia
Exhibit 62
– Letter from Mark Reed
The record contains expert geologic testimony on both sides of this issue. The applicant’s analysis by
EGR and Associates was reviewed by another certified geologist, and the SCRO resource geologist
also reviewed the data and submitted comments. The AASHTO ASTM Standard Practice for
Sampling Aggregates language describes the sampling protocol for roadside or bank run sand and
gravel deposits under Appendix D75, section X2.3.2.
(b) The material meets local government standards establishing a lower threshold for significance than
subsection (a) of this section; or
Board/Council Hearing – Ordinance No. PA 1238 Delta Sand & Gravel Expansion
Agenda Cover Memo
Page 7 of 23
This provision is not applicable because Lane County has not established a lower threshold for
significance than Subsection (a) above.
(c) The aggregate site is on an inventory of significant aggregate sites in an acknowledged plan on
September 1, 1996.
This provision is not applicable because the expansion site has not been included on the
inventory of significant aggregate sites of the Metro Plan.
(d) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of this section, except for 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:
(A) More than 35 percent of the proposed mining area consists of soil classified as Class I
soils on Natural Resource and Conservation Service (NRCS) maps on June 11, 2004; or
This provision is not applicable because there are no Class I soils on the site.
(B) More than 35 percent of the proposed mining area consists of soil classified as Class II
or of a combination of Class II and Class I or Unique soil on NRCS maps available on June
11, 2004, unless the average thickness of the aggregate layer within the mining area exceeds:
(i) 60 feet in Washington, Multnomah, Marion, Columbia, and Lane counties;
Due to the percentage of Class II classification soils, the aggregate site cannot be
considered significant unless the average thickness of the aggregate layer within the
mining area exceeds 60 feet in Lane County. “Thickness of aggregate layer” is defined
above as “the depth of the water-lain deposit of sand, stones, and pebbles of sand-sized
fraction or larger, minus the depth of the topsoil and nonaggregate overburden.” The
applicants’ report concludes that the average cumulative width of the aggregate layer is
70.5 feet with a maximum overburden of 4 feet. Based upon the evidence in the record,
it appears to staff that the applicant has demonstrated that there exists a “significant”
Mineral & Aggregate Resource at the site.
The Lane County Planning Commission voted 4-2 that the sampling method for the quality
analysis of the aggregate was inadequate to determine significance of the resource. This vote is
the initial basis for the Lane County Planning Commission recommendation to deny the
application.
The Eugene Planning Commission voted 3-2 that the applicant has demonstrated there exists a
“significant” Mineral & Aggregate Resource at the site and the analysis of potential conflicts
under Step 3 with conditions to minimize those conflicts proposed by the applicant is warranted.
The Planning Commissions proceeded jointly to develop a recommendation for their elected
officials under Step 3.
STEP 3: MINIMIZE CONFLICTS
OAR 660-023-180(5): For a PAPA application involving an aggregate site determined to be significant
under section (3) of this rule, the process for this decision is set out in subsections (a) through (g) of
this section.
(a) The local government shall determine an impact area for the purpose of identifying conflicts with
proposed mining and processing activities. The impact area shall be large enough to include uses
listed in subsection (b) of this section and shall be limited to 1,500 feet from the boundaries of the
mining area, except where factual information indicates significant potential conflicts beyond this
distance. For a proposed expansion of an existing aggregate site, the impact area shall be measured
Board/Council Hearing – Ordinance No. PA 1238 Delta Sand & Gravel Expansion
Agenda Cover Memo
Page 8 of 23
from the perimeter of the proposed expansion area rather than the boundaries of the existing aggregate
site and shall not include the existing aggregate site.
The 1500 ft. impact area is measured from the boundary of the proposed mining expansion area,
and is shown on maps provided by the applicant on an aerial photo base in the record. Issues of
conflict raised during the Planning Commission public testimony and included in the written
record are for: dust, noise, groundwater, wetlands & sensitive habitat, traffic, flooding, and
agricultural impacts.
Concern for potential impact to an elementary school property outside the 1500’ impact area has
Exhibit 9
been raised in — letter from J.P. Lauch, 4J Facilities Manager.
Impacts beyond 1500’ were raised for groundwater impacts and impacts to agricultural practices
in:
Exhibit 16
– letter from Kate Perle
Exhibit 18
– notes from Kevin Jones oral testimony.
Exhibit 33
-- SCRO testimony
Exhibit 36
– Hydrology-Geology Report by Mali Kupilas
The Joint Planning Commissions deliberated and considered whether or not the impact area
extended beyond the 1500’ minimum as they considered each conflict ‘type’. Both Planning
Commissions found that none of the conflicts extend beyond the 1500 ft. minimum impact area as
measured from the perimeter of the expansion site.
(b) The local government shall determine existing or approved land uses within the impact area that will be
adversely affected by proposed mining operations and shall specify the predicted conflicts. For
purposes of this section, "approved land uses" are dwellings allowed by a residential zone on existing
platted lots and other uses for which conditional or final approvals have been granted by the local
government.
Approved land uses within the 1500’ impact area consist of low density residential, aggregate
production and processing, and agricultural operations. Conflicts were predicted due to dust,
noise, groundwater, flooding, wetlands and agriculture.
For determination of conflicts from proposed mining of a significant aggregate site, the local
government shall limit its consideration to the following:
(A) Conflicts due to noise, dust, or other discharges with regard to those existing and approved uses
and associated activities (e.g., houses and schools) that are sensitive to such discharges;
Written submittals and oral testimony identified conflicts between these existing uses and
associated activities primarily for people living in the adjacent residential neighborhoods that
are sensitive to discharges of dust for health reasons and noise as a quality of life conflict.
Concern about these issues are found in submittals from neighboring residents and elaboration
of these issues are found in testimony provided by SCRO experts. See the following:
Exhibits 1 – 8Exhibits 10, 12, 14, 15, 21, 22, 25, 27, 33, 38, 39, 41, and 42.
; and
Exhibit C to this Ordinance (PA 1238) contains the conditions proposed by the applicant
to minimize identified conflicts. Both Planning Commissions found there were conflicts
with dust, noise, groundwater, wetlands and sensitive habitat, and agriculture. The Lane
County Planning Commission additionally identified a conflict with flooding. The
analysis of the impact area and proposed minimization conditions were considered in
joint deliberations and votes taken for each conflict, see discussion starting on page 12 of
this memo.
Board/Council Hearing – Ordinance No. PA 1238 Delta Sand & Gravel Expansion
Agenda Cover Memo
Page 9 of 23
(B) Potential conflicts to local roads used for access and egress to the mining site within one mile of
the entrance to the mining site unless a greater distance is necessary in order to include the
intersection with the nearest arterial identified in the local transportation plan. Conflicts shall be
determined based on clear and objective standards regarding sight distances, road capacity, cross
section elements, horizontal and vertical alignment, and similar items in the transportation plan and
implementing ordinances. Such standards for trucks associated with the mining operation shall be
equivalent to standards for other trucks of equivalent size, weight, and capacity that haul other
materials;
The applicant requested a waiver of the analysis of potential traffic conflicts due to the
proposed project under Lane Code 15.697 (1): A traffic impact analysis may be required as
part of a complete land use application for any of the following:
(c) any plan amendment proposal unless waived by the County Engineer as specified below;
LC 15.697 (2) The County Engineer or designee may waive traffic impact analysis requirement
specified above when:
(b) In the case of a plan amendment or zone change, the scale and size of the proposal is
insignificant, eliminating the need for detailed traffic analysis of the performance of
roadway facilities for the 20-year planning horizon. Whether the scale and size of a
proposal may be considered insignificant may depend on the existing level of service on
affected roadways. Generally, a waiver to traffic impact analysis will be approved when:
(i) the plan designation or zoning that results will be entirely a resource designation.
File Record No. 42, Exhibit 30
See for the County Engineer waiver of the requirement for a
traffic impact analysis under LC 15.697(2). The County agreed with the applicants analysis
that the scale and size of the proposed extraction rate in the expansion area does not warrant
detailed traffic analysis of roadway performance. This waiver releases the applicant from the
Exhibit 45
requirement to conduct further traffic impact analysis. See for Land Watch letter
asserting this analysis must be completed.
Both Planning Commissions considered the traffic conflict analysis waiver and public
works response, and both voted unanimously that there is no conflict due to traffic under
the Goal 5 Rule.
(C) Safety conflicts with existing public airports due to bird attractants, i.e., open water impoundments
as specified under OAR Chapter 660, Division 013;
Not applicable to this PAPA.
(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;
There are two wetlands identified on the site, a pond and a Willamette River remnant oxbow.
The pond is an-old quarry pit, created by gravel extraction prior to 1977, and it is identified on
the Division of State Lands (DSL) Wetland Inventory and the Lane County Metro Plan Goal 5
Inventory. Safe Harbor provisions applicable to the pond were adopted by Lane County for
Goal 5 Resources outside the UGB and within the Metro Plan Boundary though Ordinance No.
1197 in 2004. The oxbow remnant is also on the DSL Wetland Inventory, and the Eugene Goal
5 Wetlands Inventory. It is identified as Site E-57, a segment of the East Santa Clara Waterway.
The Eugene Goal 5 Inventory has been adopted by the Board of Commissioners, however, the
resource protection measures for City of Eugene sites within the UGB has not yet been co-
adopted by the Board.
Board/Council Hearing – Ordinance No. PA 1238 Delta Sand & Gravel Expansion
Agenda Cover Memo
Page 10 of 23
Elaboration of wetland issues are found in the following submittals:
Exhibit 1
– Digital Model of Existing Excavation Site and New Expansion area, by EGR &
Associates, Inc. in the original application.
Exhibit 13
– letter from Bromley Newton LLP
Exhibit 16
– letter from Kate Perle
Exhibit 21
– letter from Greg & Renee See
Exhibit 23
– Letter from Hutchinson, Cox, Coons, DuPriest, Orr, & Sherlock, P.C.
Exhibit 33
– Natural Resources/Wetlands Report by Ethan Perkins Ph D.
Exhibit 57
– rebuttal from EGR & Associates to Dr. Perkins
Exhibit 65
– rebuttal to EGR from DuPriest
(E) Conflicts with agricultural practices; and
Agricultural practice occurs on the site, in the impact area and beyond. Testimony from
actual neighboring farmers/gardeners is mixed, with some statements of no negative impact.
Much of the testimony provided by the agricultural experts is general in nature, identifying
potential impacts to crops grown for commercial purposes that are not found within the 1500’
impact area. Elaboration of the issues are found in the following submittals:
Exhibits 16 & 33i
-- letter and memo from Kate Perle
Exhibits 18 & 33j
– letter and memo from Kevin Jones
Exhibit 19
– letter from Mark Reed
Exhibit 20
– letter from Karen Lawrence
Exhibit 18
– Letter from Karen Reed
Exhibit 24
– memo from Dewey Hofer
Exhibit 33f
– Report from Ross Penhallegon, OSU Extension Service
Exhibit 34
– Farmland Protection flier, 1000 Friends of Oregon
Exhibit 35
– memo from Michael Mishka Sloan.
Exhibit 36
– Hydrology-Geology report by Malia Kupilas
Exhibit 40
– Cost Estimate for Changes in Ag. Practices at Full Circle Community Farm
Both Planning Commissions found the conflicts with agricultural impacts did not extend
beyond the 1500 ft. impact area.
(F) Other conflicts for which consideration is necessary in order to carry out ordinances that
supersede Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) regulations pursuant to
ORS 517.780;
No other conflicts that supersede DOGAMI regulations have been identified.
(c) The local government shall determine reasonable and practicable measures that would minimize the
conflicts identified under subsection (b) of this section. To determine whether proposed measures
would minimize conflicts to agricultural practices, the requirements of ORS 215.296 shall be followed
rather than the requirements of this section. If reasonable and practicable measures are identified to
minimize all identified conflicts, mining shall be allowed at the site and subsection (d) of this section is
not applicable. If identified conflicts cannot be minimized, subsection (d) of this section applies.
OAR 660-023-180(5)(g) defines “Minimize a conflict”: to reduce an identified conflict to a level that is
no longer significant. For those types of conflicts addressed by local, state or federal standards (such
as the Department of Environmental Quality standards for noise and dust levels) to “minimize a
conflict” means to ensure conformance to the applicable standards.”
This means that any conflicts identified above in subsections (A) through (D) are minimized if the
applicant brings the conflict into conformance with an applicable local, state, or federal standard. A
Board/Council Hearing – Ordinance No. PA 1238 Delta Sand & Gravel Expansion
Agenda Cover Memo
Page 11 of 23
separate standard (ORS 215.296) applies to the minimization of conflicts with agricultural practices.
Many of the minimization techniques rely upon excavation to occur in specific phases, to specific
levels and to proceed when the existing operation has exhausted the existing supply of aggregate.
The Planning Commissions considered each conflict’s extent of impact and the proposed
minimization conditions, separately voting on each conflict under Step 3 of the Goal 5 analysis.
Ordinance No. PA 1238 Exhibit C provides the conditions proposed for inclusion in the plan to
allow mining to ensure conformance with applicable local, state, or federal standards.
NOISE CONFLICTS
Noise has been identified as a discharge from the proposed mining area that conflicts with nearby
residential uses. The noise producing components are haul trucks, dump trucks, and the excavator and
front end loader that extract the gravel and transfer it into trucks that move the material to the existing
processing facility. The entire expansion area is subject to the noise threshold requirements. Daly-
Standlee & Associates, Inc. (DSA) analyzed the future noise impacts inclusive of the ambient noise
from the existing adjacent processing operation owned by the applicant. The applicants noise study
was amended in response to public concerns raised at the Planning Commission hearing that some
additional residential development had occurred in the impact area that was not included in the original
analysis. DSA updated the noise impact analysis, and determined that without mitigation, DEQ noise
standards would be exceeded at the residences on site owned by the applicant, and approved uses
within the noise limit boundary could also be affected, but the proposed minimization for the zones
adequately reduces the conflict to acceptable levels. The revised analysis and zone of impact map is in
Exhibit 49
.
Exhibits and reports by Arthur Noxon, SCRO affiliated Acoustical Engineer raises issues with the
Exhibit 61
study methodology performed by DSA. Dick Ruth, in , responds to the technical aspects of
the opposing arguments regarding the methodology used by DSA.
Minimization of Noise Conflicts -- Addressed by DEQ Noise Regulations of OAR 340-35-035. The
analysis used the more restrictive DEQ standards for new sources in both the allowable statistical noise
limits category and ambient degradation limit category. Historically, DEQ did not require this level of
compliance for the extension of quarries into contiguous areas. The applicant proposes the predicted
noise can be reduced by the alternate mining procedures shown on PA 1238 Exhibit C #1 - #12 to
levels that would conform to the applicable DEQ standards by the development of lifts in stages,
limiting the use of noise producing equipment, and limiting the hours of operation.
Both Planning Commissions found unanimously that there is a conflict due to noise.
They both voted the noise conflict could be minimized to a level that meets the state DEQ
standard. T he Lane County Planning Commission vote was 3-2, with 1 abstention, and the
Eugene Planning Commission vote was 3-2.
DUST CONFLICTS
Dust is identified as a discharge from the proposed expansion area that conflicts with nearby residents
and negatively impacts farming activities. The applicants dust study, Air Quality Evaluation (Exhibit
G in the Application) contains details regarding the dust impacts to be expected from the operation.
Dust conflicts come from overburden removal, aggregate extraction, and truck traffic on haul roads
from the expansion area to the processing plant on the existing approved operation.
Board/Council Hearing – Ordinance No. PA 1238 Delta Sand & Gravel Expansion
Agenda Cover Memo
Page 12 of 23
Minimization of conflicts – Dust - addressed by DEQ Emissions Standards applied by Lane Regional
Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA) through an Air Contaminant Discharge Permit (ACDP):
Visible Air Contaminant Limitation (LRAPA 32-010)
Particulate Matter Weight Standards (LRAPA 32-015)
Particulate Matter Size Standard (LRAPA 32-055)
Other Emissions (LRAPA 32-090)
Rules for Fugitive Emissions (LRAPA 48-015)
This PAPA is for future mining of an adjacent expansion site. Delta’s processing operation directly
east of the expansion site operates under a current LRAPA permit (No. 20119). If approved, the
proposed future mining expansion area will be added to the existing permit and compliance
requirements will be updated to include the expansion area and conduct operations in a manner that
complies with the applicable standards under the existing authorized permit. The existing operation is
not under review in this PAPA application.
The submittals from the SCRO raises issue with the dust impact analysis and with the trustability of the
applicant to meet the LRAPA requirements. LRAPA past violations are included in the written record.
Additionally, some of the neighboring residents have health issues that are exacerbated by poor air
quality, asthma and breathing problems and have raised that issue. The analysis conducted by
Bridgewater models a conservative approach to the predicted conflict. The Planning Commissions had
concerns about lack of analysis of additional impacts from dust if the setback variance request to
complete a low permeability barrier (aquaclude) was granted. The location of the aquaclude and
methodology for completion was considered to be a large factor in the determination of impacts for this
conflict. See PA1238 Exhibit ‘C’, Conditions #13- #21 for dust minimization conditions proposed by
the applicant.
Both of the Planning Commissions found unanimously that there is a conflict due to dust, and
that the conflict due to dust could not be minim ized to a level that meets the DEQ emission
standards applied by LRAPA. Neither planning commission conducted further ESEE analysis
because none had been provided by the applicant.
Lane County Planning Commission voted 3-2 with one abstention, and Eugene Planning
Commission voted 3-2 that the conflict could not be minimized.
FLOODING CONFLICTS
The Lane County Flood Hazard requirements are found in Lane Code 16.244 Floodplain Combining
Zone. Refer to applicant’s submittal Evaluation of Potential Flood Impact (Exhibit H) The applicant
describes how all activity will be below ground and not affect the base flood level. Federal Emergency
Management Agency requirements as implemented by Lane County in Lane Code 16.244(7)(c)(ii):
“Where base flood elevations have been provided but floodways have not, the cumulative effect of any
proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated development, shall not
increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point.”
Gravel extraction activity does not impede floodwaters because extraction of the aggregate will
proceed in a downward manner, and will not create any barrier’s that impede flood flows. Conflicting
testimony and photos submitted during the public hearing dispute that assertion. Residents in the
(Exhibits 41 & 42)
neighborhood submitted photos of flooded streets and provided testimony at the
th
November 15 2005 Hearing expressing concern that mining of the expansion area would exacerbate
flooding in the surrounding neighborhoods, especially the new residential developments built within
the impact area. The relationship between groundwater and surface water in a flood and uncertainty of
Board/Council Hearing – Ordinance No. PA 1238 Delta Sand & Gravel Expansion
Agenda Cover Memo
Page 13 of 23
how the completion of the low permeability barrier would affect the flow of water was a factor in the
Planning Commissioner recommendation.
The Lane County Planning Commission voted 5-1 that there was a conflict due to flooding, and
they voted 4-2 that the conflict cannot be minimized to meet the FEMA standard.
The Eugene Planning Commission voted 3-2 that there was not a conflict due to flooding.
WETLANDS CONFLICTS
Wetland protection criteria is generally addressed by Division of State Lands (DSL) Fill/Removal
Permit Requirements of OAR 141-85. Conflicts are likely to be minimized by demonstrating
conformance with DSL requirements. The abandoned quarry pit and the East Santa Clara Waterway
(Site E-57) are on the DSL & Local Goal 5 Inventories.
Minimization of conflicts – Wetlands -- There are setbacks required for mining operations under Lane
Code 16.217. Completion of the low permeability barrier on the west/northwest boundary of the site
that would parallel Site E57, was considered by both planning commissions to be an un-analyzed
potential impact that should be addressed. The analysis provided by the applicant did not include
consideration of the aquaclude impacts. Mining setbacks are greater than natural resource protection
setbacks contemplated for Goal 5 resources.
Both Planning Commissions found that there is a conflict to wetlands. Lane County voted 4-2,
and Eugene voted 3-2.
The Lane County Planning Commission voted 2-4 that impacts to wetlands could not be
minimized.
The Eugene Planning Commission voted unanimously that any conflict with wetlands could be
minimized.
GROUNDWATER CONFLICTS
Conflicts regarding groundwater are not addressed by any local, state or federal standards. When
developing a program to allow mining, coordination occurs between DOGAMI as part of the inter-
jurisdictional review in concurrence with the Oregon Water Resources Department. The monitoring
plan requires DOGAMI approval. The applicant proposes to minimize the conflict with neighboring
wells by completing a below grade low permeability barrier (aquaclude) along the edge of the
expansion area to impeded the flow of groundwater into the pit that would be created by excavation of
the site.
There was considerable testimony from neighboring residents during the planning commission hearing
regarding the aquaclude. The neighborhood residents expressed concern with the lack of analysis of
dust and noise impacts from activities conducted to complete the aquaclude, primarily because the
aquaclude’s proposed location will be closer to their homes than an expanded mining operation. The
applicant asserts that the building of the aquaclude is not mining, therefore, it is not subject to analysis,
and is not included in determining the impacts under analysis conducted by the applicant, such as
digging out the overburden, and the slope ratio of the walls of the aquaclude. The aquaclude is
proposed for construction within the 150’ setback to reduce groundwater flow from the surrounding
land.
Board/Council Hearing – Ordinance No. PA 1238 Delta Sand & Gravel Expansion
Agenda Cover Memo
Page 14 of 23
The mining of the expansion area will be performed in a planned sequence that will put all ground
water and rain water flowing by gravity across the open 300 acre pit to the pumps located at the
Exhibit 49
excavated pond near the Willamette River that remove the water flowing into the pit. See
for detailed explanation of the proposed sequence to mine the expansion area.
Minimization of conflicts – Groundwater -- Addressed by Condition # 22 in Exhibit C, to complete a
low permeability barrier along the outer perimeter edge of the expanded mining area to the depth of the
older cemented alluvium to prevent seepage into the pit.
Both Planning Commissions found unanimously that there was a conflict due to groundwater.
The low permeability barrier (aquaclude) is proposed as mitigation, and the applicant should
map the specific proposed location for the low-permeability barrier.
The Lane County Planning Commission voted 4-2 that the aquaclude would not minimize the
conflict with groundwater to an adequate level.
The Eugene Planning Commission found unanimously that the aquaclude would minimize
conflicts with groundwater to an adequate level.
AGRICULTURAL CONFLICTS – minimization of conflicts with agricultural practices must be reviewed
under the provisions of ORS 215.296(1) to determine that the use will not:
(a) force a significant change in accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or
forest use; or
(b) significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to
farm or forest use.
The subject property is currently being farmed, which is an appropriate interim use for future gravel
Exhibit 24
resource land. See from Dewey Hofer, who is farming the expansion area under lease
. Exhibits 16, 18 and 40
agreement with the owners, from Full Circle Community Farm, provide
another viewpoint of potential impacts to their existing operating family farm. Their farm is about a
mile away in the River Road/Santa Clara area, outside the 1500’impact area identified for this PAPA.
Expert general testimony regarding agricultural practices and conflicts with dust is provided by Ross
Exhibit 33f.
Penhallegon, OSU Extension Agent for the southern Willamette Valley in
Both Planning Commissions found that there was conflict to agricultural practices within the
impact area. The Lane County vote was 4-2 and Eugene vote was 3-2.
The Eugene Planning Commissions voted unanimously that the conflicts with agricultural
practices could be minimized to a level that does not force a significant change in accepted farm
use nor increase the cost to conduct farming significantly.
The Lane County Planning Commission voted 4-2 that the conflicts with agricultural practices
could NOT be minimized to a level that does not force a significant change in accepted farm use
nor increase the cost to conduct farming significantly.
STEP 4:WEIGH ESEE ANALYSIS
OAR660-023-180(5)(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
Board/Council Hearing – Ordinance No. PA 1238 Delta Sand & Gravel Expansion
Agenda Cover Memo
Page 15 of 23
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 joint Planning Commissions found adverse effects within the impact area. They agreed the
conflict due to dust was one conflict identified under OAR 660-023-180(4)(b)(A) through (F) that
could not be reduced below a significant level (minimized). In addition to dust, the Lane County
Planning Commission found that conflicts could not be minimized for groundwater, wetlands, and
flooding.
The applicant could prepare an ESEE analysis in accordance with this section of the Rule for review by
the Board of Commissioners and Eugene City Council for consideration in the decision making
process.
STEP 5: DETERMINE ESEE CONSEQUENCES OF NEW USES
OAR 660-023-180(5): Local governments shall follow the standard ESEE process in OAR 660-023-0040
and 660-023-0050 to determine whether to allow, limit, or prevent new conflicting uses within the
impact area of a significant mineral and aggregate site. (This requirement does not apply if, under
section (4) of this rule, the local government decides that mining will not be authorized at the site.)
No potential new uses have been identified in the impact area. The site is adjacent to existing sand
and gravel extraction and mostly developed residential zoned and agricultural zoned property.
There is no need for an EESE analysis of potential new uses.
STEP 6: LANE CODE 16.252 PROCEDURES FOR REZONING AND RURAL COMP PLAN
AMENDMENTS
The Urban Transition Agreement between the city and county applies only within the UGB, so because the
Delta expansion site is outside the UGB where Lane Code Chapter 16 zoning applies, the rezoning decision
is a Lane County Board decision.
Lane Code 16.252(2) Criteria. Zonings, rezonings and changes in the requirements of this Chapter shall
be enacted to achieve the general purpose of this Chapter and shall not be contrary to the public
interest. In addition, zonings and rezonings shall be consistent with the specific purposes of the zone
classification proposed, applicable Rural Comprehensive Plan elements and components, and
Statewide Planning Goals for any portion of Lane County which has not been acknowledged for
compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals by the Land Conservation and Development
Commission. Any zoning or rezoning may be affected by Ordinance or Order of the Board of County
Commissioners, the Planning Commission or the Hearings Official in accordance with the procedures
in this section.
Lane County policies require that known resource sites within the County shall be conserved for both
present and future uses through the application of Plan designations and compatible land use regulation
measures. The appropriate Metro Plan designation for a significant mineral & aggregate site outside
the Eugene-Springfield Metro UGB is “Sand and Gravel”, and the land use regulation measures for this
Board/Council Hearing – Ordinance No. PA 1238 Delta Sand & Gravel Expansion
Agenda Cover Memo
Page 16 of 23
use are found in the Sand, Gravel & Rock Products Zone (SG-RCP). In accordance with the rezoning
criteria above, the use of the expansion area for aggregate production must be found consistent with the
specific purposes of the proposed zone classification Sand, Gravel and Rock Products Zone (SG-RCP)
as described below. The rezone is required to show consistency with the statewide planning goals.
This zoning district must be applied upon demonstration that the site complies with the Goal 5
Administrative Rule and mining shall be allowed.
LC 16.217(1) Purpose. The intent of the Sand, Gravel and Rock Products Zone (SG-RCP) is to:
(a) recognize that sand and gravel deposits within the County are an unrenewable natural resource.
(b) Identify and zone under this zone major deposits of sand and gravel, rock and related material
resources.
(c) Provide for the utilization of this resource in a manner compatible with other land uses in the area.
(d) Encourage the regular, systematic and uninterrupted extraction and processing of such resources.
(e) Establish procedures for assuring protection of public health and safety on and adjacent to land
used for extraction and processing.
(f) Prevent irresponsible extraction of material resources, to the detriment of the public.
(g) Provide standards to be observed during the extraction process with a view to ultimate utilization of
the site.
(h) Carry out these purposes with the recognition of a need for said resources and the right of each
property owner to make a reasonable use of his or her land.
(i) Implement the policies of the Rural Comprehensive Plan.
(j) Be applied only to those sites which have been evaluated consistently with the statewide planning
goal 5 Administrative Rule conflict resolution process.
LC16.217(3)Permitted Uses. In the SG-RCP zone, the following uses are permitted, subject to the
following restriction: For an property designated in the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan Plan as
significant in terms of OAR 660-16.000/025 and designated as ‘1B’, a Goal 5 ESEE consequences
analysis per the Goal #5 Administrative Rule must first be completed. If the landowner and County do
not agree on the method to achieve the Goal, the matter shall be forwarded to the Hearings Official for
processing consistent with LC 16.100.
The ‘1B’ sites are those for which not enough information is available to determine significance.
The expansion area is not a ‘1B’ site, therefore, the Goal 5 ESEE analysis is not required under the
Goal 5 rule or this section of Lane Code.
OREGON STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS
As required under ORS 197.175(2)(a), Comprehensive Plan amendments must comply with the
Statewide Planning Goals. The applicant’s discussion of the Goals is found in their application.
Goal 1 Public Involvement
The County sent notice to neighbors and referrals to agencies on October 26, 2005, 20 days prior to the
November 15, 2005 joint Planning Commission public hearing. The notice notified them of the
opportunity to comment on this request to expand the existing Delta gravel extraction operation
westward to the subject property. A Legal Ad announcing the November 15, 2005 public hearing
before the planning commissions was published in the Register Guard on October 26, 2005 and a sign
was placed on the subject property on that same date announcing the time, location, and applicable
criteria for comments. Written notice and referral was sent to neighbors, interested parties, and
agencies on October 12, 2006, 20 days prior to the joint public hearing before the Lane County Board
of Commissioners and Eugene City Council on November 1, 2006. Legal Notice of the public hearing
Board/Council Hearing – Ordinance No. PA 1238 Delta Sand & Gravel Expansion
Agenda Cover Memo
Page 17 of 23
before the elected officials was published in the Register Guard on October 12, 2006. A sign was
posted on the subject property on October 12, 2006 announcing the time, date, and location of the
November 1, 2006 hearing before the elected officials. By providing the notices required by state law
and applicable local code, Goal 1 is complied with.
Goal 2 – Land Use Planning
Lane County has adopted the Metro Plan amendment process and policy framework as a basis for land
use decisions in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan area. The Metro Plan is an acknowledged
comprehensive plan, pursuant to provisions specified by DLCD. The record shows coordination with
affected governmental agencies and special districts were provided opportunity for comments. This
proposal, and the process for reviewing the requested amendment follows the procedures outlined in
Lane County and Eugene Codes thus the proposal is consistent with Goal 2.
Goal 3 –Agricultural Lands
The proposal would remove 72.31 acres of land from an agriculture designation to sand and gravel.
Lane County policies require that known Goal 5 resource sites within the County shall be conserved for
both present and future uses through the application of Plan designations and compatible land use
regulation measures. The appropriate Metro Plan designation for a significant mineral & aggregate site
is “Sand & Gravel.”
Goal 4 – Forest Lands
There are no Forest Lands in the vicinity of the expansion area, so this goal does not apply.
Goal 5 -- Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources
The subject property is proposed to be redesignated from Agriculture, a resource designation, to Sand
& Gravel, which is also a Goal 5 Natural Resource.
Goal 6 – Air, Water and Land Resources Quality
The mitigation measures proposed for inclusion in the Operations Plan are adequate to meet the
emission requirements in the regulatory measures to maintain the quality of the airshed consistent with
the standards set under this goal for the expansion area.
Goal 7 -- Natural Disasters and Hazards
The subject property is within the Floodplain Combining Zone. Proposed activity does not impact or
raise potential for flooding because extraction occurs below grade, and does not increase the potential
for impeding floodwater flow through the area.
Goal 8 – Recreational Needs
There are no recreational uses proposed or adjacent to the subject property, therefore this goal does not
apply.
Goal 9 -- Economic Development
The approval of this PAPA would extend the local supply of gravel, which is a critical component of
the built environment and commercial construction. Having local sources of this important resource
available within the local market is important for economic development projects in central Lane
County. Delta Property Company also pays family wages for the majority of the jobs within the
company, improving the local economy for employees.
Goal 10 – Housing
The subject property is designated as agriculture and proposed for rezoning to sand and gravel, with no
plans for residential use in the future. There are three homes on the subject property, owned and rented
Board/Council Hearing – Ordinance No. PA 1238 Delta Sand & Gravel Expansion
Agenda Cover Memo
Page 18 of 23
out by the applicant. The eventual loss of these three dwellings will not measurably impact the
acknowledged housing inventory for the Metro Area. Therefore, this PAPA does not conflict with the
purpose and intent of this Goal.
Goal 11 – Public Facilities and Services
Approval of this PAPA would result in a natural resource use of the expansion area that will not require
the extension of any public facilities or services in the future. Therefore, the PAPA is consistent with
the intent and purpose of this Goal.
Goal 12 – Transportation
The applicant proposes to process the mined material from the expansion site on the adjacent property
where the approved processing facility owned by the applicant is sited today, so that traffic is internal
to the Delta Company Property. Lane County Transportation Engineering Division has waived the
requirement for further analysis of impacts to local roads because the percentage increase of traffic on
local roads is below the minimum required for further analysis. Because negligible increase in product
delivery or service will occur if this PAPA is approved, the policies and objectives of Goal 12 are
consistent with this proposal.
Goal 13 – Energy Conservation
The proposed use of the expansion site will provide continued stable and long term aggregate within
close proximity to the Metro area market. From an energy conservation perspective, locating these
resources close to construction activity reduces fuel use and maximizes energy efficiency during
construction and development. Therefore, the PAPA is consistent with this Goal.
Goal 14 – Urbanization
The expansion site is outside the urban growth boundary and therefore is not urbanizable land. Only
resource use is proposed for the site, no additional urban facilities or services apply to the site,
therefore, the PAPA is consistent with this goal.
Goal 15 – Willamette River Greenway
The expansion area is outside the Willamette Greenway, so this Goal does not apply.
Goals 16, 17, 18, and 19 – Estuarine, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean Resources
These are the Coastal Resources Goals that do not apply to this PAPA due to geographic location.
Setback Variance Criteria LC 16.217
The applicant has requested a variance to the setback requirements in LC 16.217 (4) (b) (v) Setbacks
for Excavation. The variance would make it possible to allow the construction of a ‘low-permeability
barrier’ (also called an aquaclude) within the setback area that would be designed and built to eliminate
the flow of groundwater from the surrounding land into the pit created by aggregate mining.
LC16.217 (4)(v) Setbacks for Excavation. Excavation shall not be conducted closer than 150 feet to
any property boundary, except as herein provided.
(aa) The Director may grant an administrative variance to decrease a setback upon showing that the
eventual utilization of the site is compatible with a smaller setback up to the following minimums:
(i-i) Fifty feet from the boundary of any nonresidential zone, or the right-of-way of
an existing street or road.
(ii-ii) One hundred feet from the boundary of a residential zone.
Board/Council Hearing – Ordinance No. PA 1238 Delta Sand & Gravel Expansion
Agenda Cover Memo
Page 19 of 23
These minimums would apply within the setback if the variance is granted.
(bb) The Director may grant an administrative variance to waive the setback from adjoining
property in a Sand, Gravel and Rock Products Zone, if no flood hazard will result.
(cc) The setback area may be excavated to reduce the elevation thereof to the grade of an
adjoining public street or road.
(dd) Excavation may be conducted within the setback area under a plan approved by the Director
through an administrative variance whereby the excavated area will be refilled with other
materials which will neither decompose nor pollute underground waters.
The applicant proposes to construct the low permeability barrier within the setback, proceeding
ahead of the mining extraction to the west, at a distance of 400 feet ahead of any excavation
activity. The barrier is proposed to be at least 12 feet wide at the bottom (top of the cemented
alluvial layer that stops the downward flow of water) and slope upward through the upper aquifer
at a slope ratio that can vary from 1:5 to 2:1 to the original ground surface.
The request for placement within the setback area to is to insure its separation from the excavated
aggregate pit and to place the barrier’s outer edge as close as possible to the surrounding off-site
shallow aquifer. The barrier will be created by replacing excavated material with low
permeability clay soil excavated from another area of Delta property. Clay soil will not
decompose nor pollute underground water. Other clean impermeable material may be used in the
aquaclude, and clay may be brought from outside the property from other jobs for use in the
aquaclude.
(ee) When excavation is completed adjoining a setback, the setback area shall be smoothed, all
excavation debris removed, and all trees which are in an unsafe condition removed. However,
such setback areas may be used for permitted uses under LC16.217(3)(b) and (c) above.
The Reclamation Plan would include this requirement.
LC 16.217 (7) (b) Variances. Variances to dimensional standards such as setbacks and slope ratios within
this zone are subject to approval by the Director pursuant to LC 14.100 and must conform to the
following criteria:
(i) The variance is not in conflict with the general purpose and intent of the zone.
(ii) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property involved.
(iii) The denial of the request would result in undue and unreasonable property loss to the
applicant.
(iv) The variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or convenience, nor injurious to
the property or improvements of other owners of other property.
Gravel extraction is not ordinarily conducted in close proximity to urban populated areas. The
expansion area site is an extension of the existing Delta site, and without a variance to the
setback requirements, some property available for mining would be lost. The detriment to public
welfare as indicated in the neighborhood testimony in the record is considerable.
STEP 7: PROGRAM TO ALLOW MINING
OAR 660-023-180(5)(e): Where mining is allowed, the plan and implementing ordinances shall be
amended to allow such mining. Any required measures to minimize conflicts, including special
conditions and procedures regulating mining, shall be clear and objective. Additional land use review
(e.g., site plan review), if required by the local government, shall not exceed the minimum review
Board/Council Hearing – Ordinance No. PA 1238 Delta Sand & Gravel Expansion
Agenda Cover Memo
Page 20 of 23
necessary to assure compliance with these requirements and shall not provide opportunities to deny
mining for reasons unrelated to these requirements, or to attach additional approval requirements,
except with regard to mining or processing activities:
(A) For which the PAPA application does not provide information sufficient to determine clear and
objective measures to resolve identified conflicts;
The Planning Commissions did not feel there was sufficient information regarding the location or
functionality of the aquaclude to convince the majority that the conflicts due to dust (plus wetlands,
flooding, and groundwater for the Lane County Planning Commission) were minimized.
(B) Not requested in the PAPA application; or
(C) For which a significant change to the type, location, or duration of the activity shown on the PAPA
application is proposed by the operator.
If the application is approved, Staff recommends that any minimization measures to reduce or eliminate
conflicts are compiled into a set of clear and objective conditions applicable to the Plan and
implementing regulations adopted to allow mining of the expansion area.
(f) Where mining is allowed, the local government shall determine the post-mining use and provide for
this use in the comprehensive plan and land use regulations. For significant aggregate sites on Class
I, II and Unique farmland, local governments shall adopt plan and land use regulations to limit post-
mining use to farm uses under ORS 215.203, uses listed under ORS 215.213(1) or 215.283(1), and fish
and wildlife habitat uses, including wetland mitigation banking. Local governments shall coordinate
with DOGAMI regarding the regulation and reclamation of mineral and aggregate sites, except where
exempt under ORS 517.780.
The applicant would amend the existing Operating and Reclamation Plan to include the expansion
area. The existing reclamation plan for the adjacent mining and processing site is included in the
File Record No. 17.
record, see DOGAMI provides an update to Delta’s Operating Permit
Exhibit 49
Amendment Application in that addresses the addition of the Expansion Area to the
existing Plan upon approval. The conditions in Exhibit C to the Ordinance will be required to be
included in an updated Operating and Reclamation Plan that includes the expansion area.
(g) Local governments shall allow a currently approved aggregate processing operation at an existing site
to process material from a new or expansion site without requiring a reauthorization of the existing
processing operation unless limits on such processing were established at the time it was approved by
the local government.
This provision permits the material excavated from the subject property to be transported to the
adjacent existing Delta processing facility without further review of the existing processing
operation.
C. Alternatives/Options
1. Hold the record open for the submittal of additional information from parties in this matter.
The Board and Council will hear a considerable amount of testimony on this application
during the November 1st hearing. Presumably, the applicant or other parties will request the
record to be held open for the submittal of additional information to respond to new evidence
presented at the hearings. The following timeframes should be decided upon if this option is
chosen.
Board/Council Hearing – Ordinance No. PA 1238 Delta Sand & Gravel Expansion
Agenda Cover Memo
Page 21 of 23
Period 1- Record open for submittal of additional written information by any party
?
(including applicant) for ____ weeks;
Period 2 - Record open for any party to respond to items submitted during the previous open
?
record period (including the public hearing) for ____ weeks;
Period 3 - Record open for final written argument from applicant for ____ weeks.
?
Written record closed. _____/_____/______
?
2. Adopt the Ordinance as presented.
3. Adopt the Ordinance with revised findings.
4. Do not adopt the Ordinance and take tentative action to deny the application.
V. RECOMMENDATION
Under the Goal 5 Gravel Mining Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment evaluation process, there
are seven analytical steps: The joint Planning Commissions evaluated the proposal and testimony
submitted through the public hearing process. The minutes of these meetings are attached, and this staff
memo summarizes the specific recommendations from the planning commissions to the elected
officials. Neither Planning Commission conducted further ESEE analysis because the applicant did not
present one. Without an ESEE analysis, the planning commissions were not able to weigh the conflicts
and conduct further analysis to provide recommendations for steps 4-6. The Planning Commissions
recommendation for denial is based on failure to minimize conflicts with dust (for both) and dust,
flooding, wetlands, groundwater and agricultural practices (for Lane County), and the lack of an ESEE
analysis.
The Lane County Planning Commission felt that the PAPA information was adequate and that the
resource was not significant. In addition, the Lane County Planning Commission did not find that the
conflicts with dust, groundwater, wetlands and flooding could be minimized to an acceptable level and
therefore cannot recommend approval of the application.
The Eugene Planning Commission felt the PAPA information was adequate and that the resource was
significant. They concluded that all conflicts were minimized by the applicant except the dust conflict,
which the Eugene Planning Commission majority did not believe could be minimized to an acceptable
level.
VI. IMPLEMENTATION/FOLLOW-UP
The Ordinance does not contain an emergency clause. If the record is held open, additional readings will be
scheduled and staff reports provided as necessary.
Upon final closure of the record, staff will prepare a final report and bring this item back to the Board and
Council for deliberation and action.
Board/Council Hearing – Ordinance No. PA 1238 Delta Sand & Gravel Expansion
Agenda Cover Memo
Page 22 of 23
VII. ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance No. PA 1238
Exhibit A – Metro Plan Diagram Amendment
Exhibit B – Official Plot Map #1005 Amendment
Exhibit C – Findings & Conditions (Findings from the applicant will be provided in a supplemental packet).
2. Application for Metro Plan Amendment and Rezone
3. Joint Planning Commission Minutes – Hearings and Deliberations meetings
November 15, 2005, Public Hearing
January 17, 2006, Public Hearing
July 25, 2006, Deliberations
August 30, 2006, Deliberations
4. File Record Content Index for PA 05-6151
The bolded exhibits referred to in this report are referenced in this attachment.
Board/Council Hearing – Ordinance No. PA 1238 Delta Sand & Gravel Expansion
Agenda Cover Memo
Page 23 of 23
ORDINANCE NO. ___________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) TO REVISE
THE GOAL 5 SIGNIFICANT MINERAL AND AGGREGATE
RESOURCES INVENTORY AND REDESIGNATE FROM
“AGRICULTURE” TO “SAND & GRAVEL;” ADOPTING SAVINGS AND
SEVERABILITY CLAUSES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
A.
In August 2005, application No. PA 05-6151 was made to Lane County for a
Type II Metro Plan Amendment to add property located outside the Metro Plan UGB and within
the Metro Plan Boundary to the Metro Plan Goal 5 Inventory of Significant Mineral &
Aggregate Sites, to change the Metro Plan designation for that property from “Agriculture” to
“Sand & Gravel” and to concurrently rezone that property in the County’s Rural Comprehensive
Plan.
B.
Sections 9.7700 through 9.7750 of the Eugene Code, 1971 (“EC”) set forth
procedures for amendment of the Metro Plan. Pursuant to the procedures described at EC
9.7730(2)(b), the Board of Commissioners of Lane County referred the above-described
application to the City Council of the City of Eugene for City action on the proposed Metro Plan
amendments.
C.
The Eugene Planning Commission reviewed the proposal with the Lane County
Planning Commission in public hearings on November 15, 2005 and January 25, 2006,
deliberated jointly on July 25, and August 30, 2006 and the matter was forwarded to the City
Council and Board with formal Planning Commission recommendations.
D.
Evidence exists within the record indicating that the proposal meets the
requirements of Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971, and the requirements of applicable state
and local law.
E.
The City Council has conducted a public hearing and is now ready to take action.
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
The subject site, consisting of, tax lots 3600, 3601, and 3700 of map 17-04-
12-00; tax lot 3600 of map 17-04-12-20; tax lots 5600, 6200, and a portion of 100 of map 17-04-
12-31; and tax lots 300, 400 and a portion of 600 of map 17-04-12-40; shall be added to the
Metro Plan Inventory of Significant Mineral and Aggregate Sites. based on findings and
conclusions as described in Exhibit “B” attached and incorporated herein.
Ordinance - 1
Section 2.
The Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan is amended by the
redesignation of tax lots 3600, 3601, and 3700 of map 17-04-12-00; tax lot 3600 of map 17-04-
12-20; tax lots 5600, 6200, and a portion of 100 of map 17-04-12-31; and tax lots 300, 400 and a
portion of 600 of map 17-04-12-40; from “Agriculture” to “Sand and Gravel”, such territory
depicted on the Eugene Springfield Metro Plan Diagram and further identified on Exhibit “A”
attached and incorporated herein.
Section 3.
Although not a part of this Ordinance except as described above, the Findings
and Conditions as set forth in Exhibit “B” attached, are adopted in support of this action.
Section 4.
The prior designation and zone repealed by this Ordinance shall remain in full
force and effect to authorize prosecution of persons in violation thereof prior to the effective date
of this Ordinance.
Section 5.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent
jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and
such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof.
Section 6.
This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption by the City
Council and approval of Mayor, as provided in the Eugene Charter of 2002, or upon adoption of
identical amendments to the Metro Plan by the Board of Commissioners of Lane County,
whichever date is later.
Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this
____ day of ____________, 2006 ____ day of _______________, 2006
___________________________ _______________________________
City Recorder Mayor
Ordinance - 2
./~
(
':'i!
&
~
GII\I7Pl
~<
1>
~---
,
,,"
I
I
,
J
,.~
I
I
,
I
...._~
r
. -.
\. f.
,
,
,
.
: .
'-e_, ~.'
" .,.
1
~
,J
It
~--
~~~ ~.
= .., c.. a
c.. ;;. ~ "
==-. ~
= =- ~ /' -.-,.
C. = = ~
~-c""
W J ft) ft)
-c ...
~ Q =r_
_ 0 /
~ a A
o [[J ~i
~ f ~ ~
~<
,
.
,'"
I,
,
".
I
..
i:
!.
c:
~
r:r
:Po ~
~ !:
Rezone from
'E30lExcluslve Farm Use' Zone
to 'SG/Sand, Gravel and
Rock Products' Zone
. ~"o
.to\. -( u~
c::::::c
.' J
CL
~,' ~-
~~
C~.~
. I
LL...
Subject Property
332
Ordinance No. PA 123~
Exhibit B
'M
1006
'!L!.8
'ei I,q
I 0 ~-~ 1000
~AtE IN' ~EET,
2000
3000'
lane county
I ~. ITwnahP Raoat Section
L.=:== ", 17' 04 JI' 12.
)R I GiNAL . ORDJ #. PA 884 . . DATE 12/29/.19.84 ,'.: F lLE..#' .
. I' PlOT# ., 00,5
L 17 04 "'13, ( ~ ),:
'. ~VT ~ lON: #_.'
(,H~ri 11
,. '1"\ K,-'t
'. ,.,. ;..' .;'lJ.
Exhibit C
Ordinance No. PA 1238
Metro Plan Amendment and Rezone
Delta Property Company
Conditions Necessary to Minimize Conflicts are Required to Become Part of Any
Operation Plan Reviewed or Approved under LC 16.217
______________________________________________________________________
NOISE mitigation
All Zones:
1. Begin first and second lift mining operations no earlier than 7:00AM and end
mining operations no later than 10PM.
2. Retain the administrative controls of restricting the location of mining equipment
to reduce mining noise.
3. Take advantage of the screening effect provided when the equipment is below
grade.
4. First and second lift mining operations may be conducted separately or
simultaneously.
Zone 1
5. No additional restrictions beyond adhering to the time limit above, conduct
normal mining procedures for all three lifts.
Zone 2
6. Excavator removes a second lift of 18’ of material by digging from the base of the
second lift (digging from below) when the excavator is within 800’ of the western
boundary of the Expansion Area.
7. If the front end loader is operating at the same time as the excavator, the
excavator must be 1500’ or more away from any point on the western boundary
of the Expansion Area that is within 800’ of the front end loader.
Zone 3
Same restrictions as Zone 2 plus the following additional controls:
8. After overburden is removed, the front end loader removes a first lift of 13’ of
material by digging from the base of the first lift when the front end loader is
within 550’ of the western boundary of the Expansion area.
Ordinance No. PA 1238 – Exhibit C Conditions Delta Sand & Gravel
Page 1
9. Excavator removes a second lift of 18’ of material by digging from the base of the
second lift (digging from below) when the excavator is within 800’ of the western
boundary of the Expansion Area.
10. If the excavator is operating at the same time as the front end loader, it must be
1500’ or more away from any point on the western boundary of the Expansion
area that is within 550’ of the front end loader.
Zone 4
Same restrictions as Zone 3, plus one of the following additional controls when the
front end loader is within 235’ of the western boundary of the Expansion area:
either
11. Reduce noise generated by the front end loader by 2 dB relative to the CAT 980,
either by adding a noise control package, or by replacing it with a quieter model.
or
12. Limit the number of dump trucks loaded by the front end loader to 12 trucks per
hour.
DUST mitigation
13. Implement standard dust minimization measures to minimize fugitive emissions
from aggregate extraction. Dust suppressant shall be used as necessary. Add
expansion area to the LRAPA-approved Fugitive Dust Control Program
implemented on the currently permitted site.
14. Provide a water truck available at all times to sprinkle access roads, haul roads,
and other vehicle traffic areas to keep dust emissions down.
15. Keep internal roadways used for onsite truck traffic away from property lines as
far as practicable.
16. Trucks hauling dry, fine material and/or with visible emissions are required to be
covered or wetted during transport off property.
17. Conduct the excavation in phases to minimize the size of the area being
disturbed at any one time.
18. Maintain a minimum of 50’ setbacks to all property lines at the boundary of the
expansion area except near residential zoned properties where the setback shall
be a minimum of 100’.
Existing Conditions in the Approved LRAPA permit Covering Current Operations:
Ordinance No. PA 1238 – Exhibit C Conditions Delta Sand & Gravel
Page 2
19. Comply with the Fugitive Dust Control Program, required by LRAPA permit
no.20119 for the expansion area, which will be added to the permit.
20. Conduct mining in phases to minimize the size of the disturbed area at any one
time.
21. Vegetate mined areas to reclaim the land and minimize erosion and dust
generation except where open water features exist in the reclamation plan.
GROUNDWATER
Condition proposed by the applicant:
22. Construct a low-permeability barrier in advance of proceeding with excavation in
the expansion area consistent with the recommendations of EGR.
Existing Conditions in the Current DOGAMI Operating Permit (file record No. 17):
The permittee shall:
1. be sure all water leaving this operation complies with DEQ’s effluent quality
requirements.
2. maintain the dike between the site and the Willamette River so that the river does
not erode into the pit.
3. construct perimeter roads on Confluence Island in a manner that they are
armored against erosion.
4. follow the reclamation and operating plan labeled site 20-0131 for reclamation on
Confluence Island.
5. comply with DEQ requirements regarding the backfilling activities in the main
Delta Pit.
6. respread a minimum of 12 inches of topsoil over all reclaimed areas.
7. create fill slopes not to exceed 2H:1V, excavated slopes not exceeding 1.5H:1V,
and pond slopes not to exceed 3H:1V to 6 feet below the low water level.
8. submit a Plan for Mining to the Sand and Gravel Review Committee for review of
criteria in Lane Code 16.217 for review and approval.
9. obtain any necessary permits from regulatory agencies with hydrologic
responsibility for plan approval.
Ordinance No. PA 1238 – Exhibit C Conditions Delta Sand & Gravel
Page 3
10. conduct operations under a performance bond in the minimum amount of $500
per acre and any additional dollar amounts determined by the Director to be
necessary for side restoration.
Ordinance No. PA 1238 – Exhibit C Conditions Delta Sand & Gravel
Page 4
Exhibit C to Eugene Ordinance No. __________
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
for
A EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
AMENDING THE PLAN DIAGRAM DESIGNATION OF AGRICULTURE TO SAND AND
GRAVEL AND AMENDING THE PLAN GOAL 5 SIGNIFICANT AGGREGATE SITE
INVENTORY TO INCLUDE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS A SIGNIFICANT
AGGREGATE RESOURCE SITE
and
AMENDING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF EXCLUSIVE FARM USE TO SAND,
GRAVEL AND ROCK PRODUCTS
and
APPROVING AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A
LOW PERMEABILITY BARRIER WITHIN THE SETBACK AREA PURSUANT TO LANE
CODE 16.217(4)(b)(v)(dd)
FOR 72.31 ACRES LOCATED IN LANE COUNTY AND IDENTIFIED AS TAX LOTS 3600,
3601 AND 3700 OF LANE COUNTY ASSESSOR’S MAP NO. 170412; TAX LOT 3600 OF
LANE COUNTY ASSESSOR’S MAP NO. 1704122; TAX LOTS 5600 AND 6200 AND A
PORTION OF 100 OF LANE COUNTY ASSESSOR’S MAP NO. 17041231; AND TAX LOTS
300, 400 AND A PORTION OF 600 OF LANE COUNTY ASSESSOR’S MAP NO. 17041240
ORDINANCE NO. PA 1238
DELTA PROPERTY COMPANY
999 Division Avenue
Eugene, Oregon
Page 1 – FINDINGS OF FACT
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In support of our adoption and enactment of Ordinance No. PA 1238, we make the following
findings of fact and conclusions of law.
GENERAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
Delta Sand and Gravel Company is requesting approval of Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan
Comprehensive Plan (Metro Plan) amendments to add 72.31 acres of its property to the Goal 5
Significant Aggregate Site Inventory of the Metro Plan and to re-designate that land from
Agriculture to Sand and Gravel. The subject property would also be rezoned from Exclusive
Farm Use to Sand, Gravel and Rock Products in tandem with approval of the Metro Plan
amendments. The subject property contains 72.31 acres and is located adjacent to the existing
Delta mining and processing facility. The property is adjacent to the Eugene Urban Growth
Boundary and is located within the Metro Plan boundary. The proposed plan amendments and
rezone will allow Delta Sand and Gravel Company to expand its aggregate mining site onto its
adjacent property (the proposed expansion area that is the subject of this request).
Delta Sand and Gravel Company is a local, family-owned and operated business that was
founded by brothers Alan and Lee Babb. The Delta Companies and the Delta Sand and Gravel
Company aggregate facility are located on property that has been owned and used by the Babb
family for farming and sand and gravel production since 1927. That property, consisting of
approximately 474 acres of land zoned for sand and gravel production, contains approximately
8,000,000 cubic yards of aggregate material remaining available for extraction, processing and
sale. Delta Sand and Gravel Company estimates that, based upon historical extraction rates, the
remaining available aggregate material on that land will be depleted in 10 years. The company
owns 72 adjacent acres of land, currently zoned Exclusive Farm Use, that is the subject of this
application. Approval of the proposed plan amendment and rezone will allow the company to
add that 72 acres of land to its inventory of aggregate resource and, through the use of that land
for aggregate mining, extend the operational life of Delta Sand and Gravel Company by
approximately 12-15 years.
The Delta Companies employ up to 135 persons annually. In 2004 they paid gross wages of over
$4,750,000 and paid considerable taxes associated with that employment base. With the
approved use of the proposed expansion area Delta Sand and Gravel Company will continue
providing that employment level and will continue to be a significant contributor to the Metro
area economy for many years to come.
Approval of this application will result in a reasonable and logical expansion of an aggregate
materials source on land owned by a locally-owned and operated company and located in an area
currently committed to aggregate production. Approval of this application will also result in the
continued existence of a valuable and long-time contributor to the economic and social well
being of the Metro area.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
General Site Description
The property (proposed expansion area) that is the subject of this application contains 72.31
acres and is located contiguous to and west of the existing Delta Sand and Gravel Company
aggregate mining site. The property is located outside of the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary
Page 2 – FINDINGS OF FACT
and is located within the Metro Plan boundary. The property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use 30 (E-
30). The property is described as Tax Lots 3600, 3601 and 3700 of Lane County Assessor’s
Map No. 170412; Tax Lot 3600 of Lane County Assessor’s Map No. 1704122; Tax Lots 5600
and 6200 and a portion of 100 of Lane County Assessor’s Map No. 17041231; and Tax Lots 300,
400 and a portion of 600 of Lane County Assessor’s Map No. 17041240; The property is
bounded on the east by the existing Delta Sand and Gravel Company aggregate mining site, on
the west and south by residential land and on the north by residential and agricultural land.
The site is relatively flat and is primarily used for grass production with the exception of
approximately 5.5 acres of shrub nursery on the northeast portion of the property. Three
residential sites with associated outbuildings are located on the property. Two excavated ponds
(used for gravel extraction prior to 1977) are located on the property. A remnant meander scar of
the Willamette River is located on the western boundary of the property.
The overall site slope and drainage is to the northwest toward the abandoned meander scar or
oxbow of the Willamette River. On the southern portion of the property local drainage is
towards the ponds. No seeps or springs have been located on the property. Trees flank the
meaner scar along the western boundary of the property and blackberries are predominant around
the excavated ponds (with the exception of a few small trees at the western end of the ponds).
Description of Proposed Amendments
.
The application before Lane County and the City of Eugene seeks approval of the following:
1. An amendment to the Metro Plan diagram designating the subject property as
Sand and Gravel;
2. An amendment of the Metro Plan Goal 5 Significant Aggregate Site Inventory to
include the subject property as a significant aggregate resource site;
3.A change in the zoning of the subject property from Exclusive Farm Use to Sand,
Gravel & Rock Products;
4. An administrative variance to allow construction of a low permeability barrier
within the setback area pursuant to Lane Code 16.217(4)(b)(v)(dd).
The subject property is located within the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Comprehensive Plan
(Metro Plan) boundary and is located outside of the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary.
Applications for amendments to the Metro Plan diagram regarding property located within the
Metro Plan boundary and outside of the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary are filed with Lane
County and require the approval of the City of Eugene and Lane County.
METRO PLAN AMENDMENT -LANE CODE CRITERIA
OAR 660-023-0180 is the Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 5 Rule regarding aggregate resources.
OAR 660-023-0180(9) provides that if local governments have not amended their comprehensive
plans and land use regulations to include procedures and requirements consistent with the Goal 5
Rule for the consideration of post-acknowledgement plan amendments (PAPAs) regarding
aggregate resources, the procedures and requirements of the Goal 5 Rule shall be directly
applicable to a local government consideration of a PAPA. Therefore, Metro Plan, Lane Code and
Eugene Code land use regulations related to PAPAs regarding aggregate resources are not
applicable to this application. The Land Use Board of Appeals decision in
Morse Bros. v. Columbia
Page 3 – FINDINGS OF FACT
, 37 Or LUBA 85 (1999) supports the conclusion that OAR 660-023-0180(9) preempts the
County
application of local comprehensive plan amendment or zone change criteria to such PAPAs until
the local comprehensive plan and land use regulations have been amended to comply with the Goal
5 Rule. Furthermore, the conflicts to be considered by local government are limited by the Goal 5
rule to conflicts with land uses and does not include conflicts with otherwise applicable local
government regulations.
The Metro area jurisdictions have not amended the Metro Plan to adopt procedures and
requirements consistent with the Goal 5 Rule for the consideration of such PAPAs. The Lane Code
and the Eugene Code do not contain specific criteria regarding the consideration of a PAPA
proposing to add a site to the Metro Plan’s acknowledged list of significant aggregate sites and have
not been amended to conform to the requirements of the Goal 5 Rule through periodic review.
Therefore, only the provisions of the Goal 5 Rule shall be directly applicable to Eugene and Lane
County’s consideration of this application.
General Lane Code and Eugene Code provisions for the processing of Metro Plan amendments are
as follows.
Lane Code 12.210 - Initiation of Plan Amendments.
(1) Who Can Initiate Metro Plan Amendments. An amendment
to the Metro Plan can be initiated by the following persons or
entities:
* * * * *
b) Type II Plan Diagram and Site Specific Text Amendments.
* * * * *
(ii) Between the City limits and the Plan Boundary: Any of the three governing
bodies and citizens.
(2) When Plan Amendments Can be Initiated. Amendments to
the Metro Plan shall be initiated and considered at the following
times:
* * * * *
(b) Citizen initiated Type II Metro Plan amendments may be
applied for at any time. The initial public hearing on an
application shall take place within 60 days of acceptance of a
complete application.
The subject property is within the Metro Plan boundary and outside of the Eugene Urban Growth
Boundary. The application requests an amendment to the Metro Plan diagram which is a Type II
Metro Plan amendment. The application constitutes a citizen-initiated Type II Metro Plan
amendment which can be initiated at any time by citizens and can be considered at any time by
the City of Eugene and Lane County.
Page 4 – FINDINGS OF FACT
Lane Code 12.225(2) - Approval Criteria
(2) Criteria for Approval of Plan Amendment. The following criteria
shall be applied by the Board of Commissioners in approving or
denying a plan amendment application:
(a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide
planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development
Commission; and
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan
internally inconsistent.
METRO PLAN AMENDMENT - EUGENE CODE CRITERIA
Eugene Code 9.7715 - Metro Plan - Initiation of Plan Amendments
(1) Who Can Initiate Metro Plan Amendments. An amendment
to the Metro Plan can be initiated by the following persons or
entities:
* * * * *
(b) Type II Plan Diagram and Site Specific Text Amendments.
* * * * *
2. Between the city limits and the plan boundary. By any of the 3
governing bodies and citizens.
3. * * * A citizen initiating a Type II Metro Plan amendment
must own the property subject to the amendment.
(2) When Plan Amendments Can be Initiated. Amendments to
the Metro Plan shall be initiated and considered at the following
times:
* * * * *
(b) Citizen-initiated Type II Metro Plan amendments may be
applied for at any time. The initial public hearing on an
application shall take place within 60 days of acceptance of a
complete application.
The subject property is within the Metro Plan boundary and outside of the Eugene Urban Growth
Boundary. The application requests an amendment to the Metro Plan diagram which is a Type II
Metro Plan amendment. The application constitutes a citizen-initiated Type II Metro Plan
amendment which can be initiated at any time by citizens and can be considered at any time by
the City of Eugene and Lane County.
Eugene Code 9.7730(3) - Approval Criteria
Page 5 – FINDINGS OF FACT
(3) Criteria for Approval of Plan Amendment. The following
criteria shall be applied by the city council in approving or
denying a Metro Plan amendment application:
(a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant
Statewide Planning Goals adopted by the Land Conservation and
Development Commission; and
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan
internally inconsistent.
CONSISTENCY WITH GOAL 5
PAPA Definition.
A "PAPA" is a post-acknowledgment plan amendment. Approval of the subject
application to amend the Metro Plan diagram and significant aggregate site inventory will
constitute a PAPA.
Local Governments Are Required to Amend Acknowledged Inventories or Plans
with Regard to Mineral and Aggregate Resources in Response to an Application for
a PAPA If the Applicable Criteria Are Satisfied.
OAR 660-023-180(2)(a): A local government may inventory
mineral and aggregate resources throughout its jurisdiction, or
in a portion of its jurisdiction. When a local government
conducts an inventory of mineral and aggregate sites in all or a
portion of its jurisdiction, it shall follow the requirements of OAR
660-023-0030 as modified by subsection (b) of this section. When
a local government is following the inventory process for a
mineral or aggregate resource site filed under a PAPA, it shall
follow only the applicable requirements of OAR 660-023-0030,
except as provided in sections (3) and (6) of this rule.
Introduction - Significance Criteria.
OAR 660-023-0180(2)(b): Local governments shall apply the
criteria in section (3) of this rule rather than OAR
660-023-0030(4) in determining whether an aggregate resource
site is significant.
Introduction - Criteria for Allowing Mining on Significant Sites in Response to a
PAPA.
OAR 660-023-0180(2)(c): Local governments shall follow the
requirements of section (4) of this rule in deciding whether to
authorize the mining of a significant mineral or aggregate
resource site.
PAPA Submittal Criteria. OAR 660-023-0180(6)
Page 6 – FINDINGS OF FACT
(6) In order to determine whether information in a PAPA
submittal concerning an aggregate site is adequate, local
government shall follow the requirements of this section rather
than OAR 660-023-0030(3). An application for a PAPA
concerning a significant aggregate site shall be adequate if it
includes:
(a) Information regarding quantity, quality, and location
sufficient to determine whether the standards and conditions in
section (3) of this rule are satisfied;
(b) A conceptual site reclamation plan;
(NOTE: Final approval of reclamation plans resides with
DOGAMI rather than local governments, except as provided in
(
ORS 517.780)
(c) A traffic impact assessment within one mile of the entrance to
the mining area pursuant to section (4)(b)(B) of this rule;
(d) Proposals to minimize any conflicts with existing uses
preliminarily identified by the applicant within a 1,500 foot
impact area; and
(e) A site plan indicating the location, hours of operation, and
other pertinent information for all proposed mining and
associated uses.
This application for a PAPA contains the following:
An analysis of the aggregate resource of the subject property, conducted by EGR &
Associates, Inc. (EGR), Oregon registered geologists, is attached as an exhibit to the application
and our findings and conclusions regarding that analysis are further discussed below.
A conceptual site reclamation plan is attached as an exhibit to the application and our
findings and conclusions regarding that plan are further discussed below.
Lane Code 15.697(1) requires that a traffic impact analysis may be required for any plan
amendment proposal, unless waived by the County Engineer as specified in Lane Code
15.697(2). Lane Code 15.697(2) provides that the County Engineer may waive traffic impact
analysis requirements specified in LC 15.697(1) when, in the case of a plan amendment, the
scale and size of the proposal is insignificant, eliminating the need for detailed traffic analysis of
the performance of roadway facilities for the 20-year planning horizon. Lane Code 15.697(2)(b)
provides that, generally, a waiver to Traffic Impact Analysis will be approved when the plan
designation that results will be entirely a resource designation or there is adequate information
for the County Engineer to determine that a transportation facility is not significantly affected as
defined in Lane County Transportation System Plan Policy 20-d. We find that approval of the
application will result in the re-designation of the subject property from one resource designation
(Agriculture) to another (Sand and Gravel). Specifically, the proposed plan amendment will
result in the Metro Plan diagram designation of the subject property being changed to “Sand and
Gravel” and in the county zoning of the property being changed to “Sand, Gravel and Rock
Products.” Furthermore, as more specifically addressed below, we find that approval of the
application will not result in any additional traffic on any local roads and, consequently, will not
significantly affect any transportation facility. Therefore, we find that the Lane County Engineer
should waive the traffic impact analysis requirements of Lane Code.
Proposals to minimize conflicts with existing uses within a 1,500 foot impact area are
contained in the application and our findings and conclusions regarding those proposals are
further discussed below.
Page 7 – FINDINGS OF FACT
The location, hours of operation and other pertinent information for all proposed mining
and associated uses is provided in the application, which contains the following consultants
reports:Report on Noise Study (Daly-Standlee & Associates, Inc.) (hereinafter referred to as
“Daly-Standlee”) (Exhibit F); Air Quality Evaluation (Bridgewater Group, Inc.) (hereinafter
referred to as “Bridgewater”) (Exhibit G); Flood Impact Evaluation (EGR & Associates, Inc.)
(hereinafter referred to as “EGR”)(Exhibit H); and Digital Model-Groundwater (EGR) (Exhibit
I).
We Find That The Aggregate Resource Site is Significant.
OAR 660-023-0180(3):
An aggregate resource site shall be considered significant if
adequate information regarding the quantity, quality, and
location of the resource demonstrates that the site meets any one
of the criteria in subsections (a) through (c) of this section,
except as provided in subsection (d) of this section:
(a) A representative set of samples of aggregate material in the
deposit on the site meets Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT) specifications for base rock for air degradation,
abrasion, and sodium sulfate soundness, and the estimated
amount of material is more than 2,000,000 tons in the Willamette
Valley, or 100,000 tons outside the Willamette Valley;
b) The material meets local government standards establishing a
lower threshold for significance than subsection (a) of this
section; or
(c) The aggregate site is on an inventory of significant aggregate
sites in an acknowledged plan on the applicable date of this rule.
(d) Notwithstanding subsections (a) through (c) of this section,
except for 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:
(A) More than 35 percent of the proposed mining area consists of
soil classified as Class I on Natural Resource and Conservation
Service (NRCS) maps on the date of this rule; or
(B) More than 35 percent of the proposed mining area consists of
soil classified as Class II, or of a combination of Class II and
Class I or Unique soil on NRCS maps available on the date of
this rule, unless the average width of the aggregate layer within
the mining area exceeds:
(i) 60 feet in Washington, Multnomah, Marion, Columbia, and
Lane counties;
(ii) 25 feet in Polk, Yamhill, and Clackamas countiesor
;
(iii) 17 feet in Linn and Benton counties.
We conclude and find that the subject property is a significant aggregate resource site.
The application contains adequate information regarding the quantity, quality and location of the
aggregate resource that demonstrates that the proposed expansion area meets applicable criteria
of OAR 660-023-0180(3) as follows:
(a)A representative set of samples of aggregate material
in the deposit on the site meets Oregon Department of
Page 8 – FINDINGS OF FACT
Transportation (ODOT) specifications for base rock for air
degradation, abrasion, and sodium sulfate soundness, and the
estimated amount of material is more than 2,000,000 tons in the
Willamette Valley
EGR has been retained by the applicant to evaluate the aggregate material reserves in the
proposed expansion area. EGR is a long-standing engineering firm in Eugene, Oregon, with
licensed and experienced engineers. EGR is a legitimate technical resource that has the expertise
and experience to conduct evaluations of aggregate material deposits in Lane County, Oregon.
EGR published the results of its evaluation in the document titled “Evaluation of
Aggregate Resources: Delta Sand and Gravel Expansion Area, dated June 2005, and a copy of
the EGR report is attached as an exhibit to the application. In that report, EGR determined that
coarse aggregate samples obtained during its field exploration of the expansion area met ODOT
base rock specifications. The report contains laboratory data demonstrating that the coarse
aggregate (gravel) fraction present at the expansion site meets the base rock specifications
required by ODOT and Goal 5. Similarly, the report demonstrates that all of the coarse
aggregate samples meet the ODOT soundness requirements for Portland Cement Concrete.
Furthermore, EGR concluded that the estimated volume of aggregate available within the
proposed expansion area is 9,082,260 tons (more than four times the volume required by rule).
That information demonstrates that the expansion area meets the criteria of OAR 660-023-
0180(3)(a).
Opponents of the application testified that they believed that EGR’s methodology for
sampling should be challenged and that EGR’s sampling and conclusions regarding the quantity,
quality and location of the aggregate resource existing within the expansion area should be
independently verified. In testimony following the joint planning commission public hearing,
EGR effectively rebutted the arguments of opponents regarding the quantity, quality and location
of the aggregate resource. Furthermore, in testimony during the joint elected officials’ public
hearing, the applicant provided evidence to support its methodology and conclusions in the form
of correspondence from ODOT and DOGAMI. ODOT’s correspondence confirmed EGR’s
conclusion that material sampled from the aggregate deposit on the subject property met ODOT
specifications for base rock (ODOT tested representative samples from the EGR borings to reach
its conclusion). DOGAMI’s correspondence confirmed that the sampling and conclusions by
EGR and ODOT were correct and result in a finding that the subject expansion area contains a
significant deposit of aggregate material and that the site is a significant aggregate site that meets
the criteria of OAR 660-023-0180(3)(a).
We also note, for purposes of providing supporting reasoning for these findings, that the
expansion area is proposed as an extension of an existing significant resource site that has been
mined by the applicant for more than 80 years. We find it reasonable to expect that land
immediately adjacent to an existing significant resource site will also contain a significant
deposit of aggregate material similar to that of the existing site.
Based upon the applicant’s testimony, ODOT and DOGAMI confirmation of the
conclusions contained in that testimony and the fact that the applicant is proposing to expand an
existing aggregate site containing a significant deposit of aggregate material, we find that the
subject property is a significant aggregate site as defined by the Goal 5 administrative rule.
(d)Notwithstanding subsections (a) through (c) of this
section, except for 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,
Page 9 – FINDINGS OF FACT
an aggregate site is not significant if the criteria in either
paragraphs (A) or (B) of this subsection apply:
(B) More than 35 percent of the proposed mining area
consists of soil classified as Class II, or of a combination of Class
II and Class I or Unique soil on NRCS maps available on the
date of this rule, unless the average width of the aggregate layer
within the mining area exceeds:
(i) 60 feet in Washington, Multnomah, Marion,
Columbia, and Lane counties;
In its report, EGR estimated that the average width of the aggregate layer within the
expansion area is 70.5 feet. The 1997 Lane County Soil Ratings for Forestry and Agriculture,
which are based upon U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service
data and methodology, map the soils covering the expansion area as predominantly Class II
soils (Newberg fine sandy loam, Newberg loam, Chehalis silty clay loam, Newberg urban land
complex and Camas gravelly sandy loam). While more than 35% of the expansion area is
covered in Class II soils, the average width of the aggregate layer within the expansion area is
estimated by EGR to be 70.5 feet, with a maximum overburden width of 4 feet, which exceeds
the 60-foot requirement of OAR 660-023-0180(3)(d)(B)(i). Accordingly, we find that the
expansion area contains a quantity of aggregate material sufficient to meet the requirements of
the administrative rule.
We Find That The Criteria for Allowing Mining of the Site are Satisfied.
OAR 660-023-0180(4):
(a) The local government shall determine an impact area for the
purpose of identifying conflicts with proposed mining and
processing activities. The impact area shall be large enough to
include uses listed in subsection (b) of this section and shall be
limited to 1,500 feet from the boundaries of the mining area,
except where factual information indicates significant potential
conflicts beyond this distance. For a proposed expansion of an
existing aggregate site, the impact area shall be measured from
the perimeter of the proposed expansion area rather than the
boundaries of the existing aggregate site and shall not include
the existing aggregate site.
The term “mining area” as used above is defined at OAR 660-023-0180(1)(g) as:
“the area of a Site within which mining is permitted or
proposed, excluding undisturbed buffer areas or areas on a
parcel where mining is not authorized.”
The Goal 5 Rule defines “mining” as:
“the extraction and processing of mineral or aggregate
resources, in the manner provided under ORS 215.298(3).”
OAR 660-023-0180(1)(h).
Page 10 – FINDINGS OF FACT
The definition of “mining area” restricts the review of impacts to 1,500 feet from the
boundary of the area where mining is proposed to occur, unless factual information indicates that
a significant potential conflict from mining could occur with existing and approved uses beyond
that distance. We find that no credible factual information existing in the record to indicate or
demonstrate that analysis of a larger impact area is required for the proposed mining activity.
The applicant has analyzed all potential conflicts with mining of aggregate material on the
expansion area within an impact area extending 1,500 feet from the perimeter of the proposed
expansion area. The land uses of that impact area and the potential conflicts, with identified
mitigation measures, are discussed in the following sections.
(b) The local government shall determine existing or approved
land uses within the impact area that will be adversely affected by
proposed mining operations and shall specify the predicted
conflicts. For purposes of this section, "approved land uses" are
dwellings allowed by a residential zone on existing platted lots
and other uses for which conditional or final approvals have
been granted by the local government. For determination of
conflicts from proposed mining of a significant aggregate site,
the local government shall limit its consideration to the
following:
(A) Conflicts due to noise, dust, or other discharges with regard
to those existing and approved uses and associated activities (e.g.,
houses and schools) that are sensitive to such discharges;
We find that land uses on land surrounding the proposed expansion area, and within the
impact area, consist of residential, agricultural and industrial uses. Residences are located south,
west and north of the proposed expansion area. The nearest residence is located approximately
90 feet north of the boundary of the proposed expansion area. A single agricultural field
containing nursery tree stock is located within the impact area, northeast of the proposed
expansion area. The existing Delta Sand and Gravel Company facility is located directly east of
the proposed expansion area and the Eugene Sand and Gravel facility is located further east
across the Willamette River from the Delta Sand and Gravel Company property.
The applicant has identified the potential conflicts from the proposed mining of the
subject property due to noise, dust and other discharges associated with mining and processing
activities in the proposed expansion area. Those conflicts are as follows:
Noise
The applicant retained Daly-Standlee, Oregon registered engineers, to prepare a noise
study for the proposed expansion area. That study, titled “Report On Noise Study for Delta Sand
& Gravel New Mining Area”, dated June 14, 2005, is attached to the application. The report
concludes that certain areas within the impact area could be subjected to mining activity noise
above the limit allowed by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for a “new
noise source” on a “previously unused site.”
Dust and Engine Emissions
The applicant retained Bridgewater to prepare an evaluation of air quality issues
associated with the proposed expansion area. That evaluation, titled “Air Quality Evaluation”,
dated June 1, 2005, is attached to the application. The evaluation concludes that aggregate
Page 11 – FINDINGS OF FACT
mining and processing activities could generate dust and potentially create a nuisance condition
for the nearby residences due to unusual or annoying amounts of dust present in the ambient air.
Other “discharges” under the administrative rule could be defined to include air
emissions from diesel engines. However, the Bridgewater evaluation concludes that, due to the
small quantity of onsite excavation equipment and haul trucks, and the distant location of the
equipment to one another and the proposed expansion area boundary, no conflict due to diesel
exhaust will result from mining and processing activities associated with the proposed expansion
area.
Flooding
The applicant retained EGR to prepare an evaluation of flood impacts associated with the
proposed expansion area. That evaluation, titled “Evaluation of Potential Flood Impacts: Delta
Sand and Gravel Expansion Area”, dated June 6, 2005, is attached to the application. The
evaluation concluded that the method of mining the proposed expansion area will not result in a
potential to impede flood flow, to reduce flood storage volume within the flood plain or to
increase the velocity of water flowing across the site. The report concludes that the method of
mining completely avoids any potential adverse flood impacts associated with mining activities
on the proposed expansion area and, therefore, that no conflicts associated with flooding will
result from mining and processing activities on the proposed expansion area.
Groundwater
The applicant retained EGR to prepare an evaluation of groundwater impacts associated
with the proposed expansion area. That evaluation, titled “Digital Model of Existing Excavation
Site and New Expansion Area”, dated June 2005, is attached to the application. The evaluation
concluded that the proposed expansion of excavation (of the expansion area) could have an effect
on groundwater resources in the immediate vicinity of the excavation. As accumulated water
(rainwater and groundwater flowing into the excavations) is pumped from the excavations, the
groundwater table could be lowered radially outward from the excavation edge. EGR noted that
expansion of excavation in the area will not significantly affect municipal water supply system
users in the area and that only one known significant groundwater user still exists in the vicinity
of excavation site. The report concludes that that user is the plant nursery immediately to the
north of the site that has already experienced most of the impact it will experience from present
or expanded excavation. The evaluation concluded that mitigation may be required if other
significant groundwater users exist in the vicinity of the excavation.
(B) Potential conflicts to local roads used for access and egress to
the mining site within one mile of the entrance to the mining site
unless a greater distance is necessary in order to include the
intersection with the nearest arterial identified in the local
transportation plan. Conflicts shall be determined based on clear
and objective standards regarding sight distances, road capacity,
cross section elements, horizontal and vertical alignment, and
similar items in the transportation plan and implementing
ordinances. Such standards for trucks associated with the mining
operation shall be equivalent to standards for other trucks of
equivalent size, weight, and capacity that haul other materials;
We find that approval of the application will not result in any conflicts to local roads used
for access and egress to the mining site. Approval of the application will not result in any
change in the applicant’s current use of local roads used for access to and egress from its facility.
The proposed expansion area will merely be an additional area of land, adjacent to the
Page 12 – FINDINGS OF FACT
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
We find that approval of the application will not conflict with agricultural practices
within the impact area. The only property within the impact area currently committed to
agricultural use is tax lot 900, located on the subject property’s northern boundary. The owner of
tax lot 900 has maintained nursery tree stock on that property for many years without conflict or
negative impact from the nearby Delta Sand and Gravel Company operating facility. The owner
of tax lot 900 testified that he did not believe that Delta’s mining within the expansion area
would have negative effect on or conflict with his agricultural operation. The facility’s existing
excavation pit is immediately south of tax lot 900, well within 1500 feet of the agricultural use of
tax lot 900. Approval of the application will not change the physical relationship of tax lot 900
to the excavation area. We further find that any potential conflicts, even though not existing in
the past and not identified for the future, that have been identified in this application (noise, dust,
flooding, groundwater, traffic, etc.) relative to other existing uses, would be equally minimized
relative to agricultural uses by the application of the mitigation measures identified below in this
section.
(F) Other conflicts for which consideration is necessary in order
to carry out ordinances that supersede Oregon Department of
Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) regulations
pursuant to ORS 517.780;
No ordinances that supersede DOGAMI regulations, pursuant to ORS 517.780 have been
identified and therefore, no consideration of other conflicts associated with such ordinances is
necessary.
(c) The local government shall determine reasonable and
practicable measures that would minimize the conflicts identified
under subsection (b) of this section. To determine whether
proposed measures would minimize conflicts to agricultural
practices, the requirements of ORS 215.296 shall befollowed
rather than the requirements of this section. If reasonable and
practicable measures are identified to minimize all identified
conflicts, mining shall be allowed at the site and subsection (d) of
this section is not applicable. If identified conflicts cannot be
minimized, subsection (d) of this section applies.
Noise
Daly-Standlee concluded that, with appropriate noise mitigation measures, noise
generated by future mining operations in the proposed expansion area will comply with the most
demanding interpretation of the DEQ Noise Regulations for Industry and Commerce at all
residential properties around the proposed expansion area.
Daly-Standlee begins its analysis of potential noise impact by stating that certain areas
within the impact area may be subjected to mining activity noise above the limit allowed by the
DEQ for a “new noise source” on a “previously unused site.” DEQ noise limits for a new noise
source on a previously unused site (OAR 340-35-0015(14) and 340-35-0035(1)(b)(B)(i) (Table
8)) are more restrictive than the noise limits for “existing noise sources” (OAR 340-35-0015(17)
and 340-35-0035(1)(a) (Table 7)). Daly-Standlee states that historically DEQ has ruled that
when a mine site is expanded onto contiguous property, noise criteria which applied to the
equipment before expansion shall also apply to the equipment while in the expansion area.
Because aggregate mining has been occurring on the 474 adjacent acres of Delta Sand and
Gravel Company ownership since 1927, it could be argued that the existing mining operation is
an “existing noise source” and that the expansion area should be subjected to the less stringent
existing noise source criteria under that historic DEQ interpretation. However, it could also be
Page 14 – FINDINGS OF FACT
argued that the proposed expansion area is an “unused site” and that equipment moved to that
area should be considered a “new noise source on a previously unused site.”
Delta Sand and Gravel Company has elected to address potential noise impacts of a new
noise source on a previously unused site and to subject its future aggregate extractions to the
more restrictive DEQ noise limits for such a noise source. Because Daly-Standlee states that
certain areas within the impact area may be subjected to mining activity noise above the limit
allowed by the DEQ for a new noise source on a previously unused site, this application must
demonstrate that the potential noise impacts can be minimized. OAR 660-023-0180(1)(g)
provides that noise conflicts are considered minimized under the rule when the relevant DEQ
noise regulations (OAR 340-035-0035) are met.
Daly-Standlee concludes that, with appropriate mitigation measures, noise generated by
mining activity at the proposed expansion area will comply with the most demanding
interpretation of DEQ regulations at all residential properties within the impact area.
Daly-Standlee proposes a variety of mitigation measures, starting with limiting the first
and second lift mining operations to the time period from 7 o’clock AM to 10 o’clock PM.
Daly-Standlee proposes alternative mining procedures at various locations of the proposed
expansion area. Those alternative procedures are provided in Tables 7 and 8 of the noise study.
The study further concludes that if the proposed alternative procedures are followed during the
first and second lifts then no noise mitigation will be required for the third and subsequent lifts.
That statement is based upon the fact that due to the depth of operating equipment below grade
(surface level), the noise barrier effect provided by the face of the excavation combined with the
distance effect will reduce noise to a level in compliance with the DEQ noise restrictions at all
locations within the impact area.
Opponents of the application have challenged the Daly-Standlee report on grounds of
methodology and conclusions. We find that Daly-Standlee’s rebuttal of the opponents’
arguments is reasonable and provides significant evidence that the DEQ noise level requirements
will be met or exceeded through implementation of the proposed mitigation measures.
We find further that the initial construction of the aquaclude, which involves the removal,
stockpiling and return of topsoil and overburden to the trench during the surface digging,
constitutes a construction project that is exempt from DEQ noise level requirements. We also
find that the applicant’s method of construction of the aquaclude, including the creation of
temporary berms of the stockpiled topsoil and overburden, will not produce noise levels in
excess of DEQ requirements. We find that the remainder of the construction of the aquaclude,
because it involves the extraction and use of the aggregate material for aggregate production,
does not constitute a construction project. We find further that Daly-Standlee has adequately
demonstrated, in its subsequent report placed in to the record of the proceeding during the
elected officials’ public hearing, that the remainder of the construction of the aquaclude as
proposed by the applicant will not produce noise levels in excess of DEQ requirements.
Daly-Standlee concludes that, with implementation of the provided mitigation measures,
the potential noise conflicts associated with mining activity in the proposed expansion area will
be minimized consistent with the Goal 5 Rule and, based upon the Daly-Standlee analysis and
conclusions, we find accordingly.
Dust
Bridgewater concluded that, with the appropriate dust minimization measures, mining of
the proposed expansion area would be compliant with Lane Regional Air Pollution Agency
(LRAPA) airborne particulate matter emission standards and fugitive dust requirements and,
Page 15 – FINDINGS OF FACT
based upon Bridgewater’s analysis and conclusions, we find accordingly. We note that, for those
types of conflicts addressed by local state or federal standards, to “minimize a conflict” means to
ensure conformance to the applicable standard (OAR 660-023-0180(1)(g). Lane County’s
airshed is protected and regulated by LRAPA and the applicant currently holds an Air
Contaminant Discharge Permit (ACDP) from LRAPA for its existing mining and processing
facility on the adjacent Delta property. That ACDP requires that the rock crushing facility of the
applicant remain in its current location and also provides a limitation on the amount of rock
produced from that facility. We find that the activities proposed for the expansion area will
become subject to the current LRAPA ACDP (and regulated thereby) and we find that the
applicant has demonstrated that its activities proposed for the expansion area will conform to the
standards contained in the current LRAPA ACDP.
Bridgewater provides the list of proposed dust control measures that includes the
requirement that the expansion area shall be included within the LRAPA ACDP for the existing
Delta Sand and Gravel Company operation, and that the provisions of that ACDP shall be
followed by the applicant on the proposed expansion site. A copy of the ACDP is attached to the
application. The ACDP requires that the LRAPA-approved Fugitive Dust Control Program be
followed at the existing company site. The expansion area shall be added to the ACDP and the
Fugitive Dust Control Program shall be implemented on the proposed expansion area.
Bridgewater recommends additional dust control measures and those measures are listed below
in these findings.
Opponents of the application testified that they believe that the applicant cannot minimize
dust conflicts from the proposed mining with nearby residential land uses and believe that the
aggregate extraction process (mining) creates conflicting amounts of dust.
We find that potential dust conflicts have been demonstrated to result primarily from
three activities associated with mining and processing of aggregate material. Those activities are
1) excavation of the site for aggregate material, 2) transport of the excavated material to the
processing facility and 3) the processing facility (rock crushing operations). We find that the
current ACDP includes provisions that regulate the manner in which those activities occur on the
existing Delta facility site and that control the applicant’s production of airborne particulate
matter at a level that meets LRAPA (and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality)
standards.
Furthermore, we find, based upon testimony provided by the applicant during the elected
officials’ joint public hearing (in the form of a video of the current extraction process on the
existing mining site), that the process of mining the material does not produce dust as has been
argued by the opponents of the application. The applicant’s video is very clear in its depiction of
the mining operation and the fact that the mine wall contains significant amounts of groundwater
and is in a continual wet condition. The video also clearly demonstrates that the mining of that
wet wall produces virtually no dust. The video also contains a clear demonstration that the
watered haul roads (as required by the LRAPA ACDP) from the extraction site to the rock
crusher do not produce significant amounts of dust.
Finally, we note that the applicant has testified that its request is merely to add the
expansion area’s additional aggregate material to its current inventory and that the processing
facility (the rock crusher and associated facilities) will remain at its current LRAPA-regulated
location and will not produce finished aggregate material in excess of its current LRAPA ACDP-
mandated levels. The location of the processing facility and its production level is strictly
regulated by the ACDP. The applicant has testified that the location of that facility and its
production levels will not change as a result of approval of this application. Therefore, the entire
Delta site, and all activities thereon, will continue to be regulated by the ACDP. By law, Delta’s
Page 16 – FINDINGS OF FACT
ongoing compliance with the ACDP requirements ensures that any potential dust conflicts from
any of those activities is and will be minimized.
We find that the applicant’s requirement to operate all expansion area mining and
processing activities in conformance with the current LRAPA ACDP (modified to add the
expansion area to the existing permit and its requirements), and the applicant’s demonstration
that it will operate within the expansion area in conformance with the permit requirements
provides a legal basis to conclude and find that any potential dust conflicts from the proposed
mining of the expansion area have been, and will be, minimized as required by Goal 5.
Flooding
EGR has concluded that the Delta Sand and Gravel Company method of mining will
create no obstructions or other physical features that could impede flood flows across the
proposed expansion area. Essentially that conclusion means that flood flows should not be
impeded across the proposed expansion area if no fill within the floodway occurs. All mining
activity proposed for the expansion area will occur as excavation taking place below existing
ground surfaces. Within that mining methodology overburden will be removed and stockpiled in
areas higher in elevation than base flood elevations and/or stockpiled at locations on company
property that are below existing ground elevations. EGR concludes that the proposed mining
methodology on the proposed expansion area will not impede flood flow, reduce flood storage
volume within the flood plain or increase the velocity of water flowing across the proposed
expansion area. EGR further concludes that the proposed mining methodology completely
avoids all potential flood impacts.
Opponents of the application argue that the existence and operation of the aquaclude (see
subsequent discussion and findings regarding the aquaclude) will cause flooding on adjacent
residential lands because groundwater will be prevented by the aquaclude from migrating from
those lands to the mining site during heavy rain events. EGR has addressed that argument and
has demonstrated, in its rebuttal materials provided during the planning commission joint public
hearing and deliberation, that the movement of groundwater is not connected to surface water
that constitutes flooding during such events. Nonetheless, in response to the opponents’
argument, the applicant and EGR have provided a modified aquaclude construction that leaves
the top elevation of the clay-filled aquaclude one foot below the measured elevation of the
wetland that exists on the meandering scar, approximately six to eight feet below ground surface.
While continuing to impede the rate of flow of groundwater from the adjacent property to the
expansion area (and mining pit), the aquaclude would allow the passage of a limited amount of
groundwater from the adjacent property, over the clay material and into the mining area during
heavy rain events. That elevation will also ensure that the aquaclude has no negative impact on
the water level of the wetland at different times during the year. We find that EGR has provided
significant evidence to support it conclusion that the aquaclude will minimize potential conflicts
resulting from the movement of groundwater from adjacent lands to the mining area and that its
existence and operation will not produce flooding on adjacent lands.
We find that approval of the application will not result in flooding conflicts with adjacent
land uses.
Groundwater
EGR recommends that a low permeability barrier, groundwater dam or other flow
restriction of the upper aquifer should be constructed, at the applicant’s expense, as the
excavation proceeds to the west. EGR concludes that the construction of a low permeability
barrier could actually result in lower pumping of water, with significant benefit to the aquifer and
Page 17 – FINDINGS OF FACT
area groundwater users. That low permeability barrier has been termed the “aquaclude” by EGR
and the applicant.
EGR recommends that excavation should begin on the east side of the expansion area and
that the aquaclude should proceed ahead of the excavation to the west. Construction of the
aquaclude should occur before excavation comes within 400 feet of its location. The aquaclude
should be at least 12 feet wide at the bottom and slope upward through the upper aquifer from
1:5 to 2:1 to the original ground surface. The aquaclude should be placed within the setback area
to insure its separation from the excavation proper and to place its outer edge as close as possible
to the surrounding off-site shallow aquifer. EGR also recommends that a buttress of native
material be left between the aquaclude and the excavation area proper.
EGR’s ultimate conclusion is that placement of a low permeability barrier around most of
the excavation should result in restoring groundwater levels around the excavation pit to near
pre-development levels. DOGAMI has provided the applicant with its preliminary concurrence
with EGR’s ultimate conclusion. A copy of correspondence from the agency to the applicant is
included with EGR’s evaluation attached to the application. The correspondence states that
“there may actually be a slight mounding of the ground water in the shallow aquifer within close
proximity to the barrier thus eliminating the possibilities of drawdowns which could impact
supply wells within the area.”
Construction of the aquaclude within the setback area requires an administrative variance
pursuant to Lane Code. Lane Code 16.217(4)(b)(v)(bb) and (dd) provide:
(bb) The Director may grant an administrative variance to waive the
setback from adjoining property in a Sand, Gravel and Rock
Products Zone, if no flood hazard will result.
(dd) Excavation may be conducted within the setback area under a
plan approved by the Director through an administrative variance
whereby the excavated area will be refilled with other materials
which will neither decompose nor pollute underground waters.
Lane County’s approval of the administrative variance requires a demonstration that no flood
hazard will result from operating within the setback and that the excavated area will be refilled with other
materials which will neither decompose nor pollute underground waters. As discussed above in our
findings regarding flooding, EGR has provided adequate and significant evidence that the existence and
operation of the aquaclude will not result in flooding of adjacent lands. The applicant and EGR testified
that the trench constructed for the aquaclude will be filled with clay material excavated from other
locations on the applicant’s adjacent ownership and operation. We find that the proposed clay material
for the aquaclude is a natural soil that will not decompose and will not pollute underground waters.
Furthermore, we find that the applicant and EGR have demonstrated that the criteria for approval of the
administrative variance, provided by LC 16.217(4)(b)(v)(bb) and (dd), have been met and that the
administrative variance should be granted.
(ORS 215.296 Standards for approval of certain uses in exclusive
farm use zones. (1) A use allowed under ORS 215.213 (2) or
215.283 (2) may be approved only where the local governing
body or its designee finds that the use will not:
(a) Force a significant change in accepted farm or forest
practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use; or
(b) Significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest
practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use.)
Page 18 – FINDINGS OF FACT
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.
(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;
We find that the applicant has demonstrated, through the analysis and evaluations of its
professional consultants, that all potential significant conflicts to all existing and approved land
uses within the impact area resulting from mining activities in the proposed expansion area can
be minimized. All existing and approved land uses within the impact area have been identified.
All potential and significant conflicts have been identified under the requirements of subsection
(c) of this section. Reasonable and practicable measures have been identified to minimize all
identified conflicts. A conflict is deemed minimized when there is conformance with the
applicable standard. OAR 660-023-0180(1)(f). If an identified potential conflict can be
demonstrated to comply with the applicable local, state or federal standard, an ESEE analysis is
not required to determine whether the conflict has been reduced to a level that is no longer
significant. Based upon the analysis and conclusions of the applicant’s professional consultants,
as discussed herein, we find that all significant potential conflicts can be minimized. Following
that determination, we are not required to determine the ESEE consequences of allowing,
limiting or not allowing mining within the proposed expansion area. OAR 660-023-0180(4)(c)
provides that if reasonable and practicable measures are identified to minimize all identified
conflicts, mining shall be allowed at the site and subsection (d) of that section is not applicable.
We find that the applicant has demonstrated that reasonable and practicable measures have been
identified to minimize all identified potential significant conflicts. Consequently, the
requirements of OAR 660-023-0180(d) are not applicable to this application.
(e) Where mining is allowed, the plan and implementing
ordinances shall be amended to allow such mining. Any required
measures to minimize conflicts, including special conditions and
procedures regulating mining, shall be clear and objective.
Additional land use review (e.g., site plan review), if required by
the local government, shall not exceed the minimum review
necessary to assure compliance with these requirements and
shall not provide opportunities to deny mining for reasons
unrelated to these requirements, or to attach additional approval
requirements, except with regard to mining or processing
activities:
Page 19 – FINDINGS OF FACT
(A) For which the PAPA application does not provide
information sufficient to determine clear and objective measures
to resolve identified conflicts;
(B) Not requested in the PAPA application; or
(C) For which a significant change to the type, location, or
duration of the activity shown on the PAPA application is
proposed by the operator.
We find that the applicant has demonstrated throughout this section that Lane County and
the City of Eugene can and should allow mining within the proposed expansion area. Following
the decision to allow mining within the proposed expansion area, Lane County and the City of
Eugene shall amend the Metro Plan map to designate the subject property as “Sand and Gravel”,
shall amend the Metro Plan Goal 5 Significant Aggregate Site Inventory to include the proposed
expansion area therein and shall rezone the property to “Sand, Gravel and Rock Products.”
To implement our decision to allow mining within the proposed expansion area, our
respective ordinances shall include the following special conditions and procedures regulating
that mining:
Noise
?
Limit the first and second lift mining operations to the time period from 7 o’clock AM to
10 o’clock PM.
?
Conduct all mining within the proposed expansion area consistent with the alternative
mining procedures provided in Tables 7 and 8 of the Daly-Standlee noise study.
Dust
?
Implement the LRAPA-approved Fugitive Dust Control Program on the proposed
expansion area.
?
The excavation will be kept in a wet condition by the seepage of groundwater into it.
?
The excavation shall occur in phases to minimize the size of the area being disturbed at
any one time.
?
The main internal roadway (haul roads) used for onsite truck traffic shall be located as far
as practicable from the boundary of the proposed expansion area.
?
A water truck shall be available at all times to water the internal haul roads at a frequency
specified by the Fugitive Dust Control Program.
?
The proposed expansion area will be sprinkled with water as necessary to control dust
during mining and/or overburden removal.
?
Fifty-foot setbacks shall be maintained around the proposed expansion area boundary
except near residences where the setback shall be 150 feet.
?
Reclaimed areas will consist of open water features and vegetated areas to minimize
erosion and dust generation.
Flooding
?
All mining activity shall occur consistent with the proposed mining methodology of this
application.
Page 20 – FINDINGS OF FACT
Groundwater
?
A low permeability barrier shall be constructed in advance of proceeding excavation in
the expansion area consistent with the recommendations of EGR.
(f) Where mining is allowed, the local government shall
determine the post-mining use and provide for this use in the
comprehensive plan and land use regulations. For significant
aggregate sites on Class I, II and Unique farmland, local
governments shall adopt plan and land use regulations to limit
post-mining use to farm uses under ORS 215.203, uses listed
under ORS 215.213(1) or 215.283(1), and fish and wildlife
habitat uses, including wetland mitigation banking. Local
governments shall coordinate with DOGAMI regarding the
regulation and reclamation of mineral and aggregate sites,
except where exempt under ORS 517.780.
The applicant’s proposed reclamation plan for the proposed expansion area outlines how
the area will be sequentially transformed from open agricultural fields to other use consistent
with this rule and land use laws in place at that time.
(g) Local governments shall allow a currently approved
aggregate processing operation at an existing site to process
material from a new or expansion site without requiring a
reauthorization of the existing processing operation unless limits
on such processing were established at the time it was approved
by the local government.
The applicant will process material excavated from the proposed expansion area at its
existing processing facility located adjacent to the proposed expansion area. Lane County did
not establish any limits on the processing of material from adjacent property when the existing
processing facility was originally approved and established. Therefore, Lane County and the
City of Eugene shall allow the existing Delta Sand and Gravel Company aggregate processing
facility to process material excavated from the proposed expansion area.
APPROVAL OF THE PAPAIS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER APPLICABLE
STATEWIDE GOALS.
Consistency with Goal 5 and OAR 660-023-0180 demonstrates consistency with other
applicable statewide goals. Nevertheless, other applicable statewide goals are addressed below.
Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement
To ensure the opportunity for citizen involvement in all
phases of the planning process.
Chapter Fourteen of the Lane Code provides for a notification and participation process
for all quasi-judicial land use matters. Notices of public evidentiary hearings are required to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in conformance with ORS 197.763.
By providing the notices required by state law and the Lane Code and the public evidentiary
hearings before its planning commission and board of commissioners, Lane County satisfies the
requirements and intent of Goal 1.
Page 21 – FINDINGS OF FACT
Chapter Nine of the Eugene Code provides for a notification and participation process for
all quasi-judicial land use matters. Notices of public evidentiary hearings are required to be
published in a local newspaper of general circulation in conformance with ORS 197.763. By
providing the notices required by state law and the Eugene Code and the public evidentiary
hearings before its planning commission and board of commissioners, the City of Eugene
satisfies the requirements and intent of Goal 1.
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning
To establish a land use planning process and policy framework
as a basis for all decisions and actions related to the use of land
and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and
actions.
Goal 2 establishes a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all
land use decisions, and requires development of an adequate factual base to support those
decisions. A minor change is one that does not have significant effects beyond the immediate
area of change, and is based on special studies or information. The justification for the specific
change must be established by substantial evidence in support of the conclusion that the
applicable criteria have been met.
Lane County has adopted a Metro Plan amendment process with specific standards that
must be addressed to process and justify a change of the Metro Plan diagram or inventory.
Substantial compliance with the applicable plan amendment criteria in Lane Code Chapter 12
(consistency with relevant statewide planning goals) constitutes compliance with applicable
provisions. This application is supported by substantial evidence upon which the Lane County
Board of Commissioners may conclude that the applicable criteria have been met.
The City of Eugene has adopted a Metro Plan amendment process with specific standards
that must be addressed to process and justify a change of the Metro Plan diagram or inventory.
Substantial compliance with the plan amendment criteria in Eugene Code Chapter 9 (consistency
with relevant statewide planning goals) constitutes compliance with the applicable provisions.
This application is supported by substantial evidence upon which the Eugene City Council may
conclude that the applicable criteria have been met.
Goal 3 - Agricultural Land
To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
Goal 3 provides for the protection of agricultural lands as those are defined under the
goal. In western Oregon, agricultural land consists of primarily Class I through IV soils
identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service
and includes other lands found suitable for farm use considering soil fertility, climatic
conditions, availability of water and methodologies available for farm practices.
Soils on the subject property have been identified as containing 75 percent Class II soils.
The subject property contains no Class I soils.
We find that the subject property also contains mineral resources of the quantity and
quality that, pursuant to Goal 5 and the Oregon Administrative Rules implementing Goal 5,
establish the subject property as a significant resource site for aggregate purposes. The
administrative rules recognize that aggregate resources may be mined in areas of agricultural
soils. OAR 660-023-0180(3)(d) allows the disturbance of significant resource sites in Lane
County containing greater than 35 percent Class I or Class II soils and an average aggregate
Page 22 – FINDINGS OF FACT
layer width exceeding 60 feet in Lane County. OAR 660-023-0180(4)(b)(E) specifically
requires that conflicts with agricultural practices be addressed in a PAPA application. The
potential of such conflicts has been addressed in the sections pertaining to the Goal 5 rule.
We find that approval of the application will be consistent with the purpose and intent
of Goal 3.
Goal 4 - Forest Lands.
To preserve forest lands for forest use.
We find that Goal 4 is not applicable to this application. There has previously been a
legislative determination by the metropolitan jurisdictions, as embodied in the acknowledged
Metro Plan, that the subject property is not forest land. This determination is validated by the
fact that are no forest resources existing on the subject property or on any surrounding land and
there are no areas within the subject property that fall within the definition of forest land. Also,
the soils of the subject property (Chehalis silty clay loam, Newberg loam, Newberg fine sandy
loam, Newberg urban land complex and Camas gravelly sandy loam) have no designated
Douglas Fir site index according to Lane County’s 1997 Soil Ratings for Forestry and
Agriculture.
Goal 5 - Open Space, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources.
To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources.
There has previously been a legislative determination by the metro jurisdictions that no Goal 5
resources exist on subject site except wetlands, which are addressed in these findings. The
subject property has not been included in any inventory of needed open space or scenic areas
defined by Goal 5, nor has it been identified in the Metro Plan as having any historic, cultural or
natural resources which need to be preserved and/or protected. Therefore, we find that approval
of the proposed amendments will not result in any conflict with any Goal 5 resources.
With respect to wetlands, EGR, in its Evaluation of Aggregate Resources attached to the
application, determined that there is a wetland located within the meander scar along the
northwest boundary of the subject property That wetland does not extend beyond the eastern
bank of the meander scar and lies within the required 150’ mining setback from the property
boundary. Avoidance of wetlands in areas not covered by existing DOGAMI Mining
Permits will be accomplished by limiting mining operations to areas outside the applicable
setbacks from the expansion property boundary. All wetland area within the 150’ setback
shall be exempted from the administrative variance and the construction of the aquaclude
shall occur outside of the wetland area. Two excavated ponds are located in the southern
portion of the site, which were previously used in aggregate extraction and are currently
covered by DOGAMI permits, and thus exempt from wetland regulation.
The Goal 5 Administrative Rule for mineral and aggregate resources specifically addresses
other Goal 5 resources and limits considerations of conflict to “Goal 5 Resource Sites” that
have been identified in the Metro Plan. We find that, within that rule framework that limits
considerations regarding Goal 5 resources to identified sites, no conflicts with Goal 5
resources have been identified.
Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality.
To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land
resources of the state.
Page 23 – FINDINGS OF FACT
Goal 6 requires that air, land and water resources of the state be maintained and improved
by assuring that future development, in conjunction with existing development, does not violate
applicable state and federal environmental quality standards, and does not exceed the carrying
capacity of local airsheds, degrade land resources or threaten the availability of such resources.
The State of Oregon, City of Eugene and Lane County have sufficient regulatory measures in
place so as to ensure that existing land use activities, as well as any future development on the
site, will not produce any unanticipated impacts resulting from the proposed amendments.
The Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA) regulates the Lane County airshed
and the industries within it. LRAPA rules and permit requirements regulate the release of
particulate matter into the air. Its permit system for emissions provides the regulatory measures
that maintain the carrying capacity and quality of the airshed consistent with applicable state and
federal environmental quality standards. An Air Contaminant Discharge Permit (ACDP) is
required for the aggregate processing equipment and mining activities on the subject property.
Delta Sand & Gravel currently operates it existing, adjacent, facility under an ACDP issued by
LRAPA (Permit No. 20119) that permits and regulates dust emissions generated by (1)
processing equipment; (2) storage piles; (3) roadways; and (4) yard activities. In addition to the
specific standards for particulate matter emissions that apply to the process operations, the
ACDP includes a requirement to follow the LRAPA-approved Fugitive Dust Control Program
for the existing facility. When Delta Sand & Gravel expands its operations onto the proposed
expansion site, it will implement the Fugitive Dust Control Program on the expansion area to
assure that its operations continue to comply with applicable state and federal air standards.
Wastewater discharge is prohibited under administrative rules and the requirements of the
applicant’s DOGAMI permits. The mining operation requires no onsite systems for domestic
water or sewage disposal.
A reclamation plan has been prepared and is required to be approved by DOGAMI with
respect to restoring land quality. Uses of the reclaimed expansion area will be consistent with all
Goal 5 requirements and will depend on land use regulations existing at that time. The
protection of the expansion area for natural resource activity and the rehabilitation of it for reuse
will maintain the quality of the land.
Therefore, we find that approval of the proposed amendments will not produce results
that will be in conflict with or inconsistent with the purpose and intent of Goal 6.
Goal 7 - Areas subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards.
To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards.
The expansion area is partially located within an un-numbered A zone of the
Willamette River flood plain as illustrated on the Flood Area Insurance Map (FIRM) (Panel
1126 of 2975, effective June 2, 1999). It is located immediately west of a Flood Insurance
Study (FIS) area that has defined floodways and base flood elevations of the Willamette
River.
Because the floodway for the Willamette River is determined to be substantially east
of the expansion area, the FIS has determined through definition of the floodway that the
expansion area could be completely obstructed without increasing the water-surface elevation
of the 100-year flood more than one foot at any point.
All mining activity proposed for the expansion area will occur as excavation taking
place below existing ground surfaces. Overburden will be removed and stockpiled in areas
with elevation higher than base flood elevations or in areas currently below existing ground
Page 24 – FINDINGS OF FACT
elevations. That mining methodology will preclude the need for sound berms or flood
containment berms that could impede flood flows across the expansion area. Berms
associated with the construction of the aquaclude will be temporary in nature and will be
removed by returning the material to the area of the aquaclude as construction occurs or prior
to anticipated heavy rain events.
Therefore, we find that the proposed use of the expansion area will be consistent with
the purpose and intent of Goal 7.
Goal 8 - Recreational Needs.
To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state.
We find that there has been a legislative determination by the Metro jurisdictions through
its comprehensive planning process, as implemented by the Metro Plan diagram, that the subject
property is not needed for recreational facilities or opportunities. Identified recreational needs
have been provided for on other sites within the Metro urban area. Therefore, we find that
approval of the proposed amendments are consistent with Goal 8.
Goal 9 - Economy of the State.
To diversify and improve the economy of the state.
Goal 9 is primarily focused on commercial and industrial development within urban
areas. To the extent that the goal is applicable to the application, we find that the proposed
use of the expansion area will contribute to the economy of the Metro area through the
employment of persons and by providing the natural resource for construction, both of which
contribute to the economic health of the state of Oregon.
We further find that the proposed use of the expansion area will provide a stable and
significant source of high-quality aggregate materials and products for use in the Metro area.
Haul distance is a major cost component of the aggregate industry. Provision of sand and
gravel aggregate material in close proximity to the major market assists in controlling the
cost of construction for both private and public users. The continuation of an adequate, long-
term, supply of that material in proximity to its major market will contribute to the economic
health of the community and the State of Oregon.
Therefore, we find that approval of the application will be consistent with the intent
and purpose of Goal 9.
Goal 10 – Housing.
To provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the state.
The primary purpose of Goal 10 is to ensure that sufficient buildable land is available to
provide for a full range of housing needs within the urban area and to avoid creating shortages of
residential land which would artificially restrict market choices in housing type, price range or
location. The subject property has been designated agricultural in the Metro Plan and is not
planned for residential use. There are three dwellings on the property that will eventually be
displaced as a direct consequence of the proposed amendments. We find that approval of the
proposed amendments, and the eventual loss of the three dwellings, will not measurably impact
the existing or future housing stock in the Metro Plan area, nor will they directly result in
population growth, increase the demand for housing beyond previously acknowledged
projections, or otherwise conflict with the purpose and intent of Goal 10.
Page 25 – FINDINGS OF FACT
Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services.
To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement
of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban
development.
Approval of the application will result in a natural resource use of the expansion
area. Significant levels of public services are not required for that use. Approval of the
application will not result in the need for extension of public facilities and services to the
expansion area beyond those existing at the current facility.
To the extent that Goal 11 is applicable to the application, we find that approval
of the application will be consistent with the intent and purpose of the goal.
Goal 12 – Transportation.
To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system.
The intent of Goal 12 is implemented through the provisions of the State Transportation
Planning Rule (TPR) (OAR 660, Division 12), which was adopted by LCDC in 1991.
OAR 660-012-0060(1) requires that “amendments to functional plans, acknowledged
comprehensive plans, and land use regulations which significantly affect a transportation facility
shall assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and level
of service of the facility.”
We find that approval of the application will not result in any change in the applicant’s
current (and future) use of local roads used for access and egress to it facility. The applicant
testified that the proposed expansion area will only be used by the applicant to provide the
resource that it processes on its existing site into a marketable product. The applicant testified
that 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. The applicant testified 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. That use will not result in an increase in the number of vehicles servicing
applicant’s business. Because no increase in product delivery or service is associated with the
applicant’s proposed use of the expansion area, we find that no Metro area transportation facility
will be significantly affected as a result of approval of the application.
Therefore, we find that approval of the application is consistent with the intent and
purpose of Goal 12.
Goal 13 - Energy Conservation.
To conserve energy
We find that the proposed use of the expansion area will provide a continued stable and
long-term source of sand and gravel aggregate material within close proximity to the Metro area
market. From an energy conservation perspective, an aggregate mining site located within the
Metro area is highly preferable to a supply site located outside the Metro area which requires the
transporting of the material, processed or otherwise, to the Metro area for use. Approval of the
application will result in the establishment of a stable and long-term source of aggregate material
without an increase in energy consumption.
Page 26 – FINDINGS OF FACT
Therefore, we find that approval of the application is consistent with the intent and purpose of
Goal 13.
Goal 14 – Urbanization.
To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to
urban land use.
Only resource use is proposed for the site and no urban facilities or services, other than
those currently provided, are required to support that use.
To the extent that Goal 14 is applicable to the application, we find that approval of the
application would be consistent with its purpose and intent.
Goal l5 - Willamette River Greenway.
To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic,
historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of
lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette River
Greenway.
The subject property is not located within the Willamette River Greenway. Accordingly,
Goal 15 is not applicable.
Goal 16 - Estuarine Resources.
To recognize and protect the unique environmental, economic,
and social values of each estuary and associated wetlands; and
To protect, maintain, where appropriate develop, and where
appropriate restore the long-term environmental, economic, and
social values, diversity and benefits of Oregon’s estuaries.
The subject property contains no estuarine resources.
Goal 17 - Coastal Shorelines.
To conserve, protect, where appropriate, develop and where
appropriate restore the resources and benefits of all coastal
shorelines, recognizing their value for protection and
maintenance of water quality, fish and wildlife habitat,
water-dependent uses, economic resources and recreation and
aesthetics.
The subject property contains no coastal shorelines.
Goal 18 - Beaches and Dunes.
To conserve, protect, where appropriate develop, and where
appropriate restore the resources and benefits of coastal beach
and dune areas.
The subject property contains no beaches or dunes.
Goal 19 - Ocean Resources.
Page 27 – FINDINGS OF FACT
To conserve the long-term values, benefits, and natural resources
of the nearshore ocean and the continental shelf.
The subject property contains no ocean resources.
7.0 INTERNAL CONSISTENCY OF METRO PLAN
As mentioned previously in Section 3.0 of this application, The Metro Plan has not been amended to
adopt procedures and requirements consistent with the Goal 5 Rule for the consideration of PAPAs
regarding the designation of significant aggregate sites. The Lane Code and the Eugene Code do
not contain specific criteria regarding the consideration of a PAPA proposing to add a site to the
Metro Plan’s acknowledged list of significant aggregate sites and have not been amended to
conform to the requirements of the Goal 5 Rule through periodic review. Therefore, only the
provisions of the Goal 5 Rule are directly applicable to Eugene and Lane County’s consideration of
this application. Metro Plan goals and policies and land use regulations of Lane County and the
City of Eugene are not applicable to this application.
9.0CONCLUSION
We find that this application to amend the Metro Plan to designate the subject property as Sand
and Gravel and include the subject property in the Metro Plan Goal 5 Significant Aggregate Site
Inventory and to change the zoning of it to Sand, Gravel & Rock Products demonstrates that all
applicable criteria have been addressed and met. We further find that this application
demonstrates that the proposed amendments are consistent with applicable Statewide Planning
Goals and Administrative Rules implementing those Goals. This application is approved.
Page 28 – FINDINGS OF FACT
Atto.Gh Men\' 3
-/06c/dy/4.j>()RT
M"INUTES
Lane County Planning Commission
Eugene Planning Commission
~ugene Water and Electric 'Board Conference Room North
November 15,2005
7 p.m.
PRESENT: Juanita Kirkham, Lisa Arkin, Ed Becker, Steve Dignam, James Carmichael, John Sullivan
Nancy Nichols, Jozeph Zdzienicki, Todd Johnston, Lane County Planning Commission
members; Kent Howe, Stephanie Schulz Staff;
Marlene Colbath, Chair; Phillip Carroll, John Belcher, Rich Duncan, John Lawless, Eugene
Planning Commission Members; Steve Nystrom, Susan Muir, Kurt Yeiter, City of Eugene
Staff
ABSENT:
Randy Hledik, Eugene PlaI)l1ing Commission (recused)
I. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING: P A 05-6151 - In the matter of amending the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area Genera'Plan to redesignate 72.31 acres from "Agricultural"
to "Sand and Gravel," amend the Goal 5 significant Aggregate Site Inventory to include the
72.31 acres, rezone the subject property from Exclusive Farm Use (E-RC,P) to Sand, Gravel
and Rock Products (SG -RCP). The proposal includes a ,request for two administrative
variances to decrease setback provisions and to allow construction of a low permeability
barrier within the setback area.
Lane County Planning Commission Chair Steve Dignam convened the meeting at 7 pm. The
commissioners present introduced themselves.
Addressing the audience, Mr. Dignam said the planning commissions had no decision making authority
but would make recommendations to their respective elected officials which would be the Lane County
'Board. of Commissioners and the Eugene City Council. "He urged those who were going to testify to keep
comments releyant to Oregon Statewide planning goals and guide~ines.
Eugene Planning Commission President Mitzi Colbath opened the hearing for the Eugene Planning
Commission. She called for declarations of ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest.
Lane County Planning Commission Member Todd Johnston r~cused himself from the proceeding for a
conflict of interest.
Mr. Dignam opened the public hearing for the Lane County Planning,Commission.
Eugene Planning Commissioner Rich Duncan noted that his company had done work in the same area but
said he had no conflict of interest.
MINUTES-Lane County Planning Commission
Eugene Planning Commission
November 15, 2005
Page 1
.;.... ....:""'-."..~..ie.."'......',J. .... :..~ "'t.A.;. .._.........\,.--..,-.... - .. .. - .... \.':~',..",,:r..... - ,..~:..... ....wi.. "".............,.~ .:.:~ . .'::,' ...~~...;. ................;_....~".... .. ;, .......:...... t....~..\".-.~..... .. lr""'~'" ... .~~.
Lane County Planning Director Kent Howe provided the staff report. He said sand and gravel were
protected resources under GoalS. He acknowledged that the usual Goal 5 resources were wetlands, .
wildlife habitat, archeological sites, or historic/scenic resources but noted that because sand and gravel
were non renewable resources they also fell under the Goal 5 rule and were protected. He outlined the
process for approval of the application shown on an overhead projector. He said there was a clear and
objective Oregon Administrative Rule to determine whether the site was deemed significant. He said
Oregon Administrative Rule 660.023-180 dealt with the significance determination of a Gravel Resource
Site.
1. Determine if the Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment (pAPA) information is
adequate
2. Determine if the resource site is 'significant
3. Determine if mining conflicts can be minimized
4. Weigh the Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (EESE) consequences and
decide whether to allow mining,
5. Determine the ESEE consequences of new uses on the resource site
6. Develop a program to allow mining.
Lane County Planning Staff Stephanie Schulz continued with the staff report. She noted that notice for the
public hearing had been sent out by direct mail as well as being published'in local newspapers.
Ms. Schulz distributed written material that had been received after the staff report had been published.
Mr. Dignam called for testimony in favor of the application.
Steve Cornacchia, 180 East 11 th Avenue, provided the applicant presentation for Delta Sand and Gravel.
He distributed written material into the record. He called attention to the stamped document from
Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, which is the current reclamation plan. He said DOGAMI
had said the applicant had met the requirements for providing a reclamation plan for what would become
of the land once extraction of the resource had been completed. He said the meeting 'packet included the
permit application for adding the proposed expansion area to the existing DOGAMI permit and the
reclamation plan that the applicant was currently operating under would be extended to the subject
property. He said he submits a copy 'of the reclamation plan into the record. He stressed that the
reclamation plan had been approved by DOGAMI.
Mr. Cornacchia submitted a letter from a local farmerwho had farmed the expansion area in question and,
had provided a written evaluation of the quality of the land for fanning purposes. He noted that the man
had farmed the property for many ~ears and did not think highly of ~he land for farming purposes.
Mr. Cornacchia submitted written material responding to statements written in t~e local paper. Regarding
noise levels, Mr. Cornacchia said the inverse square law did not apply and said the physics of the matter
were explained in the written material. He said Delta was placing itself urider an additional requirement
MINUTES-Lane County Planning Commission
Eugene Planning Commission
, November. 15, 2005; ,
Page 2
.','.. .."'fI...... \.
'. . '., .~.,..~ .
...,;;: .'ih . ...'"~..
which was an analysis of ambient noise levels. He said it would be demonstrated that the ambient noise
levels from the quarry activities would also meet Department of Environmental quality noise standards.
Mr. Cornacchia said Delta Sand.and Gravel had been a good neighbor in the area for 80 years. He showed
an aerial map of the Delta property. He stressed that the- company had conformed with every
environmental and regulatory standard that had been applied. He showed the Delta area on the map and
noted that a portion of the property abutted a residential area and stressed that there had been no citations
or complaints filed against the company. He acknowledged that there had been a recent citation for dirt on:
River Loop Road that was still under discussion. He said. demonstrating that the company did what it was
supposed to do was how he defined a good neighbor. He said Delta was only asking to remove material
from the area. in question and was not requesting to move its rock crusher or any other processing
equipment. He noted that it was the processing of the aggregate that made the most noise.
For the sake of comparison he called attention to a recent application filed by Eugene Sand and Gravel.
He said the Delta application was completely different than that application. He reiterated the Delta had
coexisted with residential neighbors without complaint for 80 years.
Reiterating Planning Director Kent Howe, Mr. Cornacchia noted that in 1996 LCDC decided that it was
time to adopt rules for the siting of aggregate resources because of the significant opposition, concerns,
and arbitrary decision making by the appropriate bodies. He said th~ new administrative mles were
intended to create a system of objective criteria, demonstration and evidence. He acknowledged that every
quarry application had faced opposition from nearby land owners. He stressed that applications.were not a
popularity contest but were instead a balance between the significant need for aggregate products and the
land uses adjacent to quarries. He explained that the established standards and ~equirements contained
methodologies for minimizing potential conflicts.
Mr. Cornacchia said if the company demonstrated that it met the established standards for-noise and dust
emanations then it had minimized any potential impacts. He said the noise study had divided the property
into zones which required the company to do certain things to minimize nQise in each of those zones. He
said the company extraction operations occur below ground level and stressed that this lessened noise from
the site. He said, because of concerns raised by nearby residents a noise study had been. conducted at a
new residential subdivision that was significantly further away than houses abutting the quarry site. This
additional analysis was submitted into the record.
Mr. Cornacchia cited the staffreport stating that there was a significant resource of gravel on the site. He
said the analysis had determined that there was over 9 million tons. of aggregate on the site.. He noted that
2 million tons was the standard th~t determined significance of aggregate resources-.
Mr. Cornacchia noted that the noise criteria enforced by DEQ stated that when a mine site was expanded
onto a contiguous property the noise criteria that applied to the equipment in the old area - also applied in
the new area. He said this was a lesser standard thanjudging what noise would be on a new site. He said
Delta had chosen to submit itself to the higher standards of noise mitigation. He said the higher standards .
required an analySis of ambient noise levels in addition to the decibel levels that occurred on the edges of
the property and the noise study did include that.
Going back to dust, Mr. Cornacchia said Delta had complied with all dust regulations for 80 years. He
noted that the standards for what the company had to do to be in compliance was mcluded in the written
- MINUTES-Lane County Planning Commission
Eugene Planning Commission
- . .November 15,-2005
-Page 3
material submitted that evening. He said the company could produce 70 pounds of dust particulate per
hour and still meet regulations. He said Delta currently emitted 22 pounds ofparticulate per hour.
Mr. Cornacchia called attention to the Lane Code requirements for setbacks from aggregate operations.
He said setbacks were 150 feet. He said the setbacks could be reduced by the County department head.
He said the variances being asked for were for reducing the setbacks to 50 feet near" agricultural land and
100 feet for residential areas. He said the applicant had determined that there was a wetland near the site
and said the 150 foot setback would be adhered to near that wetland area. He said the code required two
things to grant a variance. The first was compatibility with the surrounding land. He said if the
commissions came to the conclusion that the applicant had met the. requirements for significance of the site
and minimization of impacts, then the applicant had demonstrated compatibility under the law. The
second test was that no flood hazard was created by mining. He noted that the applicant had an
engineering report that stated that because the mining was done below ground level there was nothing
present to impede flood waters in the area. He .said those two fmdings demonstrated that the criteria had
been met for the requested variance. He said for the other variance for installing a low permeability barrier
in the setback area the commissions had to decide that the applicant would fill the area with material that
was non pollutant and that would not decompose. He "said the company had estimated that the 50 feet
requested in the variance contained around the 400,000 tons of aggregate material.
Regarding running water, Mr. Cornacchia said the water that flowed through the frrst 15 to 20 feet of depth
would not be allowed to run into the pit. He said the low permeability barrier would prevent ~his to ensure
that the quarry did not impact ground water users in the area. He noted that all of the residential areas
surrounding areas were all connected to public water sources'but acknowledged that some had wells that
were not used for domestic purposes. He ~aid the barrier was there to protect groundwater sources.
Mr. Cornacchia noted that there was a staff report comment that the coarse .aggregate material fo:und in the
analysis met ODOT requirements for use. He said the EGR report also included a statement that the fme
aggregate samples did not meet ODOT requirements but noted that this was not injurious to the
application. He stressed that the applicant was only required to demonstrate that coarse material met the
ODOT.requirements. .
Mr. Cornacchia reiterated that Delta had been a good neighl?or in the area for 80 years. He said the
application showed that Delta would continue to be a good neighbor into the future.
Shane Hughes, EGR and Associates, 2535 Prairie Road, said his company specialized in civil engineering
and hydrogeology~ He said he had been licensed to practice civil engineering since 1982. He said he had
been working for Delta Sand and Gravel for 13 years and were routinely asked to visit the site and consult
with them on similar topics to what was under discussion as the public hearing that evening. He remarked
that Delta was a good steward of the land.
Mr. Hughe~ said the applicant was required to show that there were 2 million cubic yards of resource that
went to a depth of 60 feet in the area descrilJed in the application. He noted that staff had concluded that
the quantity/depth criteria had been met. He said he had done a visual examination of an exposed face of
aggregate. He said the exposed wall was entire eastern area of the proposed expansion area. He said a
visual examination did not show if the aggregate thinned out as one moved west so he went as far west as
possible on the site and bored a 80 foot hole and did not find the end of the resource. He added that two
more holes had been bored in the middle of the. site with the same result.
MINUTES~Lane.County Planning Commission..
Eugene Planning Commission
.November 15,2005.
Page 4 .
Regarding quality of the resource, Mr. Hughes noted that the staff report had said that fine aggregate
fractions did not meet Oregon Department of Transportation standards. He clarified that all of the tests of
all of the samples met the ODOT base.standards which were required in the application but noted that
OAR660.23180(3) stipulated a base rock test for sodium sulfide which was a chemical abrasion test for
which ODOT did not have a standard. He said the closest ODOT test was a concrete standard. He noted
that concrete tests were much more stringent tha~ base rock tests. He said the coarse material met the
more stringent concrete test and the fine material did not meet the concrete test. He said the intent of the
process was to demonstrate that there was enough material of a good enough quality to be protected as a
resource. He said the area had three times the amount of material that met the requirements of the test. He
added that staff had raised concern that the evidence was based on too few borings. He called attention to
the applicant's report and noted that the sample results of the borings that had been made were identical.
He said 1000 more holes could be bored and the results would be the same.
Steve Recca, EGR and Associates, spoke as the Geologist for th.e applicant. He said EGR had been
retained to determine if there would be ground water impacts as a result of the expansion of the current
excavation. He said there were two methodologies to prevent ground water from getting into the pit. The
first was to install ground wells around the pit or set up an impermeable area, (slurry walls), to prevent
migration of ground water from entering the pit. He said both were.standard construction techniques that
were used in dams. H.e stressed that the slurry walls would be below ground so there would be no impact
to flooding above ground. He said they were non structural components that could not be immediately
placed against the pit wall and this was why they needed to be installed in the buffer zone. He added that .
the slurry walls would be constructed from on site materials left over from gravel extraction.. He said the
slurry walls would insure that there would be no inverse impacts to ground water and would reduce the
cost of pumping water out of the pit. .
George Staples and Gordon Loeschen, Delta Sand and Gravel, outlined the Delta property shown on the
aerial map. Mr. Loeschen noted that there was a nearby Heron. rookery as well as a tree nursery on the
property. He stressed that neither had been adversely impacted by the quarry. Mr. Staples noted that 85
acres in the reclamation area on the site had been reclaimed to date. He added that the water table behind
the impermeable barrier to be installed would be maintained at its current levels.
Mr. Staples said if the application were not approved then Delta had approximately 10 years of material to
extract. He said if the expansion area were allowed it would add an additional 10-12 years for the
company to operate in that area. He noted that a sound and sight barrier would be planted on top of the
ground water dam. He said frr trees would be planted but would need time to be established. He stressed
that the slurry wall would maintain ground water levels.
Mr. Staples said the rock crusher currently operating on the site would not be moved. He said Delta would
be building a road out of recycled concrete that would lead to the crusher. He said this would reduce
distance traveled in the crusher and air emissions from the t~cks by 30 percent. He added that Delta
would be installing sprayers which will reduce dust tracked onto the streets from the site.
Avon Lee Babb, 645 Spy Glass~ said his father had been born on the property in 1895 and said the
property in the application had been in Babb family ownership for over 110 years. He said he and his
brother had started Delta in 1965 and noted that Delta supported many local social service providers,
schools and hospitals. He noted that Delta had been awarded the National Award for Business Ethics. He
MINUTES~Lane County Planning Commission
Eugene Planning Commission
. November. IS, 2005,
Page 5
said Delta excavated approximately 7 acres of land per year and reclaimed 5 of those acres. His dream for
the land was to see the land eventually developed into a regional park with miles of river frontage and a
lake.
Alan Babb, 695 Fair Oaks Drive, spoke as the manager of Delta Sand and Gravel. He said the application
was enough to show that all criteria and rules. for expansion had been met. He urged the commissions to
remember that the application was for an addition to an existing site and there would be no change in
operations or additional trucks and truck routes. He said the land in question was not good farm land. He
noted that he had done a lot of farm work onthe land himself. He noted that some of the land was
impossible to plow because of the amount of gravel in ~he soil.
Mr. Babb stressed that Delta was one of the few businesses that provided family wage jobs that had
insurance benefits and pension for employees. He stressed that 217 families depended on Delta for their
wages. He stressed that Delta offered extraordinary family wage jobs.
Mr. Babb said the current site had approximately. ten years of resource left to extract. He said the time left
to the operation was important for decisions that had to be made regarding machinery purchase. He said
the expansion was vital for continued operations.
Dan Stotter, on behalf of Santa Clara Neighborho.od Association, requested that the record be left open for
60 days to allow informed decision making by the co~ssions. He noted that many of the same experts
who had spoken for Delta Sand and Gravel were not highly thought of by their scientific peers and had
presented 'poor science' to the commissions. He said he had experts in geology, noise, ground water,
flood impacts, wetlands, transportation and environmental resources who all needed 45 to 60 days to
respond to the material presented by the applicant.
Mr. Stotler noted that the area in question was in close proximity to dense residential neighborhoods and
schools and there were significant potential impacts. He added that the burden was on the applicant to
show that there would be no impacts to surrounding areas. He reiterated that the applicant was proViding
poor scientific evidence. He raised concern over potential flooding in the area. He submitted written
material into the record.
Robert Funk, 428 Gerald Avenue, maintained that the variances ~ought by the applicant would have
potential flooding impacts. H~ said the impermeable wall was essentially an under ground dam that would
cause the flooding of ground water in the surround.ing area. He also raised concern over dust generated on
the site and extra traffic from the site' during summer months.
Jim Neppler, 49 Salty Way, said 100 home owners would be adversely affected by the expansion. He
noted that his son had an asthma condition and raised concern over dust emanating from the quarry site.
He expressed his'distrust of the Delta Sand and Gravel Study. He commented that there needed to be more
study of wind patterns to see how dust emitted from the quarry would dissipate. He added that it was the
role of the commissions to determine if the applicant had met the criteria for approval but stressed that
there was also a value judgment to be made on the part qfthe c<?mmissions. He said homeown~rs would
lose property value if the application were approved.
MINUTES~Lane County Planning Commission :
Eugene.Planning Commission
". Noyember.l5, 2005
Page 6
Donald Faiman, 3536 Baywood Street, said he lived in a Type A flood zone. He saId most of the houses
in the area had been built just above the flood zone and. did not have to pay flood insurance. He raised
concern that if the barrier dam w~re built in the buffer area the flood zone would expand.
Brock Guentner, said he had just heard about the proposed expansion two weeks previously. He said
nobody had said anything to him when he purchased his house about a possible quarry expansion. He
urged that more time be granted for scientific evidence to be collected to refute what had been presented
by the applicant. He addedthat the quarry should be responsible for where drainage water went when it
left the quarry site. He urged the commissions to deny the application until more scientific evidence. was
submitted.
Joel Narva, 2830 Echo Lane, submitted written testimony into the record. He stressed that the Babb
family were good citizens but commented that 'reclamation' was a relative term. He said Delta had filled
in its pits with construction debris such as tires and chunks of broken cement. He also raised concern over
flooding during winter months if the underground dam was constructed. He added concerns over noise
and urged the commissions not to 'be. fooled by decibel levels provided by the applicant. He said could
hear the gravel trucks at his house at 1000 feet away.
Kate Pearle 4740 Wendover Street, urged the commissions to deny the application. She said the land in
question was class two soil and prime farm land which was protected from development by state standards.
She said the land was a significant source of local food. She said neighboring land would also be
negatively impacted. She said fanners of the fu~e would. not necessarily be of the same positive opinion
as the fanner currently working next to the quarry. She. raised concern over the possible lowering of the
water table in the area if the expansion of the quarry were allowed. She said farmers had documented
lower water tables due to Delta's mining of gravel. She urged the commissions to ask for a site
reclamation plan that reflected current best practices.
Jeff Sweet, 442 Gerold Avenue, only received notice two weeks previously. He urged the commissioners
to pay special. attention to the fact that the future expansion of the city would be to the north and around
the quarry. He said commissioners needed to think about what the city would look like in 75-100 years
and suggested that heavy industrial operations should be moved further out from the center of the City. He
also raised concerns over the impact of quarry dust on children and ho~es in the area.
Mike AIltucker, President of Eugene Sand and Gravel, spoke in support of the application. He said he
was keenly aware of the need for aggregate in the community. He cited a figure often tons per person per
year as what was needed in the local area. He said that number would swell to 5.2 million tons needed per
year in the near future. He stressed that the community needed the rock and support of the application
was just good pla~ng.
Corallee Whitely, 3535 Allan Street, raised concern that her house was in a flood plain and disturbance of
the land would make flood hazards worse. She also raised concern that property values in the area would
go. down if the quarry were allowed to expand. She suggested that there should be a local vote by the
people over the zone change. She expressed her opinion that quarries should be moved o~t of city limits
and added that the .applicant should provide an expert to show'how flooding concerns would be addressed.
Gene Odell Pearle Jones 4740 Wendover, said that Delta Sand and Gravel was dumping trash into its
gravel pit. He stressed the importance of having clean drinking water for the area.
MINUTES~Lane. County Planning Commission
.Eugene Planning Commission
November.15~. 2005
Page 7
Kevin Jones, 4740 Wendover Street, opposed the expansion because it would interfere with farming. He
stressed that the expansion would affect farming in many ways. He said clean available well water was
essential to his fanning operation. He said Delta would not drill him a new well if his went dry because of
quarry operations. He said dust was an area of concern when raising healthy crops and raised concern over
dust.emanating'from the quarry. He said farmland had higher resource value than a quarry and noted that
Lane County had less than 10 percent of prime farmland left.
Jeff Ankeny, 3120 Admiral, said his property bordered the north side of Delta's property and had never.
impacted his farming operation. He strongly supported the application and stressed the need for gravel in
the community.
Kurt Eaton, 408 Salty Way, said his family lived in the 'significant impact area.' He said the area of
question was significantly different than other land being used by Delta. He noted that the expansion area
was bordered by residential areas on three sides and raised concern over dust emissions from the quarry.
He asked that the commissions deny the application.
Mark Reed, 719 East Beacon Drive, said he was geologist and specialized in resource geology. He said
he was concerned over supply of aggregate, supply of farmland, and high quality of scientific work in the
context of government decision making. He said sampling was a key part of his work. He said there were
excellent alternatives to sand and gravel in Oregon. As an example, he said basalt production could be
increased. Mr Reed submitted material into the record.
Steve HiD 2942 Windgate Street, supported the application. He said property owners should have the right
to do what they wanted with their own property. He urged the commissions to consider the need for gravel
in Lane County. He stressed that Delta would do all it could to mitigate impacts and live by the letter of
the law.
Clyde Reek, 55 Delay Drive, spoke as the owner of the tree nursery. adjacent to the quarry that leases
acreage on the subject property. He said he had lived on his property since 1945. He said his nursery
made more dust than Delta ever thought of making and no one complained. He noted that an adjacent
fanner made huge amounts of dust during his operations.
Regarding flooding, Mr. Beek said if Delta's pit had not been there in 1996 then there would have been
flooding along Admiral Street. He noted that the land in question had been farmed by him in the past and
he had lost 70 percent of his crop. .
Regarding moving the quarry, Mr. Beek stressed that a quarry had to go where the aggregate was located.
Randy Hledik, Wildish Sand and Gravel Company, urged the commissions to consider that the amount of
land designated in the Metropolitan Area General Plan for aggregate extraction had. not changed in 20
years but during those 20 years millions of tons of aggregate had been mined and used in the local
community. .He said there was no substitute for rawaggregat~ for building material. . He said ,future
demand would further reduce supply. He stressed that aggregate was not a renewable resource. He
stres,sed that Sand and Gravel was a Goal 5 resource and deserved the same protection as other resources
with that designation. He said aggregate sources close to their point of use needed to be preserved for
future use.
MINUTES~Lane County Planning. Commission '
Eugene Planning Commission
',:-November 15,.2005
Page 8
Greg See, 2746 Taito Street, showed his property on an overhead projector. He. urged the commissions to
deny the application because citizens had not had the opportunity to study and refute the scientific
evidence presented by the applicant. He asked for a 90 day extension of the record to complete that work.
He said the expansion would cause significant harm to the surrounding areas and added that no noise
studies had been done for the residential areas further away from the quarry. He added that the poople in
the area needed proof that the underground dam would not affect the local water table. He acknowledged
that Delta had been a good neighbor and provided good jobs but said the question was not about jobs but
about a rezone that would affect the community.
Scott Landgreen, 296 Hunsaker Lane, said there was dust problem almost a half a mile from the existing
quarry and his property would have a worse problem if the quarry were to expand. He also raised concern
over flooding of his property. He added that he had received no notice of the planned expansion.
Russ Fish, 2795 Summer Lane, maintained that dust did blow to the south of the quarry. He said the land
should stay zoned as agricultural and urged the commissions to deny the application.
Tyler Trumball, 445 Salty Way, raised concern over impacts to a very nice area if the quarry were to
expand. He said expansion might force people out of the neighborhood if their property values decreased
because of the quarry operation. . .
Seeing no one else wishing to, testify, Mr. Dignam called for options from Planning Director Howe on how
to proceed.
Mr. Howe recommended leaving the written record open for two weeks, two additional weeks for new
information to be submitted and an additional week for applicant rebuttal. He said if commissioners had
questions they could e-mail them to him.
Eugene Planning Commissioner Jon Belcher questioned whether there were any statutory requirements
that would disallow extending the hearing for more than two weeks.
Mr. .Howe said there were no such requirements.
Eugene Planning Commissioner John Lawless suggested leaving the record open for 90 days. He said two
weeks seemed inadequate for research time.
Lane County Planning Commissioner Steve Carmichael agreed and suggested a longer 'period than two
weeks.
Lane County Planning Commissioner Jozef Zdzienicki suggested leaving the record open for 90 days. He
noted that some of the people.who testified had said they received no notice.
Lane County Planning Commissioner Lisa Arkin supported the suggestionto leave the record open for 90
days. She stresse~ the need' for the commissions to make an informed decision.
Planning Director Howe stated that the county met all legal requirements for public notice of the hearing.
MINUTES~Lane County Planni~g Commission.
Eugene Planning Commission
No'v'ember 15,2005
Page 9
Mr. Belcher supported leaving the record open for 90 days.
In response to a question from Ms. Colbath regarding future deliberation of the information in the record,
Planning Director Howe said e-mailed commission questions would be responded to until the record was
closed and then the commissions would go into deliberations. He said questions could still be answered by
staff after the record was closed but no new information could be submitted after the record was closed.
He said there needed to be a period for new information to be submitted, a period for reply, and a period
for rebuttal of new information by the applicant.
Lane County Planning Commissioner John Sullivan noted that the attorney for the opposition only needed
60 days.
Steve Cornacchia suggested having another public hearing in 60 days where everyone who had testified
that -evening would be. prohibited from testifying again to avoid repetition. He said all of the questions
raise4 could be responded to by the applicant. He expressed his preference for a 30 day extension period .
He said a 90 day period was excessive.
Planning Director Howe said there could be a 60 - day extension and the commissions could continue the
hearing on a date certain of January 17.
Mr. Zdzienicki said he did not agree with restricting who could speak at the next hearing.
Mr~ Sullivan agreed and encouraged continuing the hearing to a date certain of January 17.
Mr. Duncan stressed that people who had not testified wanted to testify then they should be allowed. He
expressed a hope that the testimony would not be repetitious.
Mr. Lawless supported 60 days while still leaving the record open during that time.
Mr. Dignam said he supported that idea.
Ms. Kirkham, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, moved to leave the public record open and
continue the public hearing in 60 days (January 17, 2006) and preclude any testimony
other than expert witnesses. -
Mr. Zdzienicki said he would prefer 90 days but, in the interests of cooperation, would support the motion.
Ms. Arkin offered a friendly amendment which was accepted to allow the attorney for the opposition
enough time to present a full argument.
The motion, as amended, passed unanimously.
Eugene Planning Commis~ioner Phillip Carroll expressed ~s discomfort with limiting/restricting anyone's
testimony.
Ms. Colbath called for a motion from the Eugene Planning Commission
MINUTES--Lane County Planning Commission -
Eugene Plannillg Commission
November 15,-2005
Pag~ 10
Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved to adopt the motion of the Lane County
Planning Commission but to remove the prohibition of public testimony.
City of Eugene Planner Steve Nystrom suggested a motion to continue the hearing on January 17. . He said
testimony will be limited to new evidence presented by anyone.
Mr. Belcher with the permission of his second withdrew his motion.
Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved that the hearing be continued on January
17, 20.0.6 and testimony be limited to new evidence provided by anyone who wished to
speak.
The motion passes unanimously.
Mr. Sullivan said he supported the Eugene commission's motion.
Ms. Arkin, seconded by Mr. Zdzienicki, moved to withdraw the earlier Lane County
Commission motion and adopt the motion of the Eugene Planning Commission.
The motion passed unanimously.
The hearing was continued to January 17. Planning Director Howe urged commissioners to forward
questions to commission staff as soon as possible.
The meeting adjourned at 10:20 pm.
(Recorded by Joe Sams)
MINUTES~Lane'County Planning Commission
Eugene Planning Commission
. November 15, 20.0.5.
Page .11
MINUTES
Lane County Planning Commission and Eugene Planning Con:unission
Council Chamber - Eugene City.Hall- 777 Pearl
January 17, 2006
7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Lisa Arkin, Ed Becker, Steve Dignam, James Carmichael, Todd Johnston, Juanita
Kirkham, John Sullivan, Nancy Nichols, Jozef Zdzienicki, members
Mitzi Colbath,. Rick Duncan, John Belcher, John Lawless, Phillip Carroll, Phillip
Hudspeth, Eugene Planning Commission
Stephanie Schulz, Kent.Howe Lane County Staff
Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, City of Eugene Staff
I. CONTINUED JOINT PUBLIC HEARING: PA 05-6151- In the matter of amending the
Eugene~Springfield Metropolitan Area. Genera Plan to redesignate 72.31 acres from
"Agricultural" to "Sand and Gravel," amend the GoalS significant Aggregate Site
Inventory to include the 72.31 acres, rezone the ~ubject property from Exclusive Farm Use
(E-RCP) to Sand, Gravel and Rock Products (SG -RCP). The proposal includes a request
,for two.administrative variances to decrease setback provisions and to allow construction of
a low permeability barrier within the setback area.
Commission Chair James Carmichael convened the meeting of the Lane County Planning Commission.
Eugene Planning Commission Chair Mitzi Colbath convened the meeting of the Eugene Planning
Commission.
Mr. Carmichael thanked the audience for attending the hearing. 'He noted that the commission me~bers
were all volunteers who made recommendations to elected officials.
The commissioners present introduced themselves.
Lane County Planning.Commissioner Todd Johnston recused himself from the meeting.
. City of Eugene Staff Kurt Yeiter noted for the record that Eugene Planning Commissioner Hledik had
also .recused himself from the hearing.
Mr. Carmichael requested that the audience show courtesy for all speakers and acknowledge that
everyone had a right to disagree. He urged those signed up to speak to not repeat testimony and keep
t.estimonyrelated to the issue.
Mr. Carmichael opened the public hearing for the Lane County Planning Commission.
Ms. Colbath opened the public hearing for the Eugene Planning Commission.
Lane County Planning Staff Stephanie Schulz provided the staff report. She noted that the written report contained
'answers to questions asked by the commissions during the previous public hearing. She said that some questions
were.more appropriately answered by the applicant and said those questions had been noted in the staff report.
Steve Cornacchia, 180 East 11 th Avenue, spoke as the applicant's representative. He noted that LCDC had
modified OAR 660-023-0180 and the application did not conform exactly to that modified wording. He said there
was no substantive change or difference in the actual criteria that the applicant was required to address. He said
LCDC had added paragraph 4 and a paragraph 6 but stressed that neither of which pertained to the application since
both referred to a Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment process that dealt with a piece of property that had less
than two million tons of aggregate. He remarked that the applicant had 9 million tons of aggregate and therefore
came under paragraph five of the OAR.
Mr. Corna~chia said the commissions had been provided with a memorandum from a City of Eugene transportation
analyst that stated that the applicant had not addressed some provisions in Eugene Code regarding transportation.
He reminded the commissions that the administrative rule was very. specific about the criteria to be addressed by
the applicant and to be considered by the commissions. He said if the City of Eugene and Lane County had not
adopted regulations consistent with the GoalS rule then only the provisions of the GoalS Rule were subject to the
proceeding. He noted that neither Lane County or the City of Eugene had adopted regulations consistent with the
GoalS Rule and stated that the commissions had to operate under OAR 660-023-0180. He reiterated that the
applicant had stated that the increase in its supply of aggregate would in noway affect the number of trips to and
from the quarry. He also noted that the Lane County Transportation Division had determined that there was no
traffic impact and a traffic impact analysis was not required.
Regarding the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority permit, Mr. Cornacchia said the permit limited the production
of aggregate at the facility to 2 million tons per year as well as a daily output requirement. He said the current
LRAP A discharge permit remained valid until LRAP A issued a new permit. He said LRAP A was currently going
through the process of issuing a new permit.
Mr. Cornacchia distributed/submitted additional written materials from David Standlee who had done the noise
analysis for the applicant. He said the materials discussed the legitimacy of the calibration of the measuring
instruments since a question had been raised at the last hearing. He added that there were some new houses that
had been built in the Silver Meadows and Mr. Standlee had recommended that the Zone 4 protection area be
expanded to move the DEQ compliance line at the edge of Delta's property.
Mr. Cornacchia said.the applicant was amending the request of a variance for the setback where there had been a
request to excavate in the setback to within 100 feet of properties and 50 feet on resource land. He said the request
for the variance had been withdrawn for the entire length of the set back on the west side that abutted residential
areas.
Mr. Cornacchia distributed a letter from. himself to the commissions sununarizing the reports provided by experts
testifying for the applicant. He said all of the reports that evening were responses to the testimony raised by the
opposition during the previous hearing.
MINUTES-Lane County Planning Commission
Eugene Planning Commission
January 17, .2006
2
Regarding ground water and the construction of a low permeability barrier, Mr. Cornacchia said several citizens
had raised concern that the barrier would raise ground water levels and cause flooding., He stressed that surface and
ground water were two different things and, in fact, ground water would move sidewayso.nce it reached the low
permeability barrier and would continue to move sideways until it found an open way elsewhere. He reiterated that
the water level would not be raised.
In response to a question from Lane County Planning Commission member Jozef Zdzienicki regarding the
requested variance, Mr. Cornacchia said the request for variance on the west side of the property had been
withdrawn but the request for the variance for remaining sides was still valid.
In response to a question from Lane County Commission member John Sullivan regarding the letters received and
where it was stated that a Traffic Impact Analysis was not required, Ms. Schulz said the written material she had
just distributed had an e-mail memorandum where that statement from Lane County Transportation Staff was
shown. .
Shane Hughes, Principal Engineer for EGR and Associates, noted thatthere had been concern on the part of the
opposition about the.low permeability barrier and whether it would cause flooding. Regarding surface ,water
aspects, he said anything below the ground did not have anything to do with surface water. He said that during a
flooding event it was assumed that the ground was saturated or of low enough permeability that there was no
penetration. He called attention to pages 3-5 of his report regarding flood impacts as well as page 18 of the staff
report ,'He said there were references to an adjustment to a vertical datum that had been transposed and noted that
the actual number was 3.57 feet. He said there were planes of reference that surveyors took their measurements
from.including flood elevations. He noted that there were more than one datum and said that the two that were in
use for the proceedings were NGVD 29 and NA VD 88. He said all of the site data was on the 88 datum and ~11 of
the flood data was on the 29 datum. He said, in order to make the numbers make sense when they were compared
with one another they would have to be put on the same plane of reference. He stressed that this had nothing to do
with altering flood elevations or FEMA mapping. He also stressed that all of the proposed activity for the proj ect
would be done below grade and excavation with no filling above grade or above grade sound berms so there would
be nothing to impede flood waters and, In fact, the excavation would buffer against a flood should one occur.
In response to a question from Eugene Planning Commission member 'John Belcher regarding whether the low
permeability barrier would cause the ground around it to be saturated faster, Mr. Hughes said the measurement of
flood in?pacts did not include whether the ground was saturated. He said other experts would testify to the ground
water level. He said the commissioners should also consider the excavation volume of the gravel pit itself.
In response to a question from Lane County Planning Commission member Steve Dignam regarding whether it was
his contention that there was no increased risk of flooding as a result of the project, Mr. Hughes stressed that there
was zero chance of increased flooding.
Ii1 response to a question from Mr. Zdzienicki regarding whether it was his contention that there would be no risk of
flooding because of the installation of the low permeability barrier, Mr. Hughes said the low permeability barrier
surrounding certain sides of the pit was designed to not allow ground water tables to be drawn down. He reiterated
that this activity would have nothing to do with surface waterflooding or the analysis of surface water.
Mr. Zdzienicki said the reason for the low permeability barrier was to prevent ground water from adjoining
properties to seep into the pit.
MINUTES-La~e' County Planning Commission
Eugene Planning Commission
January 17, 2006
3
Mr. Hughes said there were other e~perts for the applicant that had more knowledge of the issue but said his
understanding of the reasoning behind the low permeability barrier was to prevent the ground water levels for
adjoining properties to be drawn down.
Ralph Christensen, EGR and Associates, 2535 Prarie Road, submitted written material into the record. He said
the low permeability barrier could better be described as a 'coffer dam' in a river. He said a coffer dam did not
substantially change the water level of a river since the water would simply go around the dam and flow away. He
said the barrier would reduce the amount of water seeping into the pit but would also hold the level of ground water
stable in the areas around the quarry.
Regarding the concern that the barrier would cause flooding in the area, Mr. Christensen said in a flood situation
the ground water would be measured and might hold as much as 1-3 cubic feet of water in a square foot of ground
ten feet deep. He said a flood over the top of that would be measured in cubic feet per second so a cubic foot of
ground ten feet deep, in extreme situations, could possibly hold three seconds of water before it was saturated. He,
stressed that it did not matter how much saturation of the ground there was during a flood event.
Regarding the concern that the low permeability barrier was unproven technology, Mr. Christensen said there were
many references in the written report that the bairier was not new technology and had been made use of in many
other locations. .
MR. Christensen also commented on the replacability of gravel with basalt rack, and added that LCDC and OPOT
had written areport on crushed aggregate and sand & gravel which stated that they were not the same thing. He
said sand'& gravel was preferentially used in concrete and it was not appropriate to switch that with quarried rock.
Regarding sampling, Mr. Chris~ensen said there had been reference made by the opposition regarding the ASTM
standards on how" sampling was done. He stressed that it was particularly important to note that when open face
mining was taking place, the prescribed method was a composite sample of rock" from top to bottom. He said the
same ASTM standard stated that the actual rock that should be samples was the pr~cessed rock that was ready to be
sold. He stressed that the'samples used for the quality analysis in the application were not the processed rock but
composite samples that still met the requirements for being listed as a significant resource. He added that if the
processed rock had been used.as a sample then the resource quality rating would have been even higher.
In response to a questioI) from Eugene Planning Commissioner Ms. Colbath regarding where ground water would
go when it met the low permeability barri~, Mr. Christensen said the'water would flow out into the Willamette
River where all the ground water in the River Road/Santa Clara area was moving. He said during the winter when
water levels were high .enough the water would flow out through small channels that passed through that area.
In response to a question from Mr. .Zdzienicki regarding the effect of the low permeability barrier on the east Santa
Clarawat~rway which needed to be protected ,under Environmental, Social, Economic, and Energy, (ESEE)
standards, Mr. Christensen said there was less water flowing in the waterway now than when the barrier was
constructed. He noted that the water table would be raised to the bottom of the water way when the barrier was
constructed. He remarked that the waterway was dry for a significant portion of the y~ar.
In response to a question from Mr. Z~ienicki regarding the size of th~ setback from the waterway to protect its
natural vegetation, Mr. Christensen said the setback had already been proposed by the applicant. He said setbacks
were not part of his area of expertise but remarked a setback would be adequate as long as the vegetation was not
~INUTES-Lane County Planning Commission
Eugene Planning Commission
.,' January 17,,2006
4
disturbed. He noted that the current ground water levels had been drawn down to such a degree that much of the
natural vegetation in the water way had already been lost.
In response to a question from Lane County Planning Commission Member Lisa Arkin regarding how the higher
water table caused by the low permeability barrier would affect nearby property owner's issue of insurance and the
requirement of building one foot above the water table, Mr. Christensen said it was important to understand that the
requirement was to build one foot above the 100 year flood level. He added that this was a surface water
requirement. He stressed that the low permeability barrier would raise the ground water to its historic level which
would be the same as what was found in the rest of the River Road/Santa Clara area. He said the barrier could not
suddenly raise the water level above the ground water level in the rest of the area. He stressed that the ground
water level around Delta would rise to that same level which was generally 8 feet below the surface during the
winter.
Dick.Ruth, PO Box 1491, Eugene, submitted written material into the record. He ~aid he had worked in
environmental dispute resolution as well as 13 years working at Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority. He said he
had been interested in the Delta Sand and Gravel case because he had inspected the facility when he worked for
LRAPA and was aware of the efforts the company made to "do the right thing." He said he had reviewed data
regarding the wind patterns in the area because of the concern of the neighbors about dust blowing their way. He
said his written material contained historical data from the meteorological site by Madison Middle School. He said
the key point was that the chart showed very little wind blowing from the east (4 percent) both for the long term
average and for the summer months or dry season. He said there should be very little wind born dust blowing into
the neighbors on the west of the site since the wind blew so. rarely from the east. He added that the wind was below
six miles per hour for the most part which would also be to the neighbor's benefit.
Mr. Ruth said he had also done enforcement of noise reduction standards for the Department of Environmental
Quality for'Lane, Linn, and Benton Counti~s. He said he had reviewed the consultant's report on nois'e and was
impressed by the detail of the examination of individual equipment. He said the applicant had done a very
thoroughjob of understanding and mitigating noise of the operation.
In response to a question from Ms. Arkin regarding whether there would be significant dust impact to the northwest
of the site, Mr. Ruth said the chart in his written material showed that 15 percent of the time the wind blew from the
south east to the northwest. He said often those winds were associated with weather fronts moving through the area
that often brought rain which would also mitigate dust. He stressed that the prevailing wind patterns were from the
north/northwest in the .summer time.
In response to a question from Lane County Planning Commissioner Steve Dignam regarding his qualifications,
Mr. Ruth said he had worked for over 30 years in environmental fields including 13 years with LRAP A. He added
that he was also the Director of Health, Safety, and Environment for an asbestos abatement comp,any in Houston
and said since 1990 he had been doing consulting on environmental site assessments and had also.worked in
environmental dispute resolution and mediation. He said his interest in mediation had attracted him. to the Delta
application. He said neighbors often wanted to have scientific data reviewed by someone who was more objective
rather than from one of the opposing sides. He expressed the hope that the data he had collected would be
reassuring to the neighbors.
Eugene Planning Commissioner JOM Belcher commented that, by the data shown on Mr. Ruth's written material,
the wind blew from the southeast and south southeast 18.5 percent of the time for 3" total of one day out of four.
MINUTES-Lane County Planning Commission.
Eugene Planning Commission
January 17, 2006
5
In response to a question from Mr. Sullivan regarding noise and the indication in his report that he was satisfied
with the mitigation efforts proposed by Delta Sand and Gravel and whether the methods used were typical methods
that noise was mitigated to DEQ requirements, Mr. Ruth said the typical method was to handle mitigation efforts in
a st~p by step fashion. He said the most obvious mitigation efforts were carried out fITst and if more was needed
then other efforts could be made. He reiterated that the study conducted by Delta was thoroughly done and he had
be~n impressed. He added that there were equipment specific things that could be done to reduce noise further.
In response to a question from Ms. Arkin regarding if the wind data near Madison Middle School was the same as
the data collected at the airport, Mr. Ruth said he had not ~ade that specific comparison but commented that the
data should be basically the same sincethe topography was a broad scope open valley so there were not hills in the
way. In spite of that he said he would expect some differences since there were trees around the neighborhoods and
there was also an open pit to the east. He said the topographic differences would not really change the patterns of
the seasons. He said when low systems came through there was some wind from the south and south southeast and
reiterated that those winds often brought rain with them. He said he had checked the rain patterns for the last 53
years and almost every day over the long term there had 'been at least 2/100 of an inch of rain. He reiterated that
rain was a mitjgating factor and said the wetness of the site was a benefit.
Ms. Arkin commented that she had seen other Wind Rose graphs and had seen indications of wind from the south
and southeast during the non summer months.
Mr. Ruth suggested looking at the long term chart because it contained the full history of the entire site.
In response to a question from Ms. Colbath regarding his remarks about noise enforcement, Mr. Ruth said he had
experience with noise enforcement while working for the Department of Environmental Quality, (DEQ), but
remarked that the applicant had a primary noise enforcement specialist from Beaverton that had done the study he
had reviewed.
George Staples, Delta Sand and Gravel, said he was testifying to answer some of the q~estions that had been raised
, by the commissions. Regarding the type of soil to be used for the low permeability barrier proposed for around the
new site, he said there were clay deposits on site that could not be used for sand and gravel purposes and that
material would be put into the barrier as well as clean fill dirt that could be used to fill in the barrier.
Regarding the reclamation plan required to be done by Delta, Mr. Staples said Delta was required to have a
conceptual reclamation plan turned in and as part of the process there would be references to the reclamation plan
in place at the current time. He said the information submitted to the record, included a letter from Randy Moore
who worked for the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, (DOGAMI), which stated the progress of Delta
in the reclamation process. He said Delta had a reclamation plan for some years and expressed a hope that, after
approval of the application, DOGAMI would put final conditions on a reclamation plan that Delta would have to
abide by.
Regarding truck traffic on Hunsaker Lane and the concern raised by Rob Funk, Mr. Staples said there were two
exits from Delta that were used. He said trucks were weighed and then exited to River Avenue and the second gate
, used by Morse Brothers to exit onto Division Avenue. He said other access was for entrance only. He said trucks
did not travel on Hunsaker since ev~rythinggoing west would use Division Avenue. He acknowledged that empty
trucks ent~rjng the facility would travel on Hunsaker Lane to relieve traffic congestion at River Road and Beltline.
He said the amount of traffic on Hunsaker Lane would fluctuate depending on the amount of work that Delta was
involved with in that area. He stressed that traffic levels had nothing to do with the amount of rock being produced
MINUTES-Lane County Planning Commission
Eugene Planning Commission
':January 17;200.6
6
or the amount of reserves built u:p. He reiterated that traffic on Hunsaker would be a result of the. proj ects that Delta
was involved in.
Regarding the concern over noise levels at the site from the residents of Silver Meadows, Mr. Staples called
attention to.the graph in the meeting packet showing administrative controls to keep noise compliance boundaries at
the property line. .
In response to a question from Eugene Planning Commission member Rick Duncan regarding trucks on Hunsaker
and whether they were always empty, Mr. Staples said they were commonly empty but some trucks brought in dirt
that had been excavated from another site. He said it would depend on the job being done.
In response to a question from Ms. Arkin regarding the location of the asphalt batching plant on the site, Mr.
Staples said Delta did not have an asphalt batching plant nor a concrete plant but noted that Morse Brothers had
those facilities located directly behind the company's main office. He said Morse Brothers facility was located due
north of the Delta office.
In response to a question from Ms. Arkin regarding the light colored green on the map of Zone 4, Mr. Staples said
Zone 4 was the most strictly controlled area of all the zones. He said the zone combined the restrictions of the other
three zones in addition to specific restrictions imposed by Delta regarding the number of trucks that could be loaded
during an hour's time. He said this made the zone the quietest zone of the four since it was closest to residences.
He. said the noise mitigation boundary. had been moved to Delta's property line so that any houses built in the Silver
Meadows area would be within the noise mitigation standards.
In response to a question from Ms. Arkin regarding the distance from the property line to the new subdivision, Mr.
Staples said estimated that it was several hundred feet.
In response to a question from Mr. Zdzienicki regarding whether Delta had increased its mining since the last traffic
impact analysis, Mr. Staples said a gfaph would be shown regarding production rates. He said Delta had increased
its production by approximately one percent per year.
In response to a question from Mr. Zdzienicki regarding whether there was a filtering process for fill dirt on the
~ite, Mr. Staples said Delta looked at material in the field because there was a lot of potential junk in the dirt. He
reiterated that the material was inspected in the field before being trucked to the Delta site because Delta was
inspected by the Department of Environmental Quality on site. He said if there was any question of contaminants
or any other debris he was called in to test the material.
Lee Babb, 645 Spyglass, spoke as the co-owner of Delta Sand an~ Gravel. He said the land had been owned by his
family who had worked on the land for over 60 years. He stressed that it was the decision of the commissions
whether Delta would have the opportunity to work the land and turn the property into something useful to the
community. He said opportunities such as that did not come very often. He stressed that his family had been and
would continue to be good stewards of the land and added that Delta had reclaimed approximately five acres of
land per year. He said Delta recycled tires, asphalt, dirt and rock. He urged the commissions to look to the future
when making a decision and stressed that Delta was needed in the community.
Avon Lee Babb, 695 Fair Oaks Drive, spoke as the co-owner of Delta Sand and Gravel. He expressed his desire to
have a positive recommendation from the commissions to the Board of County Commissioners and the Eugene City
Council. He urged the commissions to r~member that Delta was only asking for an addition to an existing site. He
MINUTES-Lane County Planning Commission
Eugene. Planning Commission
. January 17,.2006
7
stressed that there would be no change in existing operations. He noted that he was asking for a longer life for his
company. He stressed that additional resource did not mean increased production. He said things did not 'work that
way. He said economics and demand controlled what could be produced and sold. He stressed that Delta competed
for its contracts and customers. He said the amount of resource Delta had did not have anything to do with what
demand and the market allowed. He stressed that Delta had to earn its customers. He said he had never been
interested in growth for growth's sake. He acknowledged that Delta had grown some over the years and could
grow more in the future. He said the company would have to grow as its customers grew and demand increased.
He reiterated that Delta would have to grow to keep up with its customers and remarked that if a company like his
was out of supply then it was out of business. He reiterated that he was asking for a longer life forthe company.
The company's application stood on its own merits. He urged the commissions to remember when making their
decisions that Delta had given up 45 acres of resource land to protect a heron rookery near the site. He stressed that
his company provided more than family wage jobs and extraordinary benefits for his employees and added that he
would like to continue doing that for another 20 years.
Gordon Loeschen, 28700 Lake Side Drive in Corvallis, said he had worked for Delta Sand and Gravel for 20
years. He showed an aerial map of the Delta property to illustrate the setback limits proposed by Delta.
Mr. Loeschen showed a graph of production rates since. 1964. He said there had been an average of one percent
growth per year since that 'time.
Dan Stotter, 627 Country Club Road, spoke as the attorney for the opposition. He spoke in opposition to the
application. He submitted exp~rt written testimony into the record on aggregate/geology, air pollution, natural
resources/wetlands, groundwater hydrogeology, and noise impacts. He said the frrst section of the packet contained
information on aggregate and geqlogic resource criteria required by the PAPA process in the Oregon
Administrative Rules. He said the information was supplied by Dr. Mark Reed who was an economic geologist at
the University of Oregon. 'He said the next section contained information on air pollution impacts of the proposal
and was presented by Camile Sears who had more than 25 years experience as an expert in air pollution and air
dispersion modeling as well as risk assessment. He said the health and medical impacts of particulate were
provided by Dr. Stephen Kimberly who specialized in internal medicine. He said the information on natural
resources and wetland issues was provided by Dr. Ethan Perkins who is a highly respected natural resources expert
and wetlands consultant. He stated that the ground water and hydrogeology was prepared by Malia Kupillas who
was an expert on ground water and hydrogeology issues. The section on noise and sound impacts was prepared for
. noise engineer Arthur Noxon. Regarding agricultural impacts, Mr. Stotter said the information was prepared by
Ross Penhallegon who was an agricultural expert working for the Oregon State University Extension Service. He
added that this section contained letters from nearby impacted farms that detailed the significant increased costs and
changing farm practices that would result from the application.
Mr. Stotter requested an extension of the hearing to address the new information submitted by the applicant.
Mr. Stotter presented written information on air pollution fro.m the report written by Camille Sears. He said the
report stated. that the Delta's air quality evaluation was based on flawed and inadequate information and was
unreliable. He said her conclusion was that the applicant's air quality conclusions were not supported by
appropriate evidence in the record. He said one of the most interesting sections.ofthe report was the section on
meteorological conditions including wind direction and velocity~ .He said she had indicated that if the proposed
expansion were approved the dust exposure problems to the west of the area would increase significantly. He said
the area would be impacted with inhalation particulate matter 60 percent of the time during the dryer months and 50
percent of the time the entire year. He said one of her greatest concerns was that there was no air dispersion
. MINUTES-Lane County Plamring Commissiori. .
Eugene Planning Commission
January 17, 2006
8
modeling for the proposal. He said without air dispersion modeling the commissions had no basis to make a
decision on: .
1. Whether the proposed expansion would cause significant air pollution and dust fallout impacts,
2. Whether the project would or could be mitigated to minimize potential impacts, and
3. The degree and downwind distance that potential significant impacts would occur which was
important to determine'the proper impact area for the PAP A administrative rule analysis.
Mr. Stotter said there was no assurance to the public that there were not significant pollution impacts. He added
that Ms. Sears was a specialist in air pollution impacts and dismissed the testimony of Dick Ruth because he had
not listed his degree as part of his qualifications. He said Ms. "Sears had determined that there were serious and
significant air pollution impacts to farms and residents near the site.
Dr. Stephen Kimberly, 85296 Ridgetop, spoke 4t opposition to the application. He said he was a board certified
specialist in internal medicine and had also been past president of the Alliance for Lung Cancer. He said he had
extensive trainingin lung and pulmonary diseases. He said he could not speak to the amount of dust that would be
created by the proposed expansion. He remarked that there had already been testimony to that topic and speculated
that the amount of dust created would be significant. He said there would definitely be health effects from the dust
of the quarry. He said miners who were exposed to coal dust had a much highe~ incidence of lung disease. He said
his concern was that rock dust varied in size ranged from 2-10 microns and remarked that particulate matter in that
size range would increase the episodes of bronchitis, asthma attacks and chronic obstructed pulmonary disease. He
said COPD was a leading cause of death in the United States and was increasing dramatically. He said one of the
leading causes of COPD was chronic bronchitis. He said, over time, the lungs would lose elasticity and fibrotic
tissl:1e would form in the lungs and COPD would oCcur. He added that rock dust was chemically reactive and said
there would be reaction in lung tissue that, in addition to causing more fiberous tiss~e, might lead to lung cancer.
He said children that were exposed to rock dust would be found to have slowly developing lungs and would be
more susceptible to bronchitis.
In response to a question from Lane County Planning ~ommissioner Nancy Nichols regarding whether some of the
particulate would fallout of the air, Dr. Kimberly said those who were working to mine the rock would be the most
exposed to particulate but remarked that, given the statements made by Camile Sears about residents being exposed
to wind born dust 50 percent of the year, the dust would be by no means innocuous.
In response to a question from Ms.. Arkin regarding his assessment of the additional particulate matter added to the
pollution in the area, Dr. Kimberly said it would increase health risks in terms of the lungs for a significant portion
of the community. He said it had been 'estimated that every ten years of exposure to dust doubled the chance of
lung disease from particulate matter. He acknowledged that he was not an expert in rock processing but speculated
that the activities at Delta would produce 1 million tons of rock per year and that a ton or more of particulate matter
would be dispersed into the air.
Mr. Dignam commented that a farmer living nearby the site had testified at the previous hearing that he generated
significantly more dust than was, generated by Delta Sand and"Gravel. He add-ed that he lived on. a gravel driveway
shared by five families. He questioned how the dust generated by Delta was different from other dust generated in
Lane County.
MINUTES-Lane "County Planning Commission
Eugene Planning Commission
'January 17, 2006
9
Dr. Kimberly said the difference was in the type of dust. He said the farmer in his field raised dirt dust. He said
dust from processing rock was different from dirt 'around gravel on a driveway. He said the type and size of
particles could cause chemical reactivity. He said older people and people with existing lung conditions would be
much more susceptible to problems associated with rock dust.
In response to a question from M.r. Belcher regarding the amount of particulate matter speculated to be raised by
processing a million tons of rock and whether the need. for gravel would prompt the same amount of dust in another
location, Dr. Kimberly said that was not his area of expertise. He added that he had not read anything that
quantified the amount of dust that would be produced.
Mr. Dignam ql1:estioned whether Dr. Kimberly was familiar with the geology of the site. He noted that'Delta had
indicated that they would not increase production of rock and questioned whether the new area had more potential
to generate more of the 'bad' dust or whether the discussion was ov~r the same amount of dust that was currently
generated by the operation.
Dr. Kimberly said he had no information as to the geology of the Delta site nor could he give an educated opinion
about any changes in dust generated" by the facility. He said there was a possibility that the new area being
proposed would be better in terms of dust production than what was happening currently but added that it also
could be worse.
Ethen Perkins, 2410 Monroe, spoke as a wetlands consultant and a natural resources specialist for the opposition.
He said, in his professional opinion, the use change of the land would have the adverse effect of removing on site
waters t~at recharged the local aquifers. He added that aquifer interfaced with an abandoned river meander or
oxbow wetland expression above the 375 foot elevation contour. He said the reduced onsite flow of water would
require state and federal wetlands permits and a mitigation plan based on an approved wetland delineation. . He
noted that none of this had been provided by the application. He saidthe outlined zoning change plan submitted by "
the applicant did not avoid significant adverse impact to the wetland despite mining occurring outside of the
wetland itself. He said the low permeability barrier would impede movement of.water through the local aquifer
and would change the existing wetlands functions and values and would not adequately replace them. He cited
wetland vegetation, songbird habitat, amphibian habitat, nitrogen removal, and phosphorous retention as examples.
He added that western pond turtle breeding on the site should be documented in areas where breeding might occur~
He also said that the possibility of red legged frogs should also be examined. He said if either of those species were
present on the site then the possible impacts of the proposed zone change should be analyzed fully. He added that
there should be analysis of possible down stream impacts to salmon such as migration and breeding habitat. He
recommended t~at the application should be.denied. He said the details of the mining reclamation were insufficient
and, as exa.mple, said the low permeability barrier, if left in place, would not be restored to pre-mining conditions.
In response to a question from Ms. Arkin regarding whether there was a map of the wetlands in the record, Mr.
Perkins said one of the problems with the application was that the wetland area was only briefly described. He said
the area was essentially on the oxbow area with the tree lined on the west of the project as he understood it. He
added that it did not include the already existing ponds which -could also be wetlands but were not part of the
proposal.
. In response. to a. question from Ms. Arkin regarding the low permeability barrier and whether water would flow
around it, Mr. Perkins said it would but noted that the barrier was close to the existing wetland and remove any
water flowing off the swfaces that were further out into the present field. He said the ground water would be held
in place and would therefore be elevated.
MINUTES-Lane County Planning Commission "
Eugene.Planning Commission
. January 17 t .2006
10
In response to a question from Ms. Nichols regarding whether the wetlands permits arid mitigation plans for the
wetland were done when the housing development nearby was constructed, Mr. Perkins said it was always
advisable to have them since the law required that wetlands not be diminished in size or value. He said a good
developer would have looked at those things but said he did not know if the particular developer had followed
through with permits and biological assessments. .
Mr. Sullivan said he had concerns.that there had been very little agency input regarding riparian corridors, wetlands
and wildlife habitat. He questioned whether Mr. Perkins thought that if the Department of State Lands and Oregon
Department ofFish and Wildlife investigated the site their assessments would agree with his own.
Mr. Perkins said he thought the agencies would agree with him but acknowledged that he had not walked on the ~ite
and collected specific information and had only presented a general analysis.
In response to a question from Mr. Sullivan regarding whether in his opinion the agencies should be requested to
~ake those inquiries, Mr. Perkins said the request should be made to determine that the wetland boundary
mentioned in the application was accurate and to look at possible effects to nearby wetlands.
In response to a question from Mr. Sullivan regarding whether he had been on the property at all, Mr. Perkins
. reiterated that he had not been on the land but had rendered an opinion based on the information in the. application.
Mr. Belcher asked for a map of the wetlands along the boundary of the ap.plication to be provided.
Malia Kupillas, President of Pacific Hydro Geology, said she was registered geologist with a specialty in hydro
geology. She said she had reviewed the reports that were prepared as part of the application as well as the
computer model. She said after reviewing both of the reports she said there had not been enough information given
to show that ground water would not be affected. She noted that information was missing. She said the applicant
had stated that ground water and su~ace water were separate bodies and stressed that this was not true. She
stressed that ground water and surface water were connected and impacts to one would also impact the other. She
said ground water would go where it was easiest to flow. If the easiest was to go up because the soil was more
permeable then it would go up. She said the computer model submitted by the applicant failed to show what would
really happen. She said her biggest question was about the low permeability barrier. She said the computer model
showed two scenarios. The fIrst was a dam that enclosed the new area and another scenario around the entire
operation. She said both scenarios would have an impact on ground water. She said what the applicant had not
shown was that a coffer dam like barrier could not be built as described in the application because a full circle
barrier was not planned to be constructed. She said there was no map that showed .where the barrier was supposed
to be constructed. She remarked that excavating for the barrier would mean excavating wetlands.
Ms. Kupillas noted that the Santa Clara area was developed with the current ground water levels which were lower
because of the current mining activities. She said there had been no analysis of what could happen if the low
permeability barrier were constructed and the natural ground water returned. She remarked that the residential
developments had been constructed under the assumption of current ground water levels and their .concerns over
flooding were valid. She said the only difference between ground water and surface water was the ground level.
She said if ground water levels were raised to a certain point then there would be surface flooding. She said the
water in the oxbow lake was filled by ground water exposed to the surface.
. MINUTES"-Lane County Planning Commission
Eugene Planning Commission
. 'January 17, 2006
.11
In response to a question from Ms. Nichols regarding when the excavation was finished and refilled and if there
would be impacts to nearby homeowners, Ms. Kupillas said that was a problem that had not been addressed by the
applicant. She said refilling the area, depending on the fill material, could cause additional problems. She said the
applicant's report did not talk about the impacts of the low permeability barrier and opined that this was essentially
mining in an area where no mining should be allowed. She noted that the top of the barrier would be 130 feet .wide
and 12 feet at the bottom.
In response to a question from Ms. Arkin regarding' how deep the barrier would be, Ms. Kupillas said the applicant
had proposed a depth of 30 feet.
In response to a question from Ms. Arkin regarding whether it was possible that the water would. flow beneath the
barrier, Ms. Kupillas said the reality was that the barrier was only partial and was really just slowing down water
flow. She said water would still be.able to flow in the older alluvium below the barrier. She said there were wells
that could produce up to 100 gallons per minute from those lower gravels. She said water would still be flowing
into the pit and the applicant was expecting water to be coming through. .
Mr. Zdzienicki commented that originally the applicant was proposing a 30 foot depth with an excavation to 60
feet. He remarked on the 30 foot discrepancy.
In response to a question from Mr. Zdzienicki regarding whether the Silver Meadows housing development was
located on topsoil on top of gravel, Ms. Kupillas said she was not familiar with the specific development.
In response to a question from Mr. Zdzienicki regarding whether the area just to the west of the housing
development had gravel as well, Ms. Kupillas said it was.
Mr. Zdzienicki questioned whether, if the excavation for low permeability barrier would go 30 feet below the
barrier, the ground water in the development to the west be slowly drained away with the land drying out and
vegetation being impacted as a result.
Ms. Kupillas said that was possible. She said the current water levels were lower than they should be because of
the current activities of Delta Sand and Gravel. She said Delta was trying to install a low permeability barrier to
. have less of an effect on the ground water level. She said the applicant was hoping that 'less of an effect' would
mean ground water rising to previous levels. She said the problem with that assumption was that there would still
be water flowing into the excavation. She said if water levels outside of the barrier built up it could create more
pressure for the water to go lower and come out beneath the low permeability barrier.
In response to a question from Mr. Dignam regarding what would happen if the water did flow through or under the
barrier, Ms. Kupillas said nearby domestic wells and irrigation wells could go dry.
In response to a'question from Mr. Dignam regarding whether it was her contention that the low permeability
barrier would lower ground water levels while still being a risk of flooding to nearby housing, Ms. Kupillas there
was a possibility of negative impacts whichever way the water went.
Mr. Dignam commented that. he was uncertain how the low permeability barrier could both c~use flooding,and
cause wells to go dry.
MINUTES-Lane:County Planning Commission.
. Eugene Planning Commission
.January 17, 2006
12
Mr. Belcher noted that Mr. Christianson had testified that there would be no more than a 1-3 cubic foot capacity for
ground water in a 10 foot deep range and that this was a very small figure.when compared with the foot per second
measurement for surface flood water. He questioned how Ms. Kupillas would respond to that.
Ms. Kupillas said she envisioned a bath tub and how much water it would hold with or ~ithout being filled with
marbles. She said the issue was not flood waters coming from surface water but the water table coming up high
enough to reach the surface.
In response t6 a question from Ms. Nichols regarding the water from people's wells that seeped into the excavation
would then be pumped into the Willamette River and could not be given back to those who lost water, Ms. Kupillas
said the current plan was to pump water into settling ponds and then let it filter into the Willamette River. She said
she had worked with other situations where mining operations had affected wells and water had been given back to
farmers but remarked that this only worked for irrigation and not for drinking water.
In response to a question from Eugene Planning Commission Member Rick Duncan regarding whether there was a
significant change in ground water levels because of.the new excavation that had not already occurred with the .
current pit, Ms. Kupillas said there had already been a change in ground water with the existing pit. She said the
plan is for expansion to a new area that would be closer to that impacted land.
In response to a question from Mr. Duncan regarding whether there would be a reduction in problems as the pit was
reclaimed, Ms. Kupillas acknowledged that there could be but surmised that if the materials used to fill the pit were
· lower permeability then there would be lower water storage capacity for ground water.
In response to a question from Mr. Duncan regarding whether in the long run (20-30 years), when the pit was
eventually filled in and whether the ground water would then stabilize itself, Ms. Kupillas said the ground water
would be stabilized at a new equilibrium. She speculated that the pit would be reclaimed with lower permeability
soils and create a draw down cone of depression. She said the closer a well came to the lower permeable soils there
would be well interference issues.
In response to a question from Mr. Belcher regarding if the application were approved and whether at the end of the
mining process the low permeability barrier should be left or removed as part of the mitigation process, Ms.
Kupillas said it would make sense in the interests of ecology to leave it.
Mr. Sullivan commented that much of the testimony provided by Ms. Kupillas was based on the applicant's 'lack of
good science.' He questioned whether it was her opinion that, the matter could be addressed if the correct
procedures were taken.
Ms. Kupillas said she was not able to complete the evaluation of impacts that could happen because of lack of
information in the application. She said she could say whether everything would be fine if proper procedures were
followed, but not enough information was supplied by the applicant.
Lane County Planning. Commissioner Juanita Kirkham noted that the commission needed a vote to proceed in a
meeting past 10 pm.
Ms. Arkin, seconded by Lane County PlanningCommissio~er Ed Becker, moved to extend the
meeting until no. later than i 1 pm. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES-Lane County Planning Commission.
Eugene Planning Commission
. .January 17,2006
.13
Mr. Carmichael called for a 10 minute break.
Arthur Noxon, 3690 County Farm Road, spoke as a state licensed acoustic engineer. He said he had worked in the
community and held a masters degree in physics and mechanical engineering. He said he had helped put in many
rock quarries in neighborhood areas. He submitted,a 30 page report into the record. He said the DSA noise impact
study done by the applicant had missed several sections of the Code established by the Department of
Environmental Quality. He cited impulse noise and tonal noise as examples of noise types that were not mentioned
in the applicant's report. He added that there was a fatal flaw in the applicant's report in that there was no mention
of how those noise types would be mitigated. He added that all truck traffic off site should be accounted for. He
said the applicant's report had mentioned the matter in one sentence. He noted that the applicant had stated that
trucks would leave on Division and return via Hunsaker Lane. He said he had been unaware of that process and
speculated that there were other gates entering the Delta site that had not been mentioned. He raised concern over
'giant dump trucks weaving their way through winding rural roads.' He remarked that Delta was not considering
the truck noise generated by vehicles returning to the Delta site. He said truck noise was part of the DEQ
regulations that protected the community from noise impacts. He said the report from Delta showed an
unacceptable level of work.
Mr. Noxon said the noise impact boundary zone survey done by the applicant had not taken the new development
in Silver Meadows into account. He said noise from the rock crusher was used for the report data 'and not total
ambient noise levels.
In response to a question from Mr. Zdzienicki regarding whether he had made on site measurements., Mr. Noxon
said he had not made measurements on site.
In response to a question from Ms. Colbath regarding whether there would be construction noise on the site, Mr.
Noxon said that information was in his written material submitted into the record.
Mark Reed, 719 East Beacon Drive, spoke as a geologist on his own behalf. He submitted written material into
the record. He said he was addressing the issue of deposit significance under the Goal 5 rule for sand and gravel.
He sai4 the gravel resource in the proposed expansion area failed to meet the significant resource standard of the
Goal 5 rule concerning aggregate. He said the samples failed because the four samples tested by the applicant were
not a representative set as required under the Goal 5 rule and therefore the applicant had not met the burden of
proof that the resource met the Oregon Department of Transportation requirements for quality. He said an
additional problem was that one of Delta's bore hole log descriptions fell short of providing adequate information
to demonstrate whether the deposit contained sufficient thickness of sand and gravel. He said the significance test,
under the Goal 5 rule, was there to determine whether there was sufficient thickness of gravel to justify
'destruction' of farmland. He said the significance test was completely unrelated to whether the deposit could be
mined profitably and was simply a question of whether legal requirements had been met.
Regarding significance criteria, Mr. Reed said the key issue was representative sampling. He said the fundamental
failing of the Delta samples was that they violated established protocol for representative sampling because shallow
grade rock had been mixed with poor quality rock from deeper in the deposit. He said the deeper rock could fail the
standard but, actually, that could not be established because the sample mixed that deeper rock with high quality
rock. He used a loose analogy about the average age of ,10.0 people in a room and whether .they could all be served
alcohol. He said the answer was no because fifty eight of the people could be two years old and forty two of the
people could be forty eight years old which would result in an average age of 21. He said the analogy fit the
example of the samples submitted into the record from Delta. He said sampling standards required that geologic
MINUTES~Lane County Planning Commission,
Eugene Planning Commission
January 17, 2006
. 14
units that were separate from each other be sampled separately. He said there were at least two geologic units in
the area. He said the established methods for sampling were well known to geologists and had been established by
the American Society for Testing and Materials. He added thatthe Army Corps of Engineers had established
requirements for gravel sampling. He said one of the key features of those standards was that the importance of
obtaining representative standards cannot be emphasized too strongly since failure to do so could provide
misleading and inaccurate information even if the tests were completed properly. He noted that if visual inspection
indicated that there was considerable variation in the material then separate samples from different depths should be
obtained.
Mr. Reed accused EGR & Associates of intentionally mixing the samples in defiance of the standards thereby
improving the apparent quality of the rock. He added. that Bore Hole Log NUmber Three contained errors in the
content and geologic description andtherefore did not meet the adequate information standards.
In response to a question from Ms. Arkin regarding a statement fr.om Ralph.Christensen that the appropriate test
was to compile a composite sample, Mr. Reed said ASTM did. say something to that effect but added that the
composite needed to be a representative sample of the face. He said this would be representative of what was being
produced from the pit as opposed to the standard requiring separate samples from distinguishable layers. He
reiterated his contention that the samples were distinguishable and needed to be sampled separately.
In response to a question from Mr. Belcher regarding the standards that he had mentioned the quarry should be
following and whether they were required by DOGAMI, Mr. Reed said the Goal Five rule called for 'a
representative set' and did not provide a reference for what would be called a representative set. He said the
standards he had mentioned were industry standards that defmed a representative set and acknowledged that there
was no explicit legal link to those standards in the law.
Doug DuPriest, Attorney representing Joel and Theresa Narva, said the Narva's owned property close to the
proposed expansion site and had serious reservations and concerns over the impacts of the application. He said the
application understated the impacts on nearby properties and neighbors as well a~ proper measures to mitigate those
impacts. He said the Narva's were particularly concerned about noise. He submitted written testimony from Mr.
Noxon. He said the DSA report did not define the difference between administrative mitigation and structural
mitigation. He said there are administrative mitigation procedures that people should comply with. He said DEQ
had stated that administrative mitigation was an interim measure and not a permanent measure. He said the
applicant did not provide any structural mitigation measures. He said Delta had failed tQ combine excavation
loading and haul truck noise into one noise source or event which would result in a rating of over 50 percent and
different standards would apply. He said Delta created statistical noise levels from interviews and not
measurements and underestimated excavator' noise by eight decibels. He said the applicant's noise predictions fell
16 decibels short of reality and added that the data used to develop the statistics was not fully disclosed. He added .
that the applicant had used federal standards for dump truck noise because they allowed a higher level of noi~e than
the Oregon State standards.
Regarding the statement from the applicant that there would be no increased production on site, Mr. DuPriest said if
the market supported increased production then there could be impacts on the neighbors as a result. He said a
critical point was that if the level of production was maintained at its current levels, the change in location of
activities relative to neighbors could cause additional impacts. He said Delta was trying to skip over or short circuit
the process of analysis of the consequences of what they were proposing.
MINUTES-Lane County Planning. Commission
Eugene Planning Commission
January 17, .2006
15
Debra Higby, Sierra Club, 1281 Dalton Drive, said the expansion of Delta was not acceptable. 'She said to allow
an open pit mine next to an established neighborhood with the associated 'noise, dust, loss of soils, flooding, and
ground water contamination' was inappropriate development. She surmised that Delta had not used good scientific
methodology to analyze noise levels on the west side of the site. She speculated that neighbors would be
'bombarded' by noise from the site. She said the neighbors had been unaware of the expansion plans of the quarry
when they purc4ased theirhomes. '
Regarding dust, Ms. Higby said Delta had admitted that dust from the site could cause a potential conflict.with
nearby land uses by creating a nuisance condition.
Ms. Higby said application materials referred to nuisance and annoying throughout the report. She said the word
choice shifted attention that Delta's mining practices were potentially damaging to people and could cause
respiratory problems to the very young and old.
Regarding wind, Ms. Higby urged the commissions to rely on experts and scientific information. She submitted
written material into the record.
James Nepler, 49 Salty Way, commented that Dr. Kimberly's statements showed that people who worked around
quarries had a variety of serious health problems due to dust and those effects would extend to properties beyond
the Delta Site. He cited the air pollution report from Camille S~s had stated that Delta's air quality conclusions
were unsupported. He said her report had concluded that properties to the west of the site would be impacted with
inhaleable particulate matter 60 percent'ofthe time during dry months and 50 percent of the time during the rest of
the year. He acknowledged that these statements did not match the Wind Rose . Chart testimony submitted by Dick
Ruth but urged the commissions to consider the fact that there were homes to the north and south of the Delta site
which would make up forthe discrepancy in the stated percentages.. He added that Ms. Sears had stated Delta did
not use air dispersion monitoring.
Mr. Nepler noted that he had children with asthma and said dust and diesel fumes had a horrifying effect on people
with that condition~ He remarked that it would be like watching his children drown on dry land. He urged the
commissions to carefully consider the reports of the opposition and use a healthy measure of skepticism when
reviewing the reports generated by Delta Sand and Gravel.
Joel Narva,2830 Echo Lane, said his property abutted the proposed expansion. He said the sound analysis
provided by Delta were grossly understated. He noted that he could already hear the noise from the quarry. He
surmised that the noise would become worse but acknowledged that it was difficult to tell how much worse.
Regarding water issues, Mr. Narva said the City of Eugene had a responsibility to the new residences in the Silver
Meadows subdivision. He said there was much more urban storin water runoff from that subdivision and remarked
. that this would add to flooding problems created by the proposed low permeability barrier. He said decisions that
the City had already' made were impacting the nearby wetland and drainage ways.
Jeff Wisner, 423 Gerold Avenue, raised concern over the low permeability dam and surmised that water would fill
stomi drains and possibly cause flooding. He raised concern that the barrier would .bring up the flood elevation
from one to three feet.
Mr. Wisner said natural resources and wetlands were of great. concern to the neighborhood organization and raised
concern that the proposed expansion would negatively impact those wetlands.
MINUTES-Lane County Planning Commission .
Eugene Planning Commission
January'I7,2006
16
Kersten Sweet, 414 Gerold Avenue, raised concern that Delta had not done enough research to. show the
effectivness of the low permeability barrier. She reiterated her opinion that there was not enough information
provided by the applicant. She submitted photos of a storm drain heading towards the Santa Clara Waterway. She
said she had never seen water in the drain at such high levels.
Nina Lovenger, 40093 Little Fall Creek Road, Fall Creek, offered testimony on behalf of Land Watch Lane.
County. She said the group was concerned over the loss of farmland in Lane County as well as the adverse impacts
to agricultural areas caused by dust generated from the proposed quarry expansion. She said ongoing agricultural
use of the expan~ion area was more appropriate for the nearby residential areas than a quarrying operation which
would compromise the health of those living nearby.
Greg See, 2746 Tato.Street, submitted pictures of flooding on Summer Avenue and Gerold Avenue. He said there
were no plugged drains that he could see. He said the photos were within the 'impact area' of the proposed
expansion-.
Kate Pearle, 4740 Wendover Street, said she fanned on East Beacon Drive approximately one mile from the
proposed expansion site. She expressed her concern over the loss of farm land in the Eugene area. She surmised
that the soils in the proposed expansion area were prime farmland soils that could help feed local residents for the
'rest of time.' She said the proposed expansion site was prime farmland soil and should be used for food
production. She said Delta's report stating that the land was not suitable for farming was patently false. She said if
a fanner was willing to 'work with the soil' to produce the most abundant crops the outcome would be astonishing.
She said the proposed expansion site lacked nothing in terms of productivity and remarked that the current owners
did not have enough imagination to make it productive.
Kevin Jones, 4740 Wendover Street, submitted written material into the record. He said if the expansion lowered
.water tables then his farm would be impacted. He said his farm required irrigation in the dry season. He-said he
was outside the stated impact zone but did not agree with the stated impacts of the proposed mining activity.
Jean Odell Pearle Jones, 4740 Wendover Street, said his parents drew water from an agricultural well. He said he
liked farming with his parents and said the proposed expansion could easily make the well on his parent's property
go dry. He added that the proposed expansion would cause kids to get asthma and said he did not want people in
the area to get sick.
Kevin Matthews, 1192 Lawrence Street, spoke as a representative of Friends of Eugene. He said the hearing
represented a generational clash. He said a generation ago the application would have been approved because
people were ignorant of the accumulating impacts. He said it was not clear from the application whether it would
be feasible to legally and responsibly develop the mine. He acknowledged that it could be possible but stressed that
it was clear that the case for expansion had not been made and that i~ was environmentally irresponsible to expand
the mine.
Robert Emmons, 40093 Little Fall Creek Road, Fall Creek, said the applicant had asked to be relieved of the need
to do a traffic study but" noted that Goal 5 called for analysis of potential conflicts to roads within one mile of the
Inining site. He said the City and the County could not waive the requirement for a traffic impact analysis.
Mr. Carmichael called for applicant rebuttal.
MINUTES-L-ane County Planning Commission
, Eugene Planning Commission
January 17, 2006-
17
Mr. Cornacchia said he had heard new information that evening and what concerned him the most was the
testimony challenging methodology used by the consultants for the applicant He suggested a 30 day extension of
the record to be used for response to new material submitted that evening and not for the submittal to new evidence.
Mr. Stotter said there was a written request to allow a response any new information and noted that State Law
specifically provided the right.to provide responsive evidence to any new information submitted by the applicant.
He said it would be a procedural violation to not allow rebuttal to new information submitted by the applicant.
Mr. DuPriest said if the applicant put in new information then the opposition had the right to rebut that information.
He asked for time to review any new information by the applicant and provide a response.
Lane County Planning Director Kent Howe offered a suggested timeline. He suggested leaving the. written record
open for 30 days for anyone to submit new evidence, allow response to that information by anyone who wanted to
respond for an additional 14 days and then allow the applicant to provide final rebuttal for an additional 14 days.
Mr. DuPriest suggested 30 day periods for each side on new evidence to be submitted.
Mr. Stotter said it would make more sense to allow the opposition to respond with new evidence to rebut any
evidence submitted by the applicant's representatives.
Mr. Cornacchia said there had to be an end to new evidence being submitted. He suggested 30 days for the
applicant, 30 days for opposing rebuttal,.and 14 days for final applicant rebuttal.
Mr. Howe suggested a new timeline. He said the record could be left open for written testimony provided by
anyone for 30 days. Resaid an additional 29 days, (until Friday, March 17), would be allowed to respond to any
new evidence but with no new evidence to be submitted. He said 14 days could then be allowed for final applicant
rebuttal.
Mr. Stotter said it would be a violation of state law to not allow new evidence to be submitted in response to new
evidence submitted by the applicant.
Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Duncan, moved that the applicant be allowed 30 days to submit new
information in response, and the opponents 29 days to respond to that new information, to be
followed by applicant rebuttal period of 14 days. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Dignam, seconded by Mr. Zdzienicki, moved to pass the same time periods as were approved
by the Eugene Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Colbath closed the public hearing on behalf of the Eugene Planning Commission.
Mr. Carmichael closed the public hearing 'on behalf of the Lane County Planning Commission.
Mr. Howe said there would be separate deliberations for the commissions in April.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 pm.
(Recorded by Joe Sams)
MINUTES~Lane County Planning Commission
Eugene Planning Commission
January 17~' 2006
18
MINUTES
Lane County Planning Commission
Eugene Planning Commission
Harris Hall- Lane County.Courthouse
July 25, 2006
5:30 p.m.
Lane County Planning Commission: James Carmichael, Chair; Ed Becker, Vice Chair; Lisa Arkin,
Stephen Dignam, Todd Johnston, (recused from the proceeding),
Nancy Nichols, Jozef Zdzienicki, Commissioners; Juanita Kirkham
and John Sullivan; Absent
Thorn Lanfear, Stephanie Schulz Matt Laird, Staff
Eugene Planning Commission:
Marlene Colbath, Chair; John Belcher, Rick Duncan, Phillip Carroll,
John Lawless, Commissioners; Randy Hledik (recused from the
proceeding), Phillip H~dspeth, Absent
Kurt Yeiter, Staff
I. WORKSESSION
Deliberations: P A05-6151/ In the matter of amending the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan Area
General Plan to redesignate 72.31 acres from Agriculture to Sand and Gravel, amended the Goal 5
Significant Aggregate Site Inventory to include the 72.31 acres, rezone the subject property from
Exclusive Farm Use zone to Sand, Gravel and Rock Products zone. The proposal includes a
request for two administrative variances to decrease the setback provisions ofLC 16.217(4)(b)(v)
pursuant to LC 16.217(4)(b)(v)(aa)in order to construct a low permeability barrier within the
setback area pursuant to LC 16.217(4)(b)(v)(dd).
Lane County Planning Commission Chair James Carmichael called the meeting of the Lane County
Planning Commission to order.
Eugene Planning Commission Chair Marlene Colbath convened the meeting for Eugene Planning
Commission.
Mr. Carmichael called for public comment on items not related to items on the agenda that evening.
There were no members of the public wishing to speak.
Mr. Carmichael called for a staff update.
Lane County Planning staff Stephanie Schulz provided an outline for the work sessi~n deliberation. She
outlined the steps for discussion
. ..
1. Determine if the PAPA information is adequate
2. Determine if the resource site is significant
3. Determine if conflicts from mining can be minimized
4. Weigh ESEE consequences.and determine whether to allow mining
5. Determine ESEE Consequences of potential ~ew conflicting uses within the impact area
6. Determine if the application. meets the Lane Code rezoning requirements ofLC 16.252 and if
the variance to the mining setback should be granted under LC 16.217(7); Note: The
rezoning and setback variance determination recommendation is a single jurisdiction
decision for the Lane County Planning Commission.
7. Developing a program to allow mining. (Step Six of the Goal Five Rule)
Ms. Schulz said staff would like recommendations for each step even if it was a recommendation to deny.
She said recommendations needed to be based on the information in the record so elected officials could
know the entire scope of the process used by the planning commissions in order to proceed.
Mr. Carmichael recommended taking each step one at a time with individual votes.
Lane County Planning Commissioner Jozef Zdzienicki questioned which steps would be combined
decisions for the two commissions.
Ms. Schulz said there would be joint deliberations until step six. She said the item for the variance request
was for Lane County only.
Step 1. Adequacv of the Information
City of Eugene Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter stated for the record that Eugene Planning Staff concurred
with the County staff report.
Ms. Schulz said the applicant needed to provide information regarding quantity, quality and location
sufficient to determine whether the standards and conditions were satisfied. She said County staff felt that
conditions had been satisfied. She said the conceptual site reclamation plan was listed as Exhibit 49 in the
record. She said the full reclamation plan had been provided during the written record process.
Regarding the Traffic Impact Analysis, Ms. Schulz said Lane County Planning had waived the traffic.
impact analysis. She said staff had reviewed the information provided by the applicant and had
determined that the increase in traffic was not sufficient to require further analysis. She noted that road
improvements were scheduled for the next 20 years in that area.
Regarding minimizing conflicts with existing uses, Ms. Schulz noted that information was included with
the staff report as Attachment Two. She added that a site plan was also required to determine if the
application had the basic information provided. She said the applicant had provided enough information to
meet the application threshold basis for the application.
In response to a question from Ms. Colbath reg~ding hours of operation and whether 8 am. to 10 pm. was
a standard time frame for hours of operation for businesses in the County, Ms. Schulz said the times were
in response to noise limitations established by the State. She said noise requirements changed at 10 pm.
Mr. Yeiter added that the hours proposed were also consistent with the City's noise ordinance.
MINUTES-Lane County Planning Commission . '
. . July'25~2006,' "
Page 2
Mr. Zdzienicki commented that he did not believe the applicant had adequately addressed conflicts in Step
3 and therefore he could not approve step one.
Regarding adequacy of the record, Commission member Lisa Arkin commented that the applicant's record
was inadequate in terms of information on noise, air pollution and impacts to ground water.
Mr. Belcher commented that the planning commissions were the frrst body to review the record. He noted
that commission staff felt that the information was sufficient to meet the requirements of the application.
He said if the commissions felt that the information was insufficient then it could vote to deny and the
record would be opened again and both parties would have a chance to respond before the elected officials.
He said he would vote that the information in the record was sufficient.
Commission member Steve Dignam said there was no reason to disagree with the staff recommendation.
He maintained that there was sufficient information in the record that m~t the requirements of the process.
Mr. Carmichael called for a vote from the commissions on step -I.
Commission member Steve Dignam, seconded by, Commission member-
Ed Becker, moved to approve the provided information in Step One. The motion
passed 5: 1 with Ms. Arkin voting in opposition.
Eugene Planning Commissioner John Lawless, seconded by Eugene Planning
Commissioner Rick Duncan, moved to recommend that the Eugene Planning Commission
approve the staff recommendation that Step One information was adequate. The motion
passed unanimously.
Step 2. Si2nificance of the Resource.
Ms. Schulz said this item came under the heading of Oregon Administrative Rule, (OAR), 660-023-180(3).
She noted that. there had been a lot of input on the topic from the applicant and the opposition. She said
determination was based on quantity and quality. She said the testimony from Shane Hughes had
adequately explained at the public hearing how gravel was deposited in a river. She added that there was
some question raised as to whether samples could be mixed or not. She said sta(fhad reviewed the State
Highway Safety Standards Appendix D75 Section X2.3.2, entered into .the record by both the applicant and
the opponents, which discussed sampling of bank run sand and gravel deposits which stated that samples
should be thoroughly mixed and quartered if necessary. She said staffhad determined that mixing of
samples waS appropriate. She added that the site in question was not on the inventory of significant
aggregate sites in the Metro Plan. She said that in higher quality soils the thickness of the aggregate layer
must exceed 60 feet in Lane County. She said the applicant had shown that the thickness was 70.5 feet and
therefore had met the quan~ity threshold requirement and they have also shown that the quality was at a
high enough level of significance to meet that part of the standard for step two, therefore, the significance
threshold is met.
Mr. Zdzienicki said he was conflicted on the two different versions on how the samples should be taken.
,He said he was not convinced by the applicant's argument.
MINUT.ES';'-Lane-County Planning Commission'
July. 25,.2006- '
Page 3
Ms. Colbath questioned whether any state offices had been contacted to get information regarding mixing
of samples.
Ms. Schulz said she had not communicated with anyone in a state office. She said she was basing her
conclusion on the pages in the official hand book that had been submitted into the record. (Exhibit 33a)
Ms. Colbath expressed her concern that there was no independent opinion on mixing samples from a State
office.
In response to a question' from Mr. Belcher regarding a previous application with Eugene Sand and Gravel
and whether there was anyinformation on sample analysis in that case that could shed light on the matter,
Associate Planner Thorn Lanfear said there were similar issues raised in that applicatIon. He said the .
commissions were faced with the dilemma of competing reports from qualified experts and would have to
weigh the evidence in the record and make a decision. He added that information from that previous
application was not part of the record for the current matter.
'Mr. Zdzienicki said it would have been prudent to involve the state to clarify the matter.
Ms. Schulz replied that referrals had been sent out to state agencies but there had been no replies.
Ms. Arkin said the report from EGR and Associates stated that 75 percent of the expansion site was class 2
soils. She stressed the importance of the measurements because there was a trade off between prime
farmland and aggregate resource. She stressed the importance of establishing the accuracy of the sampling
that had been done. She said she seriously considered the testimony of Dr. Mark Reed who had said the
material was mixed when it should not have been and had stated that there-was only 25 feet of aggregate
on the site in question. She noted that the documents quoted by Ms. Schulz said,that samples should be
mixed from each stratum of deposits. She said she felt that the applicant had not convinced her that
appropriate sampling had been done. She added that there were questions about bore hole three and the
accuracy of the data provided. She commented that the applicant could have 'cherry picked' spots for bore
holes and remarked that the proof provided was not strong.
Eugene Planning Commissioner Rick Duncan said he understood the sampling process was a way to make
an estimate of the total amount of resource that was available. He sa~d to be judged significant, it needed
to be equal to or greater than 2 million cubic tons. He stressed that the applicant's sample showed 8
million cubic tollS. He questioned whether a poorly taken sample could make up for a 6 million cubic ton
difference.
Mr. Dignam acknowledged that there were conflicting expert testimonies in the record. He said it was not
a leap of faith that there was a significant aggregate resource in that area since gravel companies had been
mining gravel there for decades. He said it was not a hard assumption to determine that there was
significant resource on the site and said he intended to vote for step two.
Mr. Duncan said he would suppo~ step two ':is well since it was hard to belieye that a sample could be
wrong by 6 ffiillion cubic tons.
Mr. Belcher said he had no questions about quantity but questioned whether the quality was sufficient.
MINUTES~Lane County Planning Commission . '
,.Jtily'2S,.2006.
Page 4.
Ms. Colbath agreed and said sampling done from different strata would have answered those questions.
She said she believed there was adequate supply but said the problem was that quality was difficult to
determine.
Commission member Nancy Nichols said if visual inspection indicated that there was considerable
variation then individual samples should be taken from each well defined stratum. She said the quantity
was there but questioned whether the quality was adequate. '.
Mr. Zdzienicki said river deposits varied from year to year. He said testing of the stratification was very
important .since there could be long periods without gravel being deposited. He said the quality issue had
not been addressed adequately enough for him to vote in favor.
Mr. Carmichael said the task of the commission was to evaluate the testimony and consider which was the
most credible. He said Step Two was to determine whether there was significant resource. He said there
was clearly a substantial resource present on the site and added that'another piece of evidence was that the
applicant had grown up on the property and was willing to make a substantial investment to mine the
resource. He said the applicant would not be present if the resource available would not allow the
company to operate in the future. He said he would vote in favor of Step Two. .
Mr. Dignam agreed and added that Ms. Schulz had solicited state comment on the matter but the State
chose not to respond. He said the ,lack of response did not signify agreement with one party or another.
He stressed that the commissions needed to make a decision based on the evidence in the record.
Mr. Lawless said he hated to be in a situation to make a decision which he felt he was unqualified to make.
He said,hehad.no concerns about the quantity of aggregate present on the site. He said the applicant had
stated that both of the lower samples had met the standard without the prime rock being sampled. He sai4
there was no reason to not support both the quantity and quality standards provided by the applicant.
Ms. Arkin acknowledged that quantity of resource was present on the site because of the large acreage but
noted that farmland was also a significant resource. She said quality of rock also had to be present. She
said testimony by Dr. Reed had stated that processing samples could aliow the applicant to discard what
was not acceptable and get a high quality sample. She surmised. that pre test processing violated Oregon
Administrative Rules.
Mr. Belcher said there was not sufficient information for him to vote to support Step two.
Ms. Colbath said the reason for sampling was to have a methodology that supported confidence in the
result. She said she did see the information in the record to inspire her confidence in the sampling process.
She said she did not feel that the way the sampling was done followed a strict standard and added the
record did include an independent analysis from an objective party. She said she would vote against step
two.
Mr. Duncan said there were comments made thatthe sampling done was no.t an independent analysis. He
stressed that EGR and Associates were an independent organization of which Delta Sand and Gravel was
only a single client. He said the company was licensed by the State and stressed that he had a hard time
questioning the methods used for sampling since the company did that sort of work for a living.
MINUTES~Lane County Planning Commission-
July 25,.2006 .. . ..
. Page' 5
Ms. Colbath said there was.another expert that said the sampling was not done properly. She said if there
was a second opinion available which favored one side or the other she would be sure about her vote.
In response to a question from Mr. Duncan regarding whether a person testifying on the sampling had to
have a certain level of certification from the State, Ms. Schulz said she believed that to be true. She said
all of the experts in the record had provided credentials as part of their testimony.
Ms. Colbath reiterated that she would like to see a second opinion regarding the matter of sampling.
Ms. Schulz said the commission could not place a condition on approval. She said the commissions
needed to make either a yes or no vote on the facts in the record.
Mr. Lawless expressed a hope that the lJodies making final decisions would ask a state agency to judge
which of the opinions on sampling should be taken.
Mr. Dignam said it would be interesting to have a third opinion but remarked that bringing in other experts
could go on and on.. He stressed that the commissions needed to make decisions based on the information
already in the record.
Ms. Arkin said she would be voting no on step two because she felt that the record was incomplete. She
said that anyone could make errors and stressed that. she did not believe the errors were made on purpose.
She re~arked that there had been a similar case previously that had hinged on a 'few feet' which was
determined not to be present~
Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to . accept the staff recommendation that the
applicant had demonstrated the existence of significant material resource on the site. The
motion passed 3:2 with Mr. Belcher and Ms. Colbath voting in opposition~
Mr. Dignam, seconded by Mr. Carmichael, moved for approval of step two. The motion
failed 4:2 with Mr. Dignam and Mr. Carmichael voting in favor.
Steo 3. Minimize Conflicts
Ms. Schulz said the frrst part of step three was determining the impact area. She said the Oregon
Administrative Rule stated that the impact area shall be large enough to include uses listed and shall be
limited to 1,500 feet from the mining area except where factual information indicates that additional
conflicts existed beyond that distance. She said issues with dust, noise, groundwater, wetlands and
sensitive habitat, traffic, flooding, and agriculture had all been identified in the public hearing. She said
there had also been a concern raised in the record regarding the elementary school that was beyond the
1,500 foot impact area to the north. She added that there was also testimony that impacts went beyond
1,500 feet. She said she did not concur with ~hat opinion and the 1,500 foot limit was appropriate in her
view. She said the County Engineer had reviewed the testimony from the applicant and had submitted a
notice into the record stating that the requirements for triggering a traffic impact analysis had not been met.
She noted that there was an exhibit in conflict with that opinion in the record. Regardmg conflicts with
other Goal 5 resource sites within the impact area, Ms. Schulz said the case included wetlands in the area.
She noted that there was an oxbow remnant of the East Santa Clara Waterway on the Eugene Wetlands
MINUTES~Lane County .Planning Commission .
. .;.' July. 25, 2006
. Page: 6
Inventory. She said timing was important in that adoption Eugene's GoalS inventory had not been
completed. She said the oxbow wetland could not be considered because the Goal 5 Inventory protection
measures have not yet been approved by the City and the County. She said there was a pond on the site
that was in the County's Goal 5 resource inventory but noted that it was not considered a jurisdictional
wetland under Division of State Lands rules. She said there was also a section about agricultural practices
which did not have a specific agency that provided specific thresholds to meet. She noted that there was
testimony from a community farm owner in the record who had raised concern over groundwater impacts.
Regarding minimizing conflicts, Ms. Schulz called attention to Attachment Two of the staff report which
contained the mitigation conditions proposed by the applicant to address the required criteria.
-Dust
Staff Recommendation: The commissions should find that there is a conflict due to dust.that can be
minimized to a level that meets DEQ emission standards as applied by LRAP A.
Mr. Duncan said sand and gravel operations were allowed to produce a specific amount of material per
year. He remarked that if the amount of material produced per year did not increase then there should not
be more dust created than the operation was currently generating.
Ms. Schulz. said the issue was not about how much material was mined but how much particulate was put
in the air. She said there was not a strict correlation with volume of material produced.
Mr. Duncan reiterated that there would not be more mining than what was currently being done so if Delta
was meeting dust .standards currently then there was no conflict.
Ms. Schulz said the expansion area would be included in the current LRAP A permit. She said the possible
conflict had m~re to do with whether dust was being generated at once or over a longer period of time.
Mr..Duncan stressed that the operation would not change significantly from what was currently being
done.
Mr. Lawless said there was. also an issue of proximity of dust to the impact area.
Mr. Carroll noted that ttle Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAP A) permit enforced DEQ
standards. He said as long as the applicant met that standard then there was no conflict. He acknowledged
that dust conflicted quality of life but it was measured by how much was produced by the facility. He
stressed that the issue was how much dust the facility produced. He said if the standard for dust emanation
criterion was met then D.elta was meeting the standard for dust emission.
Mr. Dignam confmned that LRAP A regulated dust emissions. He said he was not prepared to second
guess LRAP A. He said he was comfortable with the dust issue as long as the LRAP A standards were met.
Ms.. Colbath. said her concern was whether the particulate emission met the approval threshold.
Ms. Arkin said the reason LRAPA enforced DEQ standards was for impacts on human health. She
stressed that dust had an impact and that was what the regulation was all about. She said there was an
.MINUTES~Lane County Planning Commission, .
...:July 25~,'2006. ~
Page 7
expert in the record who had stated that many neighborhoods would be impacted by. dust emissions from
the site. She added that there was also a physician on record talking about pulmonary diseases and other
health impacts to nearby residential areas. She noted that the applicant did not do an air dispersion model
for the west end of the site and said this was a serious oversight and an inaodequacy in the record. She said
the expansion area was in closer proximity to neighbors and would therefore produce 50 to 60 percent
more .particulate matter. She said increased exposure to particulate matter would actually decrease
longevity. She said she would like to hear from the applicant as to whether it could do better mitigation
measures on dust emissions.
Ms. Nichols cominented that the dust mitigation portion of the applicant's report mentioned less than
normal setbacks and remarked that this did not seem like mitigation of impacts. .
Mr. Zdzienickisaid the LRAP A permit had not yet been given. He raised concern over making a blanket
decision that the expansion area would be included in the same permit that was currently in use.
Mr. Becker said there had been- no quantitative analysis of dust impacts as part of the record. . He
questioned how it was assumed that the applicant would comply with dust emission standards when there
had been no analysis.
_ Mr. Carmichael stressed that there was currently mining going on and there was currently an LRAP A
permit. He said dust emissions were being examined according to LRAP A standards. He said if mining
continued at its current level in a different area then a logical person would assume that whatever was
currently going on now would be going on in the future. He said the issue was whether there would be
more or less dust e~ssions. He acknowledged that there was some concern from commissioners that dust
could be a conflict but expressed his opinion that dust emissions would not be a -greater concern than it
currently was.
Mr. Becker said his issue was the closer proximity of mining operations to nearby residential areas. He.
noted that the opposition had claimed that there would be 50 percent more dust particulate in the air.
In response to a question from Mr. Belcher regarding whether LRAP A changed its standards according to
proximity.to residential areas, Mr. Lanfear said the LRAPA standard was a maximum contaminate level
based on proximity to the source of the emissions.
Mr. Duncan said analysis of dust emissions was an ongoing process. He stressed that analysis was going
on all the time. He said LRAP A would make the determination as to what was acceptable dust emission.
Mr. Carroll said it was difficult to arrive at an objective resolution to the issue. He said if the applicant
met the applicable standard then the commissions would have to find that standards had been met. He said
the issue was a matter of the total production of dust by the facility and whether that production met the
established standard.
In response to a question from Mr. Dignam regarding whether other communities in Oregon had an
organization similar to LRAP A, Mr. Latifear said he did not know of any other area that had an
organization similar to LRAP A
MINUTES~ane County Planning Commission -
-1u1y'25,2006.-:
Page 8.
Mr. Dignam stressed that Lane County was fortunate in that there was an expert organization that did
nothing but monitor pollution levels. He said he did not feel that he needed to second guess LRAP A when
it came to dust emission standards.
Ms.' Arkin said LRAP A did not have the staff or the funding to do fence line testing of dust emissions. She
said LRAP A was sampling the quality of the air for a large area and could not pin point problem areas.
She said if the neighbors complained about dust emissions LRAP A had no means to address the issue. She
added that there was a DEQ standard for emissions that was enforced but referred to another application
where the applicants had gone beyond the enforced standard for emissions.
Ms. Arkin noted that the record contained a letter from School District 4J stating that the expansion site
was close to a planned school site and expressed concern over health to the children due to particulate
matter generated by Delta.
Mr. Becker said the emission standard would the same as it was currently and would not change regardless
of proximity to residential areas and as long as the facility met the standard then proximity would not
matter.
Mr. Zdzienicki said LRAP A was a complaint driven agency that did no analysis unless someone made a
complaint.
Ms. Colbath sai,d LRAP A would be the body to enforce stricter standards for dust emissions. She
acknowledged that it would be hard to enforce those standards and expressed a desire to look at other
mitigation measures that might be taken. She said she would assume that all mitigations measures would
be included in the application but raised concern that staff was trusting that an LRAP A permit would be
issued and questioned whether there was any evidence that the permit would be confrrmed.
Ms. Schulz said the expansion area would be added to the existing permit. She added that LRAP A had
said that it had completed the review of the proposal and the current permit remained valid. She noted that
this was documented in the record.
Ms. Colbath questione4 whether there was sufficient evidence about emissions to the west side of the site
and questioned whether there was any detail in the record about an air dispersion model to the west of the
site.
, ,
Ms. Schulz said east winds happened so infrequently that there was no concern among staff about dust
mitigation to that side.
In response to a question from Ms. Colbath regarding how far the planned elementary school was from the
site in question, Ms. Schulz said it was beyond the identified 1,500 foot impact area.
Mr. Lawless noted that there was a conflict due to dust that could be minimized to a level that met DEQ
standards. He said the permit issued by LRAP A was a separate process. He said the issue was whether
there were some mitigation methods that could meet LRAP A and DEQ standards. He said it was a .'
separate matter whether LRAP A traveled around the boundaries of the property and took dust emission
readings.
MINUTES~Lane County Planning Commission '
, July,25, 2006
Page 9
Mr. Belcher said LRAP A standards did not take into account the proximity to residents. The only option
was some sort of setback to deal with that issue.
Mr. Zdzienjcki added that the trucks used by the applicant would be driving a longer distance and creating
a higher particulate count in the air. He said the wetness of the roads would be a factor in mitigating dust
emissions.
A straw poll was taken which showed consensus among both of the commissions that there was a conflict
with dust.
Mr. Duncan said the staff recommendation was to find that dust emissions could be minimized to DEQ
standards as applied by LRAP A.
Mr. Dignam suggested asking staffs opinion as to whether the applicant's suggested mitigation measures
were sufficient.
Mr. Lanfear said the commissions should use the conditions as proposed by the applicant, and determine
whether those conditions are adequate to minimize the conflict to a level that it is no longer significant.
No longer significant means do they meet theDEQ / LRAP A standards? '
Mr. Duncan said LRAP A set the requirements for emissions. He said LRAP A was the agency to make the
decision about emission standards. He said he would go along with a LRAP A decision about mitigation
methods.
Mr. Lanfear said dust standards had to be met at every point where conflict in the impact area occurred. '
,Mr. Carmichael called for a straw vote regarding whether the applicant's suggestion for mitigation were
adequate.
Mr. Becker said mitigation measures could not be proposed befora an analysis was done.
Mr. Carroll comment~ that a straw vote was straying from the framework of the st.affreport. He
maintained that it had not yet been decided whether dust conflicts could be mitigated. He said he would
vote no in the straw poll because the commissions were missing the substance of the process.
The Eugene Planning Commission voted 4: 1 that dust conflicts could be rmnimized.
Colbath voted no.
Ms. Colbath called for a straw vote' on whether the minimization could occur with the conditions # 15-25
as listed on Attachment 2, the conditions, in the record.
Mr. Belcher suggested. removing condition #22 which called for a reduction in minimum setbacks~ He
commented that reducing minimum setbacks in an area near re'sidenti~l housing was the last thing that.
should be done. He reiterated that LRAP A standards were identical without considering proximity to
residential areas.
MINUTES~Lan~ County Plamring Commission
July 25, 2006:'
" Page 10..
Mr. Lawless said impacts could be minimized by m~asures other than moving the line. There will be
impacts at the edge of the neighborhood whether the setback was 50 feet or 150 feet. He said distance was
only one way of minimizing impacts. He said the goal of minimization of impacts could be achieved
without limiting setbacks.
Mr Duncan acknowledged that there was a conflict with dust but stressed that an extra 50 feet of setback
would not make any difference what-so-ever.
Mr. Carmichael commented that the discussion was going beyond the information in the record. He said
the record would be clear for the elected officials that there was concern over setback issues.
Ms. Arkin said all that needed to be said is that the conflict could be solved by requesting an ESEE
analysis.
Mr. Lanfear noted that to request an ESEE analysis the commissions would have to find that there was a
conflict that was not minimized. He stressed that the commissions would have to make that finding frrst.
Mr. Carmichael stressed that there was plenty of discussion in the record and requested that a straw vote be
taken as to whether to exclude condition # 22.
Mr. Carroll said conditions were important to deliberations. He s~ressed that the commission was entitled
to address the impacts of the proposed mining expansion. He said conditions could be called out for the
elected officials to examine later in the process. He listed the conditions for which he had concern;
1. Number 15, regarding minimization measures, said watering roads might need to be
looked at more often than every two hours depending on the presence of vehicles.
2. Number 18 regarding trucks hauling dry fme material being wetted or covered when
transporting off the site, Mr. Carroll ,commented that if clay was being transported onto the
site then that would contribute to dust emissions.
3. Mr. Carroll noted that part of the LRAPA permit required that no party could knowingly
allow fugitive dust emissions. He said, given the proximity to residential areas, more
stringent mitigations measures were justified. '
Mr. Duncan seconded Mr. Carroll's comments. He reiterated Mr. Carmichael that the record and staff
notes would point out the concerns of the commissions to elected officials making a decision later in the
process.
Ms. Colbath stated that the comments of the commissioners stood by themselves and a straw ,vote was not
required. She also had concern about Condition #22, as did Mr. Belcher.
The Lane County Planning Commission straw vote i~dicated 4: 1: 1 that dust could b~
mitigated. '
MINUTES~Lane County Planning 'Commission , '.
July"25,2006
. Pa'ge 11
Ms. Schulz clarified that there was consensus among the commissions that there was a conflict due to dust
and the majority believed that the conflict could be minimized but not with the standards indicated in the
staff report.
Mr. Lanfear said the commissions had essentially decided that the conflict had not been minimized. He
said the commissions could not say 'yes' to one point and 'no' to the second. He said the question was
whether the conflict had been minimized by the applicant's proposed standards.
Mr. Lawless said he would support the idea that the applicant's mitigation measures minimized the dust
conflict.
Mr. Belcher stated if there was real concern over minimizing dpst emissions, then the minimum standard
setbacks would not be reduced by applicant request. He said he would not support the idea that the
proposed mitigation measures could minimize dust emissions.
Mr. Carroll said the record was inconclusive as to whether minimization would address the issue of dust.
The straw poll result was that the proposed minimization measures would not address the
dust conflict issue. The result was 3:2 with Commissioners Belcher, Carroll, and Colbath
voting that the conflict could not be minimized with the conditions proposed by the
applicant.
Regarding the issue of whether the applicant had provided the pr9per mitigation measures
to minimize dust impacts, The Lane County Planning Commission took a straw .poll with
the result 2:3: 1. Commissioners Dignam and Carmichael.voting that the proposed
measures were adequate, Commissioners Arkin, Zdzienicki and Nichols voting that the
proposed measures were not adequate and Commissioner Becker abstaining. .
Mr. Carmichael noted that the Lane County Planning Commission was approaching its time limit
established in its by-laws. He called for staff comment as to when deliberations could be reconvened.
Ms. Schulz said the commissions should .meet for further deliberations as soon as possible. She said
nothing would be served by delaying the process.
There was general discussion on whether to continue deliberations separately or jointly. Ms. Colbath said
it was imperative to continue Jointly so commissioners could be aware of each other's deliberations and
opinions.
Mr. Zdzienicki agreed with Ms. Colbath.
Mr. Dignam recommended that the commissions meet separately. He raised concern that the process was
not going smoothly and said there was nothing to be lost by meeting separately and work their way
through the listed issues. He'sugg~st.ed that the Lane County PI~g Commission schedule furth~r
deiiberations for the following week.
Mr. Becker disagreed. He said he was learning a lot from Eugene Planning Commission and the sum total
of the people at the table was very beneficial. He expressed his desire to continue to meet jointly.
MftfUTES~Lane County Planning Commission
July 25, 2006. ..' .
.Page 12
Mr. Duncan said there are a number of items that could be deliberated independently with the possibility of
meeting jointly at a later time to discuss larger issues. He said it would be easier to meet separately in
terms of scheduling.
Mr. Belcher disagreed. He reiterated Mr. Becker that the commissions were learning from one another.
He said deliberations would not go quickly because of the .nature of the proposal.
Mr. Dignam,. seconded by Ms. Arkin, moved that the Lane County Planning Commission continue
past its three hour deadline. The motion resulted in a tie vote. There was general consensus to
continue the meeting until! 0 pm.
. Noise
Staff Recommendation: The commissions should find that there is a conflict due to noise and the
proposed mitigation measures are sufficient to minimize the noise impacts to a level that meets the
State DEQ standard.
Ms. Schulz noted that there had been a lot of testimony regarding noise during the publIC hearings. She
said there had been a new development after the first public hearing in that the applicant reexamined the
noise zone map and had determined that H. . . without mitigation, DEQ noise standards would be exceeded
at the residences on the site owned by the applicant and approved uses within the noise limit boundary
would also be affected. "
Mr. Yeiter said the defmitions in the administrative rules for minimization said that mimmization meant to
r~uce an identified conflict to a level that was no longer significant. He said when there was an adopted
standard,. as was the case with noise, the commission should target that standard when considering
mitigation measures.
In response to a question from Ms. Nichols regarding whether the City's noise limitation standards
matched those of the State, Ms. Schulz said noise standards were established at the state level. Mr. Yeiter
said the noise would not be coming from the city limits. He confrrmed that City duration of noise
standards were the same as those being proposed by the applicant.
Mr. Duncan said he would support the staff recommendation since the state standards were already
established.
In response to a question from Mr. Belcher regarding how noise standards were enforced, Mr. Lanfear said
there was no longer any state agency that enforced noise standards.
Mr. Zdzienicki said noise enforcement was a complaint driven process and stressed that proximity to
residential areas was a conflicting issue.
Ms. Colbath said she agreed with staff that there was.a conflict due to nojse.
In response to a question from Mr. Duncan regarding complaints about noise and whether DEQ standards
would be used to measure noise, Mr. Lanfear suggested a condition of approval that the operation
. MINUTES~Lane County Planning Commission
..July 25, 2006
.Page 13
maintain the correct noise standards laid out by the Department of Environmental Quality. He said Lane
County would then have the authority to enforce noise regulations.
In response to a question from Ms. Nichols regarding whether the commission had the authority to change
the hours that noise was allowed, Mr. Yeiter said he did not know what the state standard was for lateness
of noise but the applicant had agreed to use the City of Eugene noise standards.
Mr. Lanfear added that there was a certain level of noise allowed untill 0 pm. and the applicant was not
trying to operate until the established time limit.
Ms. Arkin said the suggested noise standards were hard to enforce. She said lO pm. was late for families
.in the area to hear operations going on. She said she was saddened that the applicant could not take
families and working class people i1}to account. She said for the record that 10 pm. was a burden on
neighbors and she felt sad for the people who would have to listen to it.
In response to a question from Mr. Carroll regarding whether excavation of the low permeability water
barrier was a construction activity and therefore exempt from DEQ noise standards, Ms. Schulz said she
did not agree with that, conclusion.
Mr. Carroll said the issue had been raised by the opposition that excavation for the low permeability
barrier should be included under DEQ noise standards. He said the applicant had stated that the excavation
was a' construction activity and therefore had a different noise standard.
In response to a question from Ms. Colbath regarding ,whether a construction permit would be issued, Ms.
Schulz said it would be part of Delta's operating plan and not a separate permit.
In response to a question from Mr. Carroll regarding whether the applicant analyzed potential noise from
the construction of the low permeability barrier, Ms. Schulz said the applicant had not.
In response to a question from Ms. Colbath regarding whether the construction of the barrier would be
included in the time limits established in noise ordinances, Ms. Schulz said yes if the activity was included
in the plan to allow mining.
Mr. Belcher said the equipment for constructing the low permeability barrier would not be below ground
level like the mining equipment. He added thatthe construction would also be closer to residential areas.
Mr. Lawless said he agreed that there was a noise conflict issue. He said he was in favor of considering
allowed' hours of operatipn. He said if the mitigation measures proposed met DEQ standards then he saw
no reason not to support the idea that the conflict could be minimized.
Ms. Arkin said the applicant failed to address the DEQ regulations for noise because they left out analysis
of Impulse noise, blasting noise, and tonal noise. She stressed that the applicant had not really addressed
~ompliance with DEQ standards..
Mr. Becker said noise was a major issue for residents. He said the 10 pm. allowance seenied extreme to
him and added that 7 am. operations on a Saturday also felt unreasonable to him. He suggested that the
allowable hours of operation should be re-examined.
MINUTES~Lane County Planning Commission,
. . July 25, 2006
.. Page 14
Mr. Carmichael said it appeared that staff and commissioner comments indicated that there was a noise
issue. He stated for the record his hope that the elected bodies would take a close look at the noise issue.
Mr. Belcher c.ommented that holding t.o the 150 f.o.ot setback would have a p.ositive impact .on n.oise
mitigati.on.
Mr. Dignam said he believed there was a conflict due t.o noise but the mitigati.ons suggested by the
applicant were adequate. He said he would supp.ort the mitigati.on measures as pr.oP.osed. He stressed the
imp.ortance .of I.o.oking at the big picture .of all the mitigati.on measures being proposed.
The Eugene Planning C.ommission t.o.ok a straw vote and established general agreement
that there was a c.onflict due t.o n.oise.
Ms. CQlbath called f.or a straw v.ote that the pr.oPosed mitigati.on measures were sufficient
Mr. Lawless reiterated that mitigati.on measures WQuld comply with DEQ standards.
Mr. Belcher questi.oned whether the DEQ standards were sufficient fQr the neighb.ors. He added that
c.onstructi.on.of the '.ow permeability barrier W.ould have its .own impacts and raised c.oncern that there was
n.ot sufficient mitigati.on.
Mr. Lanfear said the C.onflict was minimized if the n.oise met DEQ standards.
The result of the straw VQte was 3:2 with C.ommissionersC.olbath and Carr.oII V.oting in
.oPP.ositi.on.
The Lane CQunty Planning C.ommissi.on t.ook a straw vote and unanim.ously decided that
there was a conflict due tQ nQise
The Lane County Plannirig C.ommissiQn ta.ok a straw v.ote an whether the C.onflict CQuld be
minimized by the proP.osed mitigati.on measures. The resultmg vote was C.ommissi.oners
Carmichael, Dignam, and Nich.ols v.oting yes, Commissioners Arkin and Zdzienicki v.oting
n.o and Commissioner Becker abstaining.
. . Flooding
Staff Recommendation: The Planning Commission should find that there was no conflict due to
flooding.
There was consensus t.o review the record and address the fl.ooding C.onflicts at a future meeting.
. Groundwater
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission find that there was a conflict due to groundwater
that could be minimized by constructing the low permeability barrier~ The applicant should be
MINUTES~Lane C.ounty .Plamiing C.ommissi.on. . , . .
~July.25, 2006 ..'
. Page 15
direct~d to address the location of the low permeability barrier and map its specific location in the
Operations Plan
Ms. Schulz said there had been a lot of groundwater testimony submitted into the record. She expressed
her belief that the conflict could be minimized by the construction of the low permeability barrier.
In response to a question from Ms. Colbath regarding whether there had been other instances of similar
barriers being used, Ms. Schulz said there had not. She said the applicant had made his casein the record
regarding how the barrier would function. .
Mr. Dignam clarified that a low p.ermeability barrier had not been seen in Lane County. He said it was his
recollection that the technique had been used successfully elsewhere. He stressed that this was a relevant
fact and asked staff if there are other places this teclmology is used.
There was general consensus to table the item until a future meeting so staff could review the record for
specific examples of the technology being used in other areas of the country and address the issues raised
by the commission.
. Traffic
Ms. Schulz said staff had accepted and waived the applicant's requirement to' conduct a traffic impact
analysis because the level of change of traffic on the roads would not rise to a level of significance.
In response to a question from Mr. Belcher regarding concerns raised by the City Traffic Engineer, Mr.
Yeiter said gravel permits had a ,life expectancy and truck traffic was worked in to that expectancy. He
. said the streets used were 'scheduled for improvements. He acknowledged that in the future the area would
be more developed and there could be an issue in 20-30 years.
Ms. Colbath. commented that the City was not sure what the long term plan was going to be for the
roads/intersections and there was some movement to the idea of incremental impact and development
paying its share for road improvements in the area.
Mr. Yeiter said the concern was that there would be more difficulty in the future when traffic levels
. increased due to future development if Delta was still operating at that time.
Ms. Schulz said the level of change in traffic did not rise to the threshold where the applicant was required
to do further analysis. She noted that road improvements would be done in the future to increase traffic
capacity in' the area.
Mr. Zdzienicki said the projected growth in traffic was 1 percent. He said the current operating permit
allowed 2 million tons per year and Delta was currently close to that limit so there would not be significant
truck traffic added.
Mr. Belcher commented that it would be unfair to penalize Deita for any future growth and development in
the area. He remarked that the City concern was not valid.
Mr. Duncan said he supported the staff conclusion.
MINUTES-Lane County Planning Commission. .
July. 25,.2006' .
. Page 16.
Mr. Dignam said he accepted the staff conclusion. He stressed that there was no conflict with
transportation in the application.
Ms. Colbath noted that the record showed that the applicant had stated that trips would not increase so
there was no conflict.
Eugene Planning Commission took a straw vote with the result of unanimous
consensus that there was no conflict due to traffic impacts.
Lane County Planning Commission took a straw vote with unanimous consensus
that there was no conflict due to traffic impacts.
Next Steps
Ms. Schulz suggested meeting every Tuesday until the deliberations were completed.
There was general consensus to tentatively schedule further deliberations for August 8 and August 15.
The meeting adjourned at 10 pm.
(Recorded by JoeSams)
MINUTES-:..Lane County Planning Commission
,.July:25;:'2006
Page' 17
J oint Meeting
Lane County and Eugene Planning Commissions
Harris Hall-125 East 8th Avenue
August 30, 2006
5:30 p.m.
PRESENT:
Lane County Planning Commission: Jim Carmichael, Chair; Ed Becker, Vice-Chair; Juanita
Kirkham, Lisa Arkin, JozefSiekiel-Zdzienicki; John Sullivan; Staff: Stephanie Schulz, Kent
Howe, Planning Department.
ABSENT:
Lane County Planning Commission: Steve Dignam, Nancy Nichols, Todd Johnson.
PRESENT:
Eugene Planning Commission: Mitzi Colbath, President; Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon
Belcher, Phillip Carroll, John Lawless members; Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development
Department.
ABSENT:
City of Eugene Planning Commission: Randy IDedik, Phillip Hudspeth.
Mr. Carmichael convened the meeting of the Lane County Planning Commission at 5:30 p.m.
Ms. Colbath convened the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission at 5 :30 p.m.
Those present introduced themselves.
Mr. Carmichael noted there were no members of the public who wished to make Public Comment.
Ms. Schulz distributed a memorandum dated August 30, 2006; subject P A05-6151 Delta Sand and Gravel
Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment. Mr. Howe offered the staff report and explained the; information
" on the handout, noting L Recommendations from July 25, 2006 described the work completed by the
commissions, II. Continued Deliberations identified issues yet to be discussed.
Mr. How~ noted the role of the Planning Commissions .was to determine if conflicts existed, and if so, had
the applicant s\Jbmitted mitigating proposals that would reduce and minimize those conflicts. Mr. Howe said
with most of the issues, with the exception of the agricultural impacts, state standards needed to be met,
adding if there was not a conflict under GoalS, state standards were met. He said it was not necessary for
the commissions to word smith conditions.
. Ms. Arkin asked how resource site significance issues should be :addressed when the Lane County and
Eugene Planning Commissions held different views.
Mr. Howe replied that each of the commissions would make recommendations to their respective elected
officials who would "make the final decision. Mr. Howe opined different recommendations were not
problematic.
Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki said he had voted yes on item I. Step 1 of the straw poll, and wished to change his
vote.
Mr. Carmichael noted no objections to Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki's request, and.asked that the record reflect his.
request. He said the July 25, 2006 poll wa~ only a straw poll.... "
In response to.aptoceduralquestionraised at the August 29, 2006 Lane County Planning Commission
meeting, Mr. Howe, upon consulting with the County Counsel, said it was not legally required for
commissioners to listen to recorded tapes of prior deliberatio~ they had missed.
Mr. Sullivan said he had listened to the tapes of the deliberations meeting in question.
In response to'Ms. Colbath, Mr. Howe said if the impact area needed to be greater than 1,500 feet; it should
be raised individually with each issue discussed. He added that GoalS established an' automatic 1,500 foot
impact area around the perimeter of the s~bj ect property in a PAPA plan amendment. Furthermore, he stated
that because the variance process was a separate one, the commissioners should assume a request for a
related variance was approved.
Mr. Howe concurred with Mr. Sullivan's assertion that that the applicant would not request a variance in the
residential zoned area, but would ask for a variance in the agricultural area.
In response to Mr..Cannichael, Mr. Howe iterated that the variance issue had been adequately addressed, in
that the assumption that the variance was approved.
In response to Ms. Arkin, Ms. Schulz said there was no map of the variance location in the record. However,
a written legal description of the subject property, Exhibit 50, shows the site.
Responding to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Howe stated that the Planning Commissions could make a recommendation
to the elected officials to address. minimizing the impact of fencing at the site.
Mr. Carmichael opened the discussion, comm~ncing with:
· Determine if mining conflicts can be minimized:
o Groundwater:
.. Is there a conflict due to groundwater?
Mr.Siekiel-Zdzienicki sought clarification of the location of the low-permeability barrier within the 150 foot
. -setback.
Mr. Howe stated that the aquaclude had been well presented in the record around the perimeter of the.
expansion area.
Ms. Schulz said theaquaclude had never been removed from the proposal, explaining that it would be
constructed to provide the mitigation for reduction of groundwater in the area. She concurred with Ms.
Arkin's statement that EGR's February 16, 2006 Exhibit 55 contained a diagram that illustrated the
. groundwater barrier.
The question, Mr. Howe stated, was there conflict due to groundwater?
Ms. Colbath called fora Eugene Planning Commis'sion straw vote that
asked: Was there a conflict due to groundwater without the aquaclude. The
result of the straw vote was 5:0 that there was a conflict due to groundwater.
The Lane County Planning Commission took a'straw vote,. 6:0 that there
was a conflict due to groundwater.
'Moving to the next issue, Mr. Carmichael asked, '.'
.
Do you helievethegroundwater conflict can he minimized through the applicant's
proposed conditions?
In response to Ms. Colbath, Ms. Schulz concurred that the maps illustrated that the aquaclude was outside of
the 150 foot boundary ofthea~jacent uses.
MS..Arkinstat,edthat the EGR report stated that the groundwater would rise on the west side of the barrier,
claiming that the level would not impact anyone. She added that both groundwater and surface water
responded, to influx of precipitation, which would cause a rise in the water table, and subsequent movement
of groundwater.
'Mr. Sullivan referred to a November 8,.2006 staff report, in which staff expressed 'concerns.He stated the
report indicated there were no local, state or federal standards effecting groundwater, and responsible state
agencies did not have the resources to conduct due 'diligence regarding groundwater concerns" although the
, Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMQ did have enforcement authority through Goal 5.
He asked how the staff concern had changed since November 8, and expressed concern that the responsibility
for monitoring would fall directly on the elected officials.
Ms. Schulz responded that additional materials had been submitted m,the record describing professional
publications and discussions that described ,the technology as being useful and capable of providing the
required protection for the groundw~ter.
Mr. Sullivan asserted that was one of the few places in the application that pl~ced the onus on the elected
officials was the governing agency of what :was and what was not good ground~ater.
Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki said a proposal stipulated that mitigation measures, i.e, the aquaclude, would be
installed according to an approved plan by DO.GAMI, the responsible state agency.
Mr. Sullivan this would'fall on the operating plan for enforcement, which was a long way off. He said the
Planning Commission could recommend to th~ elected officials that they require'a barrier map.
Ms. Colb~th asked if there was an oversight agency to review, as well as provide follow-up to ensure
continued compli~ce.
Ms. Schulz was unaware of such an agency.
Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki opined the follow-up was complaint drive~. He commented that in the expansion
area for the quarry, the applicant would dig 60 feet to extract aggregate, while pumping water constantly. He
said that the aggregate did not end at the expansion area, but continued to the residential area. He stated the
aquaclude was planned for 30 feet because of an impermeable barrier of concrete and aggregate. He
expressed concern that groundwater would be effected.
. Mr. Carroll said the applicant's proposal. indicated it would minimize groundwater conflict.. He ,understood
the impermeable barrier would not impound water, but rather would divert the water. He added the
testimony offered at the public hearing djd ~ot convincingly argue against that diversion concept. He
,concluded this was a logical w~y to minimize the groundwater effect.
Mr. Belcher expressed frustration by his lack of knowledge and being forced'tovote, on an issue he did 'not
clearly understand. He was challenged to understand 'how an aquaclude that prevented loss of groundwater in
summer did not increase the chance of flooding in the winter.. .
The Eugene Planning Commission took a straw vote on: If the conjlictdue to groundwater
: could be mininiized through the conditions proposed by the applicant to a level that met
applicable the state or federal standards, or if no government standard applied, could the
conflict be minimized. The result of the straw vote was 4: 1 with Commissioner Belcher
voting in opposition.
Mr. Belcher reconsidered his vote to be in favor of the straw poll later in the meeting. The
revised reslilt of the straw vote was unanimous, 5:0.
The Lan~ County Planning Commission took a straw vote the result of which was 2:4, with
Commissioners Becker, Kirkham, Arkin and Siekiel-Zdzienicki voting in opposition.
o Wetlands and Sensitive Habitat:
· Is there a conflict due to wetlands and sensitive habitat?
Mr. Carroll asked if the variance requested for non-residential lands included a reduced set-back on adjacent
properties on the northwest comer of the proposed site.
Ms. Schulz responded it would be outside of the 150 foot setback. She concurred.with Mr. Carroll's query
that since the setback under Goal 5 for gravel fell at least 150 feet from the meander scar wetlands, no
conflict existed.
Referring to a July 17, 2006 staff report, Ms. Arkin noted comments that indicated a no fill and remove
permit was neCessary to.minimize conflict. However, she saw the issue as having potential for a different
impact, from either flooding or dewateritig, that would create an impact on the wetlands. She said the issue
was not only. about construction or filling, but there could be impacts due to the presence or absence of water..
She encouraged commissions.to keep this in mind during their deliberations.
The Eugene Planning Commission took a straw vote .on: Is there a conjlict due to wetlands
and sensitive habitat? The result of the straw vote was 3:2 with Commissioners Duncan and
.Carroll voting in opposition.
The Lane County Planning Commission took a straw vote the result of which was 4:2, with
Commissioners Carmichael and Sullivan voting in opposition.
In response to a question from Mr. Carmichael, Mr. Howe said the intent of the question ("Is there a .
standard that applies?") was to serve as a reminder for commissioners to determine if there was a standard,
and had the applicant met that standard. He reiterated that Goal 5 was a standard that applied to all the
questions.
· Do we believe the wetl~nds conflict can be minimized through the applicant's
proposed conditions?
Ms. Arkin opined the applicant would need to file an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before the.
question could be answered, and she did not see an EIS in the file.
Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki said the Santa Clara Waterway extended beyond the 1,500 foot impact area, and an
impact in one place would impact all the way along the 1,500 foot length to the river..
The Eugene Planning Commission took a straw vote on: Do we believe the wetlands conflict
can be minimized through the applicant's proposed conditions? The result of the straw vote
was unanimous 5:0.
The Lane County Planning Commission took a straw vote the result of which was 2:4, with
Commissioners Becker, Kirkham, Arkin and Siekiel-Zdzienicki voting in opposition.
o Floodinl!:
· Is there a conflict due to flooding?
The Eugene Planning Commission took a straw vote on: Is there a conflictdue to flooding?
The result of the straw vote was 2:3, with Commissioners Duncan, Lawless, and Carroll
voting in opposition.
The Lane County Planning Commission took a straw vote the result of which was 5: 1, with
Commissioner Siekiel-Zdzienicki voting in opposition.
· Do we believe the flooding conflict can be minimized to meet the FEMA standard?
Mr.' Duncan asserted that adherence to FEMA standards would result in minimization of conflicts.
Mr. Cannichaelconcurred with Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Howe stated that FEMA had drawn the line, and the subj~t property was not in the floodway but was in
the floodplain. He added that proposal would not raise the floodplain by adding material. Rather, material
wQuld be ex~cted, and would not impact the floodplain.
Mr. Belcher stated material would be added by construction of the aquaclude, and could raise the water table.
Mr. Howe said the aquaclude would be below groundwater. From the standpoint of this development
. ~ontributing to the 100 year floodplain, the concept behind the floodway and floodplain was that all of the
floodplain could be completely built and it would not increase the elevation in the floodway by more than
one foot. He added the applicant was not proposing any development in the floodway. He said the entire
floodplain could be filled, and. it would not 'cause more than one foot of rise in the floodway. These
conditions adhered to the FEMA modeling, and would not increase the likelihood of flooding.
Mr. Belcher said the issue was the ability of the subsurface to absorb water and prevent flooding.
Mr. Becker said the question asked if there was a conflict due to flooding, and did not discuss floodplain
designations.
Mr. Duncan looked at groundwater or flood potential as something that occurred over a large geographic
area, with the aquaclude being relatively small in comparison to where the groundwater and flood water
would disperse. Any water that backed up would do so. over se'Yeral miles rather than in a small area; and
would not have much impact
Mr. Belcher again expressed his frustration over being asked to take action on an issue in which he was not
an expert. He felt. the local effect of placing a dam near housing could be significant if the water was not
able to disperse. over a much longer distance.
Ms. Arkin stated the groundwater and surface' water effects could not be separated. She felt strongly the
aquaclude could contribute to flooding in residentia1.areas~Additionally, the applicant.had stated.they had
assumed that the SatitaClara Waterway would remove the ground and surface waters.
Mr. Lawless saw the aquaclude,not as a dam, but more as a storm water retention and infiltration pond, with
the capacity to handle a rapid influx of water, as a best practice, providing a safety valve. This served as an
overflow that would go into secondary.stormwater management system. He saw the design as being practical
and reasonable.
Ms. Colbath expressed co~cem that the aquacludewould cause flooding problems. In response to Ms.
Colbath, Ms. Schulz said topographic maps were included in the record.
Mr. Howe iterated that the FEMA regulations were the applicable standard. He asked if the proposal would
meet FEMA regulations; that being in a 100 year flood it would not raise the water level to one foot above
the 100 year floodplain elevation. This was not in the floodway, and in a floodplain, the e~tire floodplain
could be filled and it would not increase the floodway in violation of the FEMA requirement.
Mr. How.e said in this situation, the standard for the proposed extraction from the pit would be if it violated
the FEMA 100 year floodplain requirements.
. Ms. Arkin said stated the issue was not only about the applicant"s site, but also adjacent areas, the impact
area, and beyond the impact ar~. She added that applicant had stated that water would not only move
horizontally but would also rise. She said that the EGR drawings did not show where the water table was
located, or where the excavated dirt would be placed. She . stated. she did not believe the applicant had shown
they could mitigate impacts to the neighborhoods to the west.
.' Ms. Schulz asked if the water would rise to one foot above the ground, which was the standard for the flood
regulations. She added that digging gravel went downward, not upward.
Mr. Becker expressed concern about how the subterranean dam would impact adjacent neighborhoods.
Mr. Howe said the standard was within the impact area; and whether the FEMA 100 year floodplain standard
could be met.
Mr. Sullivan accepted the statements by the area residents that they currently experienced flooding problems
that existed before the excavation request. He said there was nothing in the record that indicated that the
existing permit would exacerbate a nooding problem in that area. If the applicant met the. FEMA
requirement; the aquaclude could possibly di~sh flooding possibilities in the area because it could become
a reservoir for the water runoff the residents experienced. He emphasized this assertion was his opinion, and
had not been scientifically proven.
Mr. Belcher expressed concern that the aquaclude could cause the land around the aquaclude to be more
heavily saturated. He said he would vote that the flooding could be mitigated in hope that the value of
.deliberation would give both sides further opportunity to I?rovide evidence before a fmal decision was made.
Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki stated the dam would work both ways, and it was unknown how it would function,
making it difficult to .determine if the flooding conflict could be minimized.
Ms. Colbath asked 'what recourse was available to FEMA if the aquaclude did not meetFEMA's standards.
Mr. Howe reiterated the Planning Commissions criteria: was there a standard and does the applicant meet
that standard?
The Lane County Planning C-ommission took, a straw vote on: Do' we ,believe ' the flooding
conflict can be minimized to meet the FEMA standard? The result of the straw vote was 2:4,
with Commissioners Becker, Kirkham, Arkin and Siekiel-Zdzienicki voting in opposition.
The. Eugene Planning Commission took a straw vote the result of which was 3:2, with
Commissioners Belcher and Colbath voting in opposition.
o Allriculturallmoacts
.
Is there a conflict due to agricultural impacts?
The Eugene Planning Commission took a straw vote on: Is there a conflict due to
agricultural impacts? The result of which was 3:2, with Commissioners Duncan and
Lawless voting,in opposition.
The Lane County Planning Commission took a straw vote the result of which was 4:2, with
Commissioners Carmichael and Sullivan voting in opposition.
.
Is there factual information in the record that indicates conflict with agricultural
practices extends beyond 1,500 feet from the boundary of the expansion area?
Mr. Sullivan expressed concern on how' to appropri~tely apply the requirements. He noted the Full Circle
Farm owner had testified he would be impacted by the proposed action, and asked how far beyond 1,500 feet
, should the commissions us~ as a guideline.
Mr. Howe said the only guidance available was that included in the rule, which stated the impact area was
inside 1,500 feet. He added if there was convincing 'evidence in the record that the conflicts extended
beyond 1,500 feet, the Planning Commission could then make a recomrilendation that the impact area should
go beyond 1,500 'feet.
Mr. Sullivan stated his vote would include that the applicant would have to be directed to address the issues,
opining there must be other property owners within a mile of the proposed action that would also be
impacted. Mr. Sullivan understood the Full Circle Farm concern was related to subsurface water. He had
asked staff why a well was being use for residential purposes when public water was available, and been
advised that the action was permitted but not recommended.
Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki ~tated that the Eugene Tree Nursery had a well failure that had been attributed to both
aggregate excavation and, the well had simply filled up.
Ms. Arkin stated testimony in the record from Oregon State University Extension Service staff cited
concerns for dust raised by the mining operation that would settle on crops raising the cost of fanning
practices for dust removal, as well as some products from which the dust could not effectively be removed.
. Mr. Howe-clarified the statement under discussion: Is there convincine.factual information in the record
that indicates conflict with agricultural practices extends beyond 1,500 feet from the boundary of the
expansion area? He asked if the commissioners were convinced by the inforination that was in the record
that indicated conflict with agricultural practices extends beyond. 1,500 feet. He added this was a
discretionary issue for the commissioners.
The Eugene Planning Commission took a straw vote on: Is there convincingfactual
information in the record that indicates conflict with agricultural practices extends beyond
1,500feetfrom the boundary of the expansion area?The result w'as unanimous, O:5~
The Lane County Pla~ing Commission took a straw vote the result of which was 2:4, with
Commissioner~ Becker, Kirkham, Carmichael, and Sullivan voting in opposition.
.
Can -the conflict due to agricultural practices be minimized through the
applicant's proposed conditions to a level that will not force a significant change
inac.ceptedfarmus nor increase the cost to conductfarming significantly? The
. agricultural practices sta'ndard is found under the provisions. of ORS 215.296~
Ms. Colbath commented the person testified against the proposal and who lived within the 1,500 foot
expansion area was leasing the property. She asserted a lessee, as a third party, did not have the same level of
independence or ,authority to comment on the request.
Mr. Belcher said there would be no way to mitigate the conflict on a farm that would not exist if the request
was approved.
Mr. Sullivan stated the owner had a right to farm or not to farm the property. If he chooses not to farm the
property and chose to use Goal 5, Goal 5 took precedence over farm land if the owner could meet the
requirements. He added whether it was a farm or not a farm was moot if the owner met the PAPA
requirements since Goal 5 clearly superceded a farm.
Mr. Sullivan stated that the person who testified from OSU Extension Services was a good friend. He said it
was important to look at the broader picture" asserting that fann land was extremely important and veiy
valuable. He said the issue was not farm land versus Goal 5, but rat.her does the PAPA meet the
requirements necessary for that owner to be allowed to use that property the way s/he chooses to.
The Eugene Planning Commission took a straw vote on: Can the conflict due to agricultural
practices be minimized through the applicant's proposed conditions to a level that will not
force a significant change in accepted farm use nor increase the cost to conduct farming
significantly? The agricultural practices standard isfound under the provisionsofORS
215.2'96. The result was unanimous, 0:5.
The Lane County Planning Commission took a straw vote the result of which was 2:4, with
Commissioners Becker, Kirkham, Carmichael, and Sullivan voting in opposition.
The Planning Commissions took at recess from 7: 19 p.m. to 7:31 p.m.
Mr. Carmichael reconvened the commissions. He stated the goal was to conclude the Step 3 discussion and
proceed to Step 4.
Mr. Howe stated the commissioners had successfully completed Step 3, and each kp.ew where their
respective commissions stood on making recommendations to the elected ,officials on the various areas of
potential conflict. Referring to.the GoalS process flow chart previously distributed, Step 3 called for
determining if the mining conflict. could be minimized.
Mr. Howe recalled on the issue of dust, both,Planning Commissions were recommending to the elected
officials that the dust conflict was not minimized to the level that would meet DEQ and LRAP A standards
through the conditions proposed by the applicant.
Mr. Howe said this was the time for each Planning Commission to make-final recommendations to the -
elected officials,. He explained that if the commissions feh an impact had not been minimized, the applicant '
would need to go to Step'4~ It would be appropriate at thistime if the Planning'Commissions chose to
recommend.whether or not this application met the requirements for a Metro Plan amendment.
In response to Ms. Colbath, Mr. Howe said if the elected' officials felt the conflict had been minimized there
was no need to go through the ESEE analysis. Otherwise, the applicant has the burden of going through the
ESEE analysis.
Mr. Sullivan said he felt compelled to explain to the Board of Commissioners why he was in'the minority on
every vote. It might be appropriate for each commissioner be given an opportunity to explain clearly why
there were in majority support or majority opposition.
Ms. Colbath said under their process, if there are any commissioners who were in the minority, a minority
report could be forwarded to the Eugene City Council along with it's the Planning Commission's'
recommendations.
Mr. Carmichael noted consensus to follow Mr. Sullivan's suggestion.
Mr.- Siekiel-Zdzienicki said the City of Eugene made a major mistake by not annexing but by allowing
residential land along the future extraction ar.ea, rather than creating a heavy indq,strial to a light indu$trial to
a commercial to a multi family to a buffer zone these problems would not exist if a buffer zone had been
created. He said dust and water issues had not be~n adequately addressed, and he would deny the application
because he did not think the issues could be' mitigated.
Mr. Becker said it was difficult to support action that would move a mining operation within 150 feet of
residential properties, and he would vote to 'deny the approval of the application.
Mr. Carroll ,had nothing further to, add.
.Mr. Duncan would wait ~ilJhe mi~Q!i!y_~ort was publis4~________~______,____,___,______________,__,__'_'"
Ms. Colbath passed.
Mr. Sullivan said this was a difficult deliberation. This was a larger issue than an aquifer or a question of
whether flood waters could be present, and cited several points supporting his position:
. The applicant clearly qualified as a PAPA as provided by LCDC. The property was contiguous to an
.existing, approved sand and gravel operations. Goal 5 resources would' be protected and future.
approval woul~ be subject to DOGAMI regUlations in accordance with the Metro Plan. ..
. Many of the minimizations proposed would be measured omy after construction began. He said he
. would support verification on conditions of approval by authorized authorities.
. State Goal 9, economic development, relied on this' critical component for environmental and
economic development.
. The applicant listened to the opponents, and hadinade some of the requested changes.
. This was an issue of balance, but the balance had to do with.Goal5, that stated when there was a
conflict that could be minimized then Goal 5 superseded agricultural land.
. The Lane County comprehensive plan stated that the county was required to protect aggregate
deposits from encroachment. The applicant did not encroach upon the residential area; rather, the
residential area, through no fault of the residents, had encroached upon a very val':lable Goal 5
resource that was needed in this ar~a for both environmental and agricultural purposes.
. Randy Moore, from t4e responsible enforcement agency, had assured the commission in writing that
. if t~e ~pplicatio.n' ~as approved by the Board. of Commissioners and the .Eugene City. Council, he
would look at the plan to ensure that it was adequate, and ensured that. no off site impacts would
affect either the floodplain or groundwater. The letter had been entered into the record.
· Other conflicts would be minimized by the applicant and those conflicts would be monitored and
authorized ~yDEQ through LRAP A and LCDC.
For those reasons, Mr. Sullivan was strongly in support of forwarding this to the elected officials who would
approve or disapprove, and if they disapproved, would get the ESEE underway.
Mr. ,Belcher, although conflicted, was encouraged by the fact that issues had been raised forconsideration by
the elected officials. .
Ms. Arkin said aggregate and fann land is GoalS resources. There was not convincing evidence in the
record that the resource site was significant. She was concerned about health impacts such as dust leading to
asthma and lung disease on school children and the children who lived in the nearby residences. The
applicant had. not provided sufficient modeling to demonstrate noise could be mitigated. She felt strongly
that the neighbors' fear of flooding was a real fear. Ms. 'Arkin said that none of the agencies' responsible for
providing oversight had the funding and staffmg to do so. She asserted the application did not meet the
criteria to allow mining.
Ms. Kirkham said it was her responsibility as a Planning Commissioner to decide if the application
convinced her 100 percent that they had met the criteria. Although there were many places where this.
application did convince her, she had concerns about dust and water. She wanted the county commissioners
to look at dust, groundwater, wetlands and flooding.
Mr. Lawless said the Planning Commissions were in the position of pretending to know about things they
lmew nothing about. He expressed conflicted feelings due to the social, economic and civic nature of our
land use, and goals and rules that required compact growth and reduction of travel. He agreed this was a
matter of balance. He hoped that the responsible monitoring agencies would be able to fulfill their
responsibilities. He was convinced the applicant would comply with applicable regulations. He said he
would support moving this forward to the elected officials.
Concluding the discussion, Mr. Carmichael thanked the applicant for their patience; the citizens it;1volved in
the opposition who offered .articulate, polite, and compelling comments; the Lane County and Eugene
Planning Commissions for "hanging in there" for a long period of time, and doing their homework to reach
reasonable conclusions to forward to the elected officials. He stated Mr. Sullivan articulated his feelings,
while Ms. Arkin offered thoughtful opposing points. Mr. Carmichael opined there was a satisfactory
solution to be found. He hoped the mining operation could continue, because it was a long term, good
citizen of our community that was willing to participate in whatever mitigating formS to ensure the safety and
well being of the people who moved close to that mining operation. He expressed optimism that as the
elected officials proceeded they would take the commissioners' comments and thoughts to heart.
Ms. Colbath pointed out that on page 2 of the August 8, 2006 agenda packet, the vote recorded for the
Eugene Planning Commission on the question Do we believe the dust conflict can be minimized to a level
that meets DEQ and LRAPA standards through. the conditions shown in attachment 2? was shown as 3 yes. 2
no, while.the infonnatio.n.in the packet fo~ today's meeting was corrected ~o 2 yes 3 no. .
Ms. Colbath called for the motion.
Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to. recommend to the Eugene
City Council that the PI~ng Commission felt the PAP A infonn~tion was
adequate and that the resource was significant. All conflicts were able to be
minimized by the applicant 'except the dust conflict, .which the Planning
,Commission majority 'did not believe could be minimized to an acceptable
level. The motion passed Wlanimously, 5:0.
In response to a question from Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki, Mr. Howe stated that the Lane County Planning
Commission needed to address the variance issue in its motion to provide direction to the Lane County Board
of Commissioners.
The Lane County Planning Commission took a recess from 8:00 p.m. to 8:05 p.m.
Mr. Carmichael, seconded by Ms. Kirkham, moved to recommend to the
Lane County Board of Co~ssioners that the Planning Commission felt
the PAPA information was adequate and that the resource was not
significant. Lane County Planning Commission did not find that the
conflicts with dust, groundwater, wetlands and flooding were minimized and
therefore could not recommend approval without an ESEE analysis.
Ms. Arkin stated the Planning Commission never discussed whether or not it could approve the motion with
approval of an ESEE.analysis.
Following a brief discussion, Mr. Carmichael withdrew the motion.
Ms. Arkin, seconded by ~. Siekiel-Zdzienicki, moved to recommend to the
Lane County Board of Commissioners that the Planning Commission felt
the PAPA information was adequate and that the resource was. not
significant. In addition, the Lane County Planning Commission did not fmd
that the conflicts with dust, groundwater, wetlands and flooding could be
minimized to an acceptable level and therefore cannot recommend approval
of the application.
Mr. Sullivan said he would vote against the motion. Addressing the members of the public in attendance, he
said while he often spoke sternly and in a straightfolWard manner, he had a great deal of compassion for the
residents, in that he faced many of the same challenges. He was confident that the Eugene City Council and
Lane County Board of Commissioners would be highly compassionate towards the residents of the area to
find balance. in their decision. He applauded the residents for their patience, courtesy and respectful
behavior.
The motion passed 4:2, with Commissioners Carmichael and Sullivan in
opposition.
Mr. -Belcher thanked'the Lane County Planning Commission for their efforts throughout this difficult
process.
, Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki said it was good to have a different perspective bro,ught forth by the Eugene Planning
Commission on the issue. He added that the variance issue still needed to be discussed prior to the LCBCC
meeting. '
Mr. Howe said staff heard the frustration expressed by'the lay members of the Planning Commission
regarding their lack of experience and expertise. He added it was not expected that the commissioners would
be experts on these issues, but rather it was the responsibility ,of the applicant and the opposition to provide
convincing information. He added the LCBCC were not technical experts either, but relied upon the lay
body to make recommendations that would help them as they worked their way through the process. .He
commended, the commi,ssioners for their work on the issue.
Ms. Colbath explained that the Eugene Planning Commission denied approval based on non-mitigating
factors and based its approval on the 150 foot variance being approved.
Ms. Colbath adjourned the Eugene Planning Commission meeting at 8:15p.m.
The Lane County Planning Commission took a brief one minute rec~ss.
Mr. Carmichael said two issues needed to be addressed, that of a zone change request and the 1,500 foot
setback.
Mr. Howe explained that because of where the Planning Commission ended up on the post acknowledgement
plan amendment, PAPA, the Planning Commission was recommending that the applic.ant had not met the
requirements for that, therefore, the Planning Commission could not proceed with the zone change and the
variance.
Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki said the setback was like sacred land that served asa buffer zone--"don't mess with."
The proposal to put the aquaclude in the setback was classified as construction by County Counsel, and
construction should not be in the setback. He disagreed with the applicant that the aquaclude could be and
should be in the .setback. He said the UGB would gradually expand and it would be a mistake to minimize
the setback where it adjoined the tree nursery. He opposed a variance from the setback.
In response to Ms. Arkin, Mr. Becker said the Planning Commission had made a recommendation in
opposition to the zone change, thus the variance was a moot point.
Mr. Howe suggested that the Planning Commission determined that as a result of the recommendation of the
PAPA not meeti~g the Metro Plan requirements, the application for the zone change and the setback variance
Were not appropriate to be dealt with at this time.
Mr. Carmichael asked if the Planning Commission was willing to accept Mr. Howe's statement as a motion.
Mr~ Dignam proposed accepting Mr. Howe's statement as a motion. Mr.
Becker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0.
Mr. Carmichael said the next meeting would take place on at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 5, 2006.
Mr. Carmichael adjourned the Lane County Planning Commission at 8:23 p.m.
(Recorded.by Linda Henry)
m: \2006\/ane 'county\/and management division \planning commission \lcpc06083 O. doc
Attachment 4
FILE RECORD CONTENT SHEET
Delta Sand & Gravel Co. Metro Plan Amendment
Ordinance No. PA 1238
No. Item Date
1. Application for Plan Amendment and Zone Change 8/12/05
a) Exhibit A – Lane County Tax Assessor’s Maps
b) Exhibit B – Legal Property Description
c) Exhibit C – Official Zoning Map Plot # 1005
d) Exhibit D –LRAPA Air Containment Discharge Permit #202119
e) Exhibit E – Evaluation of Aggregate Resources: Delta Sand &
Gravel Expansion Area (EGR & Associates, Inc.)
f) Exhibit F – Noise Study for Delta Sand & Gravel New Mining Site
(Daly Standlee & Associates, Inc.)
g) Exhibit G – Air Quality Evaluation Proposed Expansion of the
Existing Delta Sand & Gravel Co. Aggregate Resource Site
(Bridgewater Group, Inc.)
h) Exhibit H – Evaluation of Potential Flood Impacts: Delta Sand &
Gravel Proposed Expansion Area (EGR & Associates, Inc.)
i) Exhibit I – Digital Model of Existing Excavation Site and New
Expansion Area (EGR & Associates, Inc.)(Groundwater Study)
j) Exhibit J – DOGAMI Operating and Reclamation Plan
2. Referral Letter to Agencies and nearby property owners 8/16/05
3. DLCD Notice of Proposed Action 8/19/05
4. Register Guard Legal Ad # 8616911 10/19/05
5. Exhibit 1 -- Letter from Tony Fong 10/31/05
6. Exhibit 2 – Letter from Mark Moehle 11/05/05
7. Exhibit 3 – Letter from Brian & Karina Henderson 11/07/05
8. Referral Response from City of Springfield, no regional impact 11/04/05
9. Exhibit 4 – email from Kristen Sweet 11/11/05
10. Exhibit 5 – email from James E. Knepler 11/13/05
11. Exhibit 6 – email from Davin & Jeanine Anderson 11/13/05
12. Exhibit 7 – email from Brock Guentner 11/13/05
13. Exhibit 8 – letter from Kurt Eaton 11/13/05
14. Exhibit 9 – letter from Jonathan P. Lauch, 4J Facilities Mgmt. 11/15/05
15. Referral Response from Lane Co. Transportation Planning 11/15/05
16. Lane County Staff Report for Joint PC’s Public Hearing 11/15/05
17. DOGAMI Pre-Amendment Renewal of Operating & Reclamation Plan 11/15/05
18. Memo from Shane Hughes, PE, EGR & Associates, Inc. 11/15/05
response to staff concerns re: Rock Resource Quality
19. Updated Noise Map with Mitigation submitted by Daly Standlee 11/15/05
& Associates, Inc. at the Public Hearing (Expanded Zone 4)
20. Letter from Daly Standlee clarifying noise physics as stated in RG 11/14/05
21. Letter from Daly Standlee clarifying staff report statement 11/15/05
regarding ambient noise
22. Exhibit 10 – Letter from Donald Faiman 11/15/05
23. Exhibit 11 – email from Charles Biggs 11/15/05
24. Exhibit 12 – email from Rob Handy 11/15/05
FILE RECORD CONTENT SHEET
Ordinance No. PA 1238
No. Item Date
25. Exhibit 13 – letter from Bromley Newton LLP 11/15/05
26. Exhibit 14 – letter from Robert Funk 11/15/05
27. Exhibit 15 – letter from Joel Narva 11/15/05
28. Exhibit 16 – letter from Kate Perle 11/15/05
29. Exhibit 17 – letter from Mike Alltucker 11/15/05
30. Exhibit 18 – notes from Kevin Jones’ oral testimony 11/15/05
31. Exhibit 19 – letter from Mark H. Reed 11/15/05
32. Exhibit 20 – memo from Karen Lawrence 11/15/05
33. Exhibit 21 – letter from Greg & Renee See 11/15/05
34. Exhibit 22 – letter from Greg & Renee See 11/15/05
35. Exhibit 23 – letter from Hutchinson, Cox, Coons, DuPriest, 11/15/05
Orr, & Sherlock, P.C.
36. Exhibit 24 – memo from Dewey Hofer, H & E Feeds 11/15/05
37. Exhibit 25 – email from Coquette Lawrence 11/16/05
38. Exhibit 26 – letter from Scott A. Smith 11/25/05
39. Exhibit 27 – letter from Diane Paige 01/03/06
40. Exhibit 28 -- Applicant response to County request for data 01/03/06
41. Exhibit 29 -- Eugene Transportation Analyst response 01/06/06
42. Exhibit 30 –Lane Co. Waiver from Traffic Impact Analysis 01/13/06
under LC 15.697 (2)
43. Minutes -- Joint Lane County & Eugene Planning Commission 01/17/06
Hearing -- 11-15-05
44. Staff Responses to Planning Commissioners Questions from 11-15 01/17/06
45. Exhibit 31 – email from Janis Holmes 01/17/06
46. Exhibit 32 – email from Phil Evonuk, Lane County Farm Bureau 01/17/06
47. Exhibit 33 – Testimony of Concerned Santa Clara Residents 01/17/06
on Delta Mining Expansion Proposal – PA05-6151
a) Aggregate/Geology Resource Report responding to EGR report submitted by
applicant – Mark H. Reed, author
b) Air Pollution Report on Fallout Impacts from the Proposed Expansion of Delta
Sand & Gravel – Camille Marie Sears, author
c) Natural Resources/Wetlands Report – Ethan Perkins Ph.D., author
d) Groundwater/Hydrology Report – Malia R. Kupillas, R.G., C.W.R.E., author
(same as Exhibit 36)
e) Noise Impacts Report – Arthur M. Noxon, PE, author (see also his written
testimony presented at hearing and resume, Exhibit 37)
f) Agricultural Impacts Report – Ross Penhallegon, author (includes crop specific
cost assessments of dust effects
g) Exhibit 34 -- Farmland Protection flier Q&A, 1000 Friends of Oregon, author
h) letter from Land Watch Lane County (same as Exhibit 45)
i) memo from Kate Perle (same as Exhibit 40)
j) memo from Kevin Jones (same as Exhibit 40)
k) Exhibit 35 – memo from Michael Mishka Sloan
48. Exhibit 36 – Hydrology-Geology Report, Malia Kupillas, author 01/17/06
49. Exhibit 37 – Testimony and resume for acoustical engineer Noxon 01/17/06
50. Exhibit 38 – viewpoints of concerned residents, photographs 01/17/06
51. Exhibit 39 – memo from James E. Knepler 01/17/06
Page 2 of 3
Printed 10/26/06
FILE RECORD CONTENT SHEET
Ordinance No. PA 1238
No. Item Date
52. Exhibit 40 – Estimate for Cost of Change in Agricultural Practices 01/17/06
at Full Circle Community Farm, K. Jones & K. Perle 01/17/06
53. Exhibit 41 – photo of culvert at Miles Lane and Taito 01/17/06
54. Exhibit 42 – photos of flooding on Summer St. and Gerald Ave. 01/17/06
55. Exhibit 43 – letter from Sierra Club Debra Higbee, author 01/17/06
56. Exhibit 44 – letter from Paul Atkinson, Laughing Stock Farm 01/17/06
57. Exhibit 45 – letter from Land Watch Lane County 01/17/06
58. Exhibit 46 – Letter from Karen Reed 01/17/06
59. Exhibit 47 – Rebuttal to opposition from EGR & Assoc. 01/17/06
addressing groundwater mitigation, flooding, alternative to
alluvial aggregate, improper sampling accusation
60. Exhibit 48 – Rebuttal to opposition from EGR & Assoc. 01/17/06
addressing underground dam concerns, BFE datum adjustment
61. Exhibit 49 – letter from George Staples, applicant’s geologist 01/17/06
includes DOGAMI update to Reclamation Plan and
revised noise mitigation map and implementing measures
62. Exhibit 50 – letter from Steve Cornacchia, applicant’s attorney 01/17/06
63. Exhibit 51 – memo from LRAPA 01/17/06
64. Exhibit 52 – email from Charles Oppenheimer, noise consultant 01/17/06
65. Exhibit 53 – Wind Rose Diagrams from LRAPA, Dick Ruth 01/17/06
66. Exhibit 54 – Letter from Dan Stotter, attorney for the opposition 01/17/06
67. Minutes – Joint Eugene and Lane Co PC Hearing Continuation 01/17/06
68. Cover letter from Steve Cornacchia, attorney for applicant 02/16/06
69. Exhibit 55 – EGR & Associates Inc. rebuttal to M. Reed & 02/16/06
M. Kupilas regarding significance of the resource and
groundwater
70. Exhibit 56 – Bridgewater Group, Inc. rebuttal C. Sears air quality/dust 02/16/06
71. Exhibit 57 – EGR & Associates, Inc. rebuttal to E. Perkins 02/16/06
regarding wetlands
72. Exhibit 58 – Daly Standlee & Associates, Inc. response to A. Noxon 02/16/06
regarding noise
73. Exhibit 59 – Peer review testimony from John Hector 02/16/06
of Daly Standlee & Assoc. & of A. Noxon (noise)
74. Exhibit 60 – Applicant response to A. Noxon testimony (noise) 02/16/06
75. Exhibit 61 – Peer review testimony from Environmental Associates 02/16/06
Inc. of A.Noxon study (noise) and C. Sears (air pollution)
76. Exhibit 62 – Response to EGR’s assertion of significance of the 03/17/06
resource from Mark. H. Reed
77. Exhibit 63 – Response to Bridgewater testimony (dust) from 03/17/06
James E. Knepler
78. Exhibit 64 – Letters from Robert Funk (dust, groundwater, noise) 03/17/06
79. Exhibit 65 – Rebuttal to applicant from Doug DuPriest, attorney 03/17/06
for Joel & Therese Narva (dust, noise, groundwater, wetlands)
80. Exhibit 66 – Applicant’s final rebuttal 03/31/06
Page 3 of 3
Printed 10/26/06