HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Work Session: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment
Meeting Date: February 21, 2007 Agenda Item Number: B
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 its aggregate resource extraction business (quarry) onto a property located
immediately outside the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) but inside the Metro Plan boundary,
along East Santa Clara waterway north of Hunsaker Lane. Because this is a Type II Metro Plan
Amendment, local land use regulations require approval of both Eugene (the home city) and Lane
County. The City of Springfield has elected to opt out of the decision process. Lane County will act
unilaterally on the zone change and variances.
The City Council and Board of County Commissioners decided to deliberate separately. This meeting
provides the first work session following the close of the public record for deliberation. Lane County is
the lead agency whose staff prepared the record and draft ordinance.
BACKGROUND
The applicant, Delta Property Co., requests that the Statewide Planning Goal 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 Goal 5 Rule for mineral and aggregate resources, Oregon Administrative Rules 660-
023-180. The Metro Plan Designation is proposed to be changed from “Agriculture” to “Sand &
Gravel.” If the Metro Plan amendments are approved, the County will independently then consider the
applicant’s request to change the site’s zoning 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 along East Santa Clara waterway in order to
complete a low permeability barrier to reduce groundwater flow into the excavated area. The variance,
in addition to the zone change request, is a County-only decision.
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
Additional information about the site, its surroundings, and the proposed operations are contained in
staff reports distributed for the November 1, 2006, City Council hearing. Vicinity maps are attached to
this report as Attachment A.
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070221\S070221B.doc
The City and County Planning Commissions held a joint hearing, left the record open to allow ample
opportunity for testimony, and met together 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. A summary of the commissions’ recommendations
is attached as Attachment E.
The Eugene City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners held joint public hearings on
November 1 and December 12, 2006. The elected bodies voted to accept new evidence and, after the
hearings, left the record open to allow opportunity for written testimony. There was a period for new
testimony that lasted until January 8, 2007; then a period until January 22, 2007, to allow responses to
the new testimony; and a final period until January 29, 2007, to allow the applicant’s rebuttal as allowed
by state law. The record is now closed. A memorandum dated January 22, 2007, forwarded new
materials received up to that date to the City Council. Subsequent testimony by the opposition and the
applicant’s final rebuttal are attached to this staff report. A complete record is maintained in the City
Council Office.
To become final, the decisions of both the City of Eugene and Lane County must be identical. If the
decisions are not the same, the Metro Plan amendment will be referred to the Metropolitan Policy
Committee (MPC) for dispute resolution. Staff recommends that the City Council end its deliberations
with a nonbinding straw vote until the Lane County Board of County Commissioners has deliberated.
Then the City Council can return to deliberations and make a final decision.
A proposed ordinance, accompanied by findings and conditions of approval, was prepared to set the
matter before the County Board for adoption, modification, or denial. This proposed ordinance is again
provided to the City Council for consideration during deliberation of the Metro Plan Amendment. The
proposed ordinance provides possible affirmative findings and conditions that may be considered in
determining whether conflicts have been minimized between the proposed use and surrounding uses or
other Goal 5 resources.
The Decision Process The City and County are asked to amend the state-acknowledged mineral and
aggregate inventory in response to this application for a Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment
(PAPA). Mineral and aggregate resources are a possible Goal 5 resource, and state law provides fairly
concise criteria that local decision makers must use to balance this resource against other competing
uses. The state 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 Economic, Social, Environmental and energy (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 LC 16.252 are met, and if the variance setback
request should be granted under LC 16.271(7). Only the County Board will consider and
make the 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.
NOTE: No ESEE analysis was prepared for this application.
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070221\S070221B.doc
County staff provided a detailed decision tree prior to the public hearings that reflects the state criteria
and statutes. That format is provided in this packet of material as Attachment B. It provided a good
template for the Planning Commissions’ deliberations, and staff recommends that it be followed for the
council’s deliberations as well.
There are several important points to consider while deliberating this application:
1. It is the applicant’s responsibility to show that the proposed amendments satisfy the state criteria.
2. If a potential conflict between the proposed use and other uses on the site or in the vicinity has not
been “minimized,” the project need not be automatically denied; an Economic, Social,
Environmental and Energy (ESEE) analysis could be done to weigh conflicting values. Delta Sand
and Gravel has not completed an ESEE to date because they contend that the potential conflicts have
been mitigated to a level of insignificance.
3. State rules say that conflicts are adequately “minimized” if the applicant brings the conflict into
conformance with applicable local, state, or federal standards. The local decision makers cannot
create a new standard if one already exists for a responsible regulatory agency. For example, since
the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) is charged with protecting air quality, its
standards must be used as the threshold for “minimizing” a potential air quality conflict. If the
proposal conforms to LRAPA standards, then those potential conflicts for air quality are
“minimized” to a level of insignificance as defined by State law.
4. Conditions of approval that minimize potential conflicts will be adopted should the project be
approved. Draft conditions of approval were provided in the proposed ordinance prepared by
County staff (Attachment J to this report). If adopted, the conditions would be implemented through
County processes, first by being adopted as conditions of the County zone change and, second, as
conditions in the Operations Plan that is approved by the County.
5. If even one area of potential conflict is found to be not minimized to a level of insignificance, the
Metro Plan amendments cannot be approved as proposed; either a new project description with
additional mitigations or an ESEE analysis would be necessary for approval.
Eugene Code criteria for Metro Plan amendments are contained in the attachments to this report.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
The Metro Plan provides this definition:
Sand andGravel This category includes existing and future aggregate processing and extraction
areas. Aggregate extraction 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 important to
monitor the demand for aggregate to ensure an adequate supply of this vital non-renewable resource
is available to meet metropolitan needs.
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)
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070221\S070221B.doc
• 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 to life 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)
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The City Council has the following options:
1. Deny the Metro Plan amendments because the conflicts caused by dust have not been adequately
minimized (this was the Planning Commission recommendation before new evidence was submitted
into the record);
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, or with modified
findings;
4. Open the record to allow more testimony (which must also be permitted by Lane County); or
5. Ask Lane County for joint deliberations or for Lane County to deliberate first.
Since the final decisions of both the City and County must be identical, staff recommends ending with a
straw vote until such time as the council’s final decision can be informed by the county’s decision.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that deliberations begin according to the decision tree provided by Lane
County. Additional time will be scheduled as necessary to complete deliberations. The City Manager
supports the Planning Commission recommendation that the dust conflict is not minimized.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to forward the City Council’s preliminary decisions to the Board of County Commissioners, and
direct the City Manager to begin preparing findings in support of the council’s decision.
[The County’s decision will be brought back to the City Council before final action is requested.]
ATTACHMENTS
A. Vicinity Maps
B. PAPA Review and Decision Process (decision tree)
C. Metro Plan criteria for amendments
D. Definitions
E. Summary of Planning Commission recommendations
F. Planning Commission minutes of deliberation (July 25 and August 30, 2006)
G. Letter from Douglas DuPriest (representing the organized opposition), January 22, 2007
H. Final rebuttal arguments by the applicant’s representative, Steve Cornacchia, January 29, 2007
I. File Record Content
J. Draft ordinance with findings (prepared by county staff but formatted for Eugene); Exhibit C
includes conditions of approval
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070221\S070221B.doc
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Kurt Yeiter
Telephone: 541-682-8379
Staff E-Mail: kurt.m.yeiter@ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070221\S070221B.doc
L..l ~ l:=if l~r .
~~~I ~B~~~ln~~"~
lIT I . -~ .' H-U - r;
r ~ - LL. Vd .<..~c: I i
, ~~ -
'- I I ITll -t ,- = ~,' ~ ;
::E f' IT ~ ~ =
__ Gf-- I
. J~
~~1f~CZ~0f ~Q-M~REST:
11\
~~ '1 _
~LJ t J ~
It
. rtfl:R1t1..,. ws
~...t!f
~ J,IlI
..,~~
~C o~f{~ ,
=~ ~~C~ ~~_(5)
_J ! rra~ ~~
_.~ ~ -I- <L ---J
I - '--~~
Jlfll 't;: --"->- '=-. ~ I
tl LI II ---{TI
~j::1 ~I~I
-"_ . III D_=. ~IJ I tt:E f(
-h ,1::1 ~ --- 7-' It: >- ~ ~ '1
B]~ fb,~~=t1~ ~ h- ~ r \,:.~
llLa!lL---i ~U I TI l · \
'? =~l. 11~ ~_ 11m ~ r- C ~
\ s ~~ Thl Ffj Fi= "..:1 I ~,
~ ,~ ,I ~ L = ~
~_ -L. I' ~d' --- r J ~ =: I!
~\J) ~ "----., D UE P F aVE
. l=====d I ( ,~M~:
~:Delta Sand & Gravel-
- Eugene City Limits
- - - Urban Growth Boundary
Subject Site
~
~,
I ?!I*
-J ~
3
u1
~
-II
:~-
-
"
,
ATTACHMENT A
~I
~
I
I
\
/'
~
I~~
i} Delta Sand & Gravel
-- Eugene City Limits
- - - Urban' Growth Boundary
ATTACHMENT E
Summary of Planning Commission Recommendations
Step 1. Determine if the PAPA information is adequate.
The Eugene Planning Commission found unanimously that there was adequate
information submitted in the PAPA application.
The Lane County Planning Commission voted 4-2 that there was adequate
information submitted in the PAPA application.
Step 2. Determine if the resource site is significant.
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 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 Planning Commissions proceeded jointly to develop a recommendation for their
elected officials under Step 3.
Step 3. Determine if conflicts from mining can be minimized.
Area of Impact
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.
Areas of Conflict That Are Not Minimized
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.
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.
Conflicts with other Goal 5 resource sites
Wetlands
t
At the time the application was made,
he Eugene Goal 5 inventory had been
adopted by the Board of Commissioners, however, the resource protection measures
for City of Eugene sites within the UGB had not yet been co-adopted by the Board.
No action was taken by the Planning Commissions.
Agricultural practices
Both Planning Commissions found the conflicts with agricultural impacts did not
extend beyond the 1500 ft. impact area.
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. Exhibit C in the draft ordinance provides the conditions proposed for inclusion
in the plan to allow mining to ensure conformance with applicable local, state, or federal
standards.
Noise
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
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 minimized 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.
Eugene Planning Commission voted 3-2 that the conflict could not be minimized, and
Lane County Planning Commission voted 3-2 with one abstention.
Flooding
The Eugene Planning Commission voted 3-2 that there was not a conflict due to flooding.
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.
Wetlands
Both Planning Commissions found that there is a conflict to wetlands. Lane County
voted 4-2, and Eugene voted 3-2.
The Eugene Planning Commission voted unanimously that any conflict with wetlands
could be minimized.
The Lane County Planning Commission voted 2-4 that impacts to wetlands could not be
minimized.
Groundwater
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 Eugene Planning Commission found unanimously that the aquaclude would
minimize conflicts with groundwater to an adequate level.
The Lane County Planning Commission voted 4-2 that the aquaclude would not minimize
the conflict with groundwater to an adequate level.
Agriculture
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 the ESEE consequences of un-minimized conflicts and determine
whether to allow mining.
Both 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 has not prepared an ESEE analysis in accordance with this section of the Rule
for review by the Board of Commissioners and Eugene City Council.
Step 5. Determine the ESEE consequences of potential new conflicting uses
within the impact area.
The Planning Commissions did not address this issue. 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. 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 County
Board will consider and make the decision on the rezoning and variance because it
is a Lane Code Chapter 16 amendment and decision implementing the Metro Plan
amendment.
Decision forLaneCounty only. The Eugene Planning Commission did not address
this step.
Step 7. Develop a program to allow mining.
Not addressed by the Planning Commissions.
ATTACHMENTF
MINUTES
Lane County Planning Comtnission
Eugene Plaruling Comluission
Harris Hall - L,ane County Courthouse
July 25, 2006
5 :30 p.nI.
Lane County Planning Commission: James CarnIichael, Chair;'Ed Becker, Vice Chair; Lisa Arkin,
Stephen Dignmn, Todd Johnston, (recused from the proceeding), Nancy Nichols, Jozef Zdzienicki,
COffilnissioners; Juanita Kirkham an.d John Sullivan; Absent
Thonl Lanfear,' Stephanie Sc.hulz Matt Laird, Staff
Eugene Planning Commission: Marlene Colbath, Cllair; John Belcher, Rick Duncan, Phillip Carroll,
Jo1m L,awless, Commissiol1ers; Randy Hledik (recused fronl the proceeding), Phillip Hudspeth, Absent
Kurt Yeiter, Staff
I. ' "'ORKSESSION
Deli.berations: P A05-6151/ In the matter of amending the Eugene Sprin.gfieldMetropolitan Area
General Plan to redesignate 72.31 acres from Agriculture to Sand and Gravel, amended the GoalS
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 t,va administrative variances to decrease the. setback provisions of LC 16.217(4)(b ) (v)
pursuant to LC 16.217(4)(b)(v)(aa)in order to construct a low permeability barrier ,vithin the
setback area pursuant to LC 16.217(4)(b ) (v)( dd).
Lane County Planning Conunission Chair James Cam1ichael called the ll1eeting of the: Lane County
Planning Comnl.ission 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 agel1da that evening.
Tllere 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 session deliberation. She
outlined the steps for discussion
1. Determine if the PAPA infonl1ation is adequate
2. Determine if the resource site is significant
3. Detennltle if confli cts from Inining can be minimized
4. Weigh ESEE consequeI1cesand detennine wllether to allo,v mining
5. Determine ESEE Consequences of potential new conflicting uses within the impact area
6. Determine if the application. meets tIle Lane Code rezol1ing requirenlents ofLe 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 pro gran] to allow nlining. (Step Six of the Goal Five Rule)
Ms. Schulz said staff \'vould like recoffiluendations for each step even if it \vas a recoml11endation to deny.
She said recomnlendations needed to be based on the infonllation in the record so elected officials could
know the entire scope of the process used by the planning commissions in ord.er to proceed.
M.f. Carmichael reconlmended taking each step one at a time with individual votes.
Lane County Planning Conilllissioner Jozef Zdzienicki question.ed which steps \vould be combined
decisions for the t\vo commissions.
Ms. Schulz said there would be joint deliberations until step six. She said the item for the varial1ce request
\vas for Lane County 0llly.
Step 1. . AdeQuacv of the Information
City of Eugene Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter stated for the record that E,ugene Planning Staff concurred
"vith the COUl1ty staff report
Ms. Schulz said tIle applicant needed to provide information regarding quantity, quality and location
sufficient to determinevvhether the standards and conditions were satisfied. She said County staff felt that
cond.itions had been satisfied. She said the cOllceptual site reclamation plan ,vas 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 Plalm1tlg had waived the traffic
impact an.alysis. She said staff had revie\ved the i~formation provided by the applicant and had
detenn1t1ed that the increase in traffic was not sufficient to require further analysis. She noted that road
improvenlents \V~ere scheduled for the next 20 years in that area.
Regarding mininlizing conflicts with existing uses, Ms. Schulz noted that information \vas included \vith
the staff report as Attac.hment Two. She added that a sit.e plan was also required to determine if the
application had the basic information provided. She said the applicant had provided enough infoffi1ation to
nleet the application threshold basis for the application.
In response to a question from Ms. .Colbatll regarding hours of operation and whetller 8 anl.. to 10 pm~. 'was
a standard tinle frame for hours of operation for businesses in the County, Ms. Schulz said the times \vere
in response to noise litnitatiolls established by the State. She said noise requirelnents changed at 10 pnl.
Mr. Yeiter added that the hours proposed were also consistent with the City,' s noise ordinallc'e.
Mr. Zdzienicki conlmented that h.e did not belie~Te the applicant had adequately addressed conflicts in Step
3 and therefore he could not approve step one.
MINUTES-Lane County Planning Conlmission
July 25, 2006
Page 2
Regardi1lg adequacy of the record, Comll1ission luember Lisa Arkin cOffilnented that the applicant's record
was inadequate in terms of information on noise, air pollution and impacts to groun.d \vater.
Mr. Belcher cOl11ffiented that the planning COffill1issions were the first body to revie\\' the record. He noted
that COffill1ission staff felt that the infonnation was sufficient to Ineet tIle requirements of the application~.
He ~said if the cOlnmissions felt tllat the information was insufficient then it could vote to deny and the
record \vould be opened again and both parties \vould have a challce to respond before the elected officials.
He said he\vould vote that the infonllation in the record \vas sufficient.
COl11nllSsion menlber Steve DignalTI said there \vas no reason to disagree with tIle staff recomnlendation.
lIe maintained tllat there \vas sufficient infonl1ation in the record that met the requirenlents of the process.
Mr. Carmichael called for a vote' fronl the COlllffiissions on step 1.
Comlllission menlber Steve Dignanl, seconded by, COll1illission member
Ed 'Becker, llloved to approve the provided inforniation in Step One. The Illotion
passed 5: 1 \vith Ms. Arkin voting in opposition.
Eugene Planning Con1ffiissioner John La\vless, secondyd by Eugene Planning
Comnlissioner Rick Duncan, 11loved to recommend that the Eugene Planning Commission
approve the staff recommendation that Step One information \vas adequate. The l1lotion
passed unanimously.
Step 2. Significa..nce of the Resource
Ms. Schulz said tl1is item canle llnder the lleading of Oregon Adnlinistrative Rule, (OAR), 660-023-180(3).
She noted that there Ilad been a lot of input on the topic from the applicant and the opposition. She. said
determination was based on quantity and quality.Slle said the testimony from Shane Hughes had
adequately explained at the public hearing how gravel \vas deposited in a river. She added tllat there was
sonle question raised as to \\thether samples could be mixed or not. She said staff had reviewed the State
High\vay Safety Standards Appendix D75 Section X2.3..2, entered into the record by both the applicant and
the opponents, \vhieh discussed sampling of bank run sand and gravel deposits \vhich stated that samples
sllould be thorougll1y mixed and quartered if-necessary. She said staff had determined that ul1xing of
samples was appropriate. She added that the' site, in question \vas not on the inventory of significant
aggregate sites in the Metro Plan. She.said that in higher quality soils the thiclaless of the aggregate layer
nlust exceed 60 feet in Lane County. She said the applicant had ShOW1l that the thickness \vas70.5 feet and
therefore llad met the quantity threshold requirement and they have also ShOWll that the quality \vas at a
high enough level of significance to meet t11at part of tIle standard for step two, therefore, the significance
threshold is Inet.
Mr. Zdzienicki said he \vas conflicted on the t\VO different versions onho\v the samples should be taken.
He said he was not convinced by the applicant's argument.
Ms.. Colbath questioned whether any state offices had been contacted.to get information regarding mixing
of samples..
MINtJTES~Lane County Planning Comnlission
July 25, 2006
Page 3
Ms. Schulz said she had not communicated \villi anyone in a state office. She said she \-vas basing her
conclusion on th.e pages in the official hand book that had been submitted into the record. (Exhibit 33a)
Ms. Colbath expressed her concern that there \vas no independent opinion on 111ixing samples fron1 a State
office.
In response to a question from Mr. Belcher regarding a previous applicatiol1 \vith Eugene Sand and Gravel
and \vhether there was any information on sample analysis in that case that could shed light on the matter,
Associate Plalll1er Thon1 Lanfear said there were sinlilar issues raised in that application. He said the
commissions\vere faced \vlth the dilemn1a of competing reports from qualified experts and \vould have to
\veigh the evidence in the record and n1ake a decisioll. He added that infornlation fro111 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 111atter.
Ms. Schulz replied that referrals had been sent out to state age11cies but tllere had been no replies.
Ms. Arkin said the report from EGR and Associates stated that 75 percent of the expansion site \vas class 2
soils. She stressed the inlportance of the measurenlents because there ",ras a trade offbetween prinle
farmland and aggregate resource. She stressed the importance of establishing the aCCtlracy of the sampling
that h.ad been done. She said slle seriously considered tlle testimony ofDr<< Mark Reed \vho had said the
111aterial was mixed \vhen it should not have been and had stated that there \vas 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 stratunl of deposits. She said she felt that the applicallt had not convil1ced her that
appropriatesan1pling had bee11 done. She added that there \verequestions about bore hole three a11d the
accuracy of the data provided. She con1ffiented that the applicant could have 'cherry picked' spots for bore
holes and remarked that the proof provided was not strong.
Eugene Planl1ing C0rIU11issioner Rick Duncan said he understood the sampling process \vas a w~y to make
an estinlate of tIle total amount of resource that was available<< He said to be judged significant, it needed
to be equal to or greater than 2 111i11ion cubic tons. He stressed that the applicant's satuple sho\ved 8
nlillion cubic tons<< He questioned \-vhether a poorly takel1 sample could make up for a 6 million cubic ton
difference.
Mr. Dignam ackno\vle.dged that there were conflicting expe.rt testimonies in tIle record. He said it was 110t
a leap of faith that there was a significant aggregate resource in tllat area since gravel companies had been
n1ining gravel there for decades. He said it was not a hard assumption to determine that there \vas
significal1t resource on the site and said he intended to vote for step two.
Mr. Duncan said he ""QuId support step two as\vell since it was hard to believe that a sample could be
\vrong by 6 million cubic tOllS.
Mr. Belcher said he had no questions about quantity but.questiol1ed \vhether the quality was sufficient.
Ms. Colbath agreed and said sampling done from different strata \vould have answered those questions.
She said she believed there was adequate supply but said the problelTI \vas that quality "vas difflcult to
determine.
MINUTES-Lane County Planning Commission
July 25, 2006
Page 4
COlnnnssion l1lember Nanc.y Nichols said if visual inspection indicated that there was considerable
variation thel1individual samples should be taken from each well defined stratulll. Sh.e said the quantity
was there but questioned \vhether the quality \vas adequate.
l\1.r. Zdzienicki said river deposits varied fronl year to year. He said testing of the stratification \vas very
inlportant since there could be long periods \vithout gravel being deposited. He said the quality issue had
not been addressed adequately enough for hinl to vote in favor.
.Mr. Carmichael said the task of the commission ,vas to evaluate the testilnony and consider which \vas the
most credible. He said Step T\vo \vas to deternline:::whether there ,vas significant reSOllrce. Resaid there
was clearly a substantial resource present on the site and added that anoth.er piece of evidence \vas that the
applicant had grown up on th.e property and '\vas 'willitlg to make a substantial investtuent to nline the
resource. He said the applicant 'Vvould not be present if the resource available \vould not allo\v the
company to operate itl the future. He said. he would vote in favor of StepT\vo.
~lr. Dignam agreed and. added that'Ms. Schulz llad solicited state comlnent on the matter but the State
chose not to respond. He said the lack of response did 'not signify agreenlent with one party or another.
He stressed that the conl1nissions needed to make a decision based on the evidence ill the record.
Mr. Lawless said lle hated to be in a situation to make a decision \vhich he felt he wa~ unqualified to make.
He said he llad no concerns about the quantity of aggregate present on the site. He said the applicant had
stated that both of the lovver sanlples had nlet tIle standard without the prime rock being sanlpled. He said
there was no reason to not support both the quantity and quality standards provided by the applicant.
Ms. Arkin acknowledged that quantity of resource \vas present on the site because of the large acreage but
noted that familand ,,,ras also a significant resource. She said quality of rock also had to be present. She
said testitnollY by Dr. Reed had stated that processing saluples could al1o\v the applicant to discard \vhat
was not acceptable and get a high quality sample. She surmised that pre test processing violated Oregon
Administrative Rules. '
Mr. Belcher said tllere \vas not sufficient infolmation for hiIn to vote to support Step t\VO.
Ms. Colbath said the reason for sampling ",ras to have a methodology that supported cOl1fidence in the
result. She said she did see the informatioll in the record to inspire her confidence in the sanlplillg process.
She said she did not feel that the \vay the sampling was done follo\'ved a strict standard and added the
record did i11clude all independent analysis fronl an objective party. She said she \vould vote against step
tvvo.
Mr. Duncan said tllere were comments made that tIle sanlpling done was not an independent analysis. He
stressed t11at E,GR and Associates lvere all independent organization of\vllich Delta Sand and Gravel ,vas
only a single client. He said the compallY was licensed by the State and stressed that he had a hard time
questioning the methods us~d for sampling since the company did that sort of work for a living.
Ms. Colbatll saidthere was another expert that said the sanlpling was not dOlle properly. She said iftllere
was a second opinion available '\vhich favored one side or the other she would be sure about her vote.
MINUTES-Lane County Plam1ing COlumission
July 25, 2006
Page 5
In response to a question from Mr. Duncan regarding vvhether a person testifying on th.e sampling had to
have a certain level of certification fron1 the State, Ms. Schulz said she believed that to be tnle. She said
aU of the experts in the record had provided credentials as part of their testi1110ny ~
Ms. Colbath reiterated that she \vould like to see a second opinion regarding the Inatter of sampling.
Ms. Schulz said the commission could not place a condition on approval. She said tIle commissions
needed to make either a yes or no vote on the facts in the record.
1-1r. La,vless expressed a hope that the bodies nlaking final decisions would ask a state agency to judge
\vhich of the opinions on sampling should be taken.
Mr. Dignam said it would be interesting to have a third opinion but remarked tl1at bringing in other experts
could go on and 011. I~Ie stressed that the comn1issions needed to make decisions based on the infomlation
already in the . record.
Ms. Arkin said she would be voting no on step t\VO because she felt that tIle record ,vas incon1plete. She
said tllat anyone could make en~ors.and stressed that she did not believe the errors \vere 111ade on purpose.
She remarked that there had been a sinlilar case previously that had hinged 011 a 'few feet' ,vhich ,vas
determined not to be present.
Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Lawless, luovedto accept the staffrecomulendation that the
applicant had demonstrated tIle existence of significant material resource on the site. The
motion passed 3:2 with Mr. Belcher and Ms. Colbath. voting in opposition~
Mr.. Dignanl, seconded by Mr.. CarmicIlael, tTIoved for appro,ral of step t\vo.. The tTIotion
failed 4:2 \vith Mr. Dignanl and Mr. Carmichael voting in favor.
Step 3. Minimize Conflicts
Ms. Schulz said the first part of step three was detenl1ining the impact area. She said the Oregon
Administrative Rule stated that the inlpact area shall he large enough to include uses listed and shall be
linlited to 1,500 feet from the 111ining area except vvhere factual infonl1ation indicates that additional
conflicts existed beyond that distance. She said issues \vith dust, noise, groun.d\vater, \Vetlallds alld
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 ,:vent beyond
1,500 feet. She said she did not COllcur with that opinion and the 1,500 foot limit\vas appropriate in her
view. She said the County El1gineer had revie\ved the testinlony from the applicant and had SUbl11itted a
notice into the record stating that tIle requirements for triggering a traffic.impact analysis had not been 111et.
She noted that there was an exhibit in conflict with that opinion in the record.. Regarding conflicts \\'''ith
other Goal 5 resource sites vvitIlin the impact area, Ms. Schulz said the case included wetlallds in the area.
She noted that there\vas an oxbow remnant of the East Santa Clara Waterway on the Eugene Wetlands
Inventory. She said timitlg ,vas important in that adoption Eugene's Goal 5 inventory had not been
completed. She said the oxbo,v wetland could not be considered because the Goal 5 Inventory protection
lueasures have 110t yet been approved by the City and the County. She said there was a pond on the. site
MINUTES-Lane COUllty Plamling Commission
July 25, 2006
Page 6
that was in the County's Goal 5 resourc-e 1tlVentory but noted that it was not considered a jurisdictional
\vetland under Division of State Lands rules.. She said tllere was also a section about agricultural practices
\vhich did not have a specific agency that provided specific thresholds to nIeet. She noted that there was
testimony from a COmI1Iunity farm owner 111 the record \\Tho had raised concern over groundwater iInpacts.
Regarding minimizing conflicts, Ms.. Schulz called attention to Attacrul1ent T\vo of the staff report w~hich
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 tbat meets DEQ emission standards as applied byLRAP A.
Mr. Duncan said sand and gravel operations ,^,ren~ 'allowed to produce a specific anlount of material per
year. He renlarked that if the amoullt Ofl11aterial produced per year did not increase then tllere should not
be more dust created than the operation \vas currently gel1eratillg.
Ms.. Schulz said the issue ~as not about ,ho\v rnuch ll1aterial "vas nlined but how much particulate ,vas put
in the air. She said tllere was not a strict correlation with volume of In ate rial produced.
Mr. Duncan reiterated tllat there would not be 1110re Inining than \vhat \vas currently being dOlle so if Delta
\vas meeting dust standards currently then there was ,no conflict.
Ms. Schulz said the expansion area \vould be included in the current LRAP A permiL She said the possible
conflict had lnore to do with whether dust was b~ing generated at once or over a 'longer period of tinle.
Mr. Duncan stressed that the operation would not change significantly fronl what was currently being
done.
Mr. Lavvless said there was also an issue of proximity of dust to the impact area.
Mr. Carroll noted that the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA) permit enforcedDEQ
standards. He said as long as the applicant ll1et that standard then tllere \vas no conflict. He acknowledged
that dust conflicted quality of life but it "vas measured by 110\V much \vas produced by the facility. Fie
stressed that the issue \vas ho\\! 111uch dust tlle facility produced. 11:e said if the standard for dust emanation
criterion "vas met then Delta was nleeting the standard for dust emission.
Mr. Dignam confimled that LRAP A regulated dust elnissions. He said he \vas not prepared to second
guess LRAP A. He said he was comfortable \vith the dust issue as long as the LR~PA standards "veTe 111et.
Ms. Colbath said her concern was \vhether the particulate emission met the approval threshold.
Ms. Arkin said the reason LRAPA ~nforced DEQ stand-ards was for inlpacts on human health. She
stressed that dust had an inlpact and that ,vas what tIle regulation was all about. She said there was an
expert in the record who had stated that many neighborhoods \vouldbe impacted by dust emissiollS from
the site. She added that there "vas also a physician on record talking about pulmonary diseases and other
health impacts to nearby residential areas. Slle noted that the applicant did not do an air dispersion model
MINUTES-Lane County Plaruling.Con1mlssion
July 25, 2006
Page 7
for the west end of the site and said this was a serious oversight.and an inadequacy in the record. She said
the expansion area \vas in closer proximity to neigllbors and ,,'ould 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 froIn the applica11t as to whether it could do better mitigation
nleasures on dust emissions.
Ms. Nichols commel1ted that the dust mitigation portion of tile applicant's report mentioned less t11an
normal setbacks and re111arked that this did not seelll like nlitigation of inlpacts. .
Mr. Zdzienicki said the LRAPA pennithad not yet been given. He raised concern over making a blanket
decision that the expansion area ",'ould be included in the san1.e 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 \vas aSSUflled that the applicant would conlply with dust emission standards when there
had been no analysis.
Mr. Carmichael stressed that there \vas currently Inining going on and there was cu.rrently an LRAP.l\
penuit. He said dust etnissions were being exall1ined according to LRAPA standar~s. He said if mining
continued at its current level in a different area then a logical person ",'ould.assume that whatever was
currently going on no\v would be going on in the future. He said tbe issue was \'\tllether there \vouldbe
more or less du.st emissions. He acknowledged that the.re was some concern from C01111111ssioners that dust
could be a conflict but expressed his opinion that dust emissiollS \vould 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
notedthat the oppositiol1 had cIahned that there \vould be 50 percent more dust particulate ill the air.
In response to a question from Mr. Belcher regarding \vhether LRAP A changed its standards according to
proximity to residential areas, Mr.. Lanfear said the LRAPA standard \vas a 111axitnum contamil1ate level
based on proxitnity to the source of the en1issions.
Mr. Duncan said analysis of dust e11lissions was an ongoitig 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
111et the applicable standard then the COmtllissions \vould have to fllld that standards had been Inet. He said
the issue \vas a matter of the total production of dust by tlle facility and \vhether that production ulet th.e
established standard.
In respollse to a question. froln Mr. Dignam regarding whether other cOffilnunities in Oregon had an
organization similar to LRAP A, Mr. Lanfear said he did not know of any other area that had an
organization similar to LRAP A
Mr. Dignanl stressed that Lane County \vas fortunate in that there was an expert ,organizatio11 that did
not11.ing but nlonitor'pollution levels. He said he did not feel that he needed to second guess LRAPA \vhen
it callle to dust emission standards.
MINUTES-Lane County Planning Conlmissioll
July 25, 2006
Page 8
Ms. Arkin said LRAP A did not l1ave 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 th.e neighbors COtllplained about dust emissions LRAP A had no means to address the issue. She
added that there \vas a DEQ standard for enlissions that \vas ellforced but referred to another application
wIlere the applicants had gone beyond the enforced standard for enlissions.
Ms. Arkin noted tha.t the record contained a letter from School District 4J stating that the expansion site
was close to a plaruled school site and expressed concern over health to the children due to particulate
matter generated by Delta.
Mr. Becker said the enlission standard \vould the sall1e as it wa.s cUITently and \vould not change regardless
of proximity to residential areas and as long as the facility lnet the standard then proxiInity would not
matter.
Mr. Zdzienicki said LRAP A was a complaiIlt driven agency that did no analysis utlless someone made a
cOlnplaint
Ms. Colbath sa.id LRAP A \vould be tile body to enforce stricter standards for dust enlissions. She
acknowledged that it would be hard to enforce those standards and expressed a desire to look at other
lnitigation measures that nlight be taken. Sllesaid she \vould assume that all mitigatiol1smeasures \vould
be il1cluded in the application but rai.sed concenl that staff \vas trusti11g that an LRAP A permit \vould be
issued and questioned whether tllere was an)' evidence that the permit would be confinlled..
'Ms. . Scl1ulz said the expansion area would be added to the existing permit. She added that LRAPA 11ad
said tIlat it had completed the revie\v of the proposal and tIle Ctlrrent permit remained valid. She tIoted that
this \vas documented in the record.
Ms. Colbath questioned \vhether there '\rvas sufficient evidence about enlissions to tIle west side of the site
and questioned \vhether 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 \vas nOCOtlCem among staff about dust
lnitigation to that side.
In response to a question from Ms. Colbath regarding ho\\! far the planlled elenlentary school was from the
site in quystion,Ms. Schulz said it \vas beyond the identified 1,500 foot impact area.
Mr. Lawless noted that there \vasa conflict due to dust that could be nlinimized to a level that met DEQ
standards.. He said the pernut issued by LRAPA was a.separate process" He said the issue ,vas whether
there were some mitigation metl1odsthatcould meet LRAPA and DEQstandards. He said it was a
separate matter whether LRAP A traveled around the boundaries of the property and took dust emission
readitlgs"
Mr. Belcher said LRAP A standards did 110t take into account the proximity to residents" The only option
'\rvas some sort of setback to deal with that issue.
t\1INUTES-Lane County Plan:ning Comnlission
July 25, 2006
Page 9
Mr. Zdzienicki added that tIle trucks used by tIle applicant ,\tould be driving a longer distance and creating
a h~g~er particulate count in the air. He said the \vetness of the. roads \"QuId be a factor itl mitigating dust
emISSions.
A straw poll was taken \vhich showed consensus among both of tIle commissions tllat there \vas a conflict
\vith dust.
Mr. Duncan said the staff recommendation \vas to find that dust enlissions could be nlinimized to DEQ
standards as applied by LRAP A.
Mr. Dignam suggested asking staffs opinion as to \vhether tile applicant's suggested mitigation ll1easures
were sufficient
Mr. Lanfear said the comnlisslons should use the conditions as proposed by the applicant, and detefllline
\vhether those conditions are adequate to mininlize the conflict to a level that it is no longer significant.
No longer significant tn.eans do they nleet the DEQ I I~RAPA standards?
Mr. Duncan said LRAPA set the requirements for elnissions. He said LRAPA \vas the agency to make the
decision about emission standards. He said he would go along \vith a LRAP A decision about ll1itigation
methods.
Mr. Lanfear said dust standards had to be met at every point wllere conflict in the inlpact area occurred.
Mr. Carmichael called for a straw vote regarding 'whether the applicant's suggestion for l11itigation \vere
adequate.
Mr. Becker said lnitigationmeasurescould not be proposed before all analysis \vas done.
Mr. C:arroll 'conl111ented that a straw vote\vas straying from the framework of the staff report. He
mailltained that it had not yet been decided whether dust c,onflicts could benlitigated. I-Ie said he \vould
vote no in the straw poll because the comnlissions were missing the substance of tlle process.
The Eugene Plaruling Coml1lission voted 4: 1 that dust conflicts could be mltlimized.
Colbath voted no.
Ms. Colbath called for a stra\v vote on whether the minimization could occur \vith the conditions # 15-25
as listed on Attachnlent 2, the conditions, in the record.
Mr. Belcher suggested removing condition #22 vvhichcalledfor a reduction in 111inill1Ull1 setbacks. He
comnlented that reducing minimum setbacks in an area near residential housing "vas the last thing that
should be done. He reiterated that LRAP A standards were identical without considering proximity to
residential areas.
Mr. La\vless said impacts could be ll1ininlized by measures other than moving the line. There will be
inlpacts at the edge of the neighborhood \vhether the setbac,k was 50 feet or 150 feet. He said distance was
only one way of mini.nl1zing impacts. I-Ie said tIle goal of minimization of impacts could be achieved
\vithout limiting setbacks.
MINUTES-Lane County Planning Comn1ission
July 25,2006
Page 10
Mr Duncan ackno\vledged that there was a conflict \vith dust but stressed that an extra 50 feet of setback
would not make any difference \\That-so-ever.
Mr. Cam1ichael COl11ll1ented that the discussion \vas going beyond the infonnatiol1 in the record. He said
the. record would be clear for the elected officials that there "vas concern over setback issues.
Ms. Arkin said all that needed to be said is that the contlict could be solved by requesting an ESEE
al1alysis.
M'r. Lal1fear noted that to request an ESEE allalysis the conmlissions \vouldhave to find that there \vas a
conflict that was not tnininlized.He stressed tllat the cOl11missions \votlld have to 11lake that finding first.
Mr. Cannichael stressed that there \vas plenty of discussion in the record and requested that a straw vote be
take.n as to \vheth.er to exclude C011dition # 22.
Mr. Carroll said conditions \vere in1portant to deliberations. He stressed that the cormnission \vas entitled
to address the impacts of the proposed n1ining expansion. He said conditions could.be called out for the
elected officials to exan1.ine later in the process. He listed the conditions for \vhich he had concern;
1. Number 15, regarding minimization measures, said watering roads l1light need to be
looked at nlore ofte1l than every t\VO hours depending on the presellce of vehicles.
2. Nunlber 18 regarding. trucks 11auling dry fine material being \vetted or coveredwh.en
transporting off the site, Mr. Carroll cOffilnented that if clay \vas being transported onto the
site then that would contribute to dust enlissions.
3. Mr. Carroll noted that part of tIle LRAPA permit required tllat no party could knOVl111gly
allow fugitive dust enussions. He said, given the proximity to residential areas, nIore
stringent 111itigations 111easures ,vere justified.
Mr. Duncan seconded Mr. Carroll's e01nments. He reiterated Mr. Carmichael that the record and staff
notes would point out.the concerns of the cOl11mi~sions to elected officials Inaking a.decision later in the
process.
Ms. Colbath stated that the comnlents of tIle comn1issioners stood by themselves and a straw vote was not
required. She also had coneenl about COl1dition #22, as did Mr. Belcher.
The Lane County Planning C0111misSlon straw vote indicated 4: 1: 1 that dust could be
mitigated.
Ms. Schulz clarified that there \vas consensus alnol1g the cOlnmissions that there was a conflict due to dust
and the majority believed that the conflict could be nlin1111ize.d but not with the standards 111dicated in the
staff report.
MINUTES-Lane County PlalU1ing Commission
July 25, 2006
Page 11
'Mr. Lanfear said the commissions had essentially decided that the conflict had not been luinimized. He
said the commissions could not say 'yes' to one P0i11t and ".no' to the second. He said the question \vas
\Vhetller the conflict llad been minimiz.ed by the applicant's proposed standards.
Mr. Lawless said he would support the idea that the applicant's mitigation measures minin1ized the dust
con.fiiet.
Mr. Belcher stated if there \vas real concern over Ininimizing dust emissions, then the, minin1U111 standard
setbacks should not be reduced by applicant request He said he \vould not support the idea that the
proposed mitigation nleasures could Ininimize dust enlissions.
Mr. Carroll said the record was inconclusive as to wllether minimization \vould address the issue of dust.
The stra\v poll result was that the proposed minilnization ll1easures \vould not address the
dust conflict issue. The result ,vas 3:2 \vith Commissioners Belcher, Carroll, and Colbath
voting that the conflict could 110t be n1inimized \'lith the conditions proposed by the
applicant.
Regarding the issue of \vliether the applicant had provided the proper mitigation measures
to minimize dust impacts, The Lane County Planning C 0ffil11is sian took a stra\v poll "vith
the result 2:3: 1. Commissioners Dignam and Carmichael voting that the proposed
measures were adequate, COl11missioners ...f\rkin, Zdzienicki and Nichols voting that the
proposed measures "rere not adequate. and ComnlissionerBecker abstaining.
Mr. Carmichael 110ted that the Lane County Planning Commission \vas appro"aching its time lin1it
established in its by-laws. He called for staff comment as to \vhen deliberations could be reconvened.
Ms. Schulz said the connnissions should meet for further deliberations as s~on as possible. She said
nothing would be served by delaying the process.
There \-vas general discussion on\vhether to continue deliberations separately or jointly. Ms. Colbath said
it was imperative to COl1tinue jointly so comnlissioners could be aware of each other's deliberations and
opInIons.
Mr. Zdzienicki agreed \vith Ms. Colbath.
Mr. I)ignam recoulmended that the conlmissions 111eet separately. He raised concern that tIle process \vas
not going smoothly and said.there vvas nothing to be lost by meeting separately and \vork their way
through the listed issues. He suggested that the Lalle County Plalming Connnission schedule further
deliberations for the foUo\\ring \veek.
Mr. Becker disagreed. He said he wa~ learning a lot from Eugene Planning Con1illission and the sun1 total
of the people at tIle table was very beneficiaL He expressed his desire to continue to meet jointly.
Mr. Duncan said there are a nUlnber of iteu1s that could be deliberated independently with the .possibility of
meeting jointly at a later time to discuss larger issues. . He said it \vould be easier to tn.eet separately in
temlS of scheduling..
MINUTES-Lane County Planning COlnmission
July 25, 2006
Page 12
Mr. Belcher disagre,ed. He reiterated Mr. Becker that the commissiollS \vere learning from one another.
He said deliberations would not go quickly because of the nature of the proposal.
Mr. Dignam, secollded by Ms. Arkin, moved that the Lane County Planning Commission cOlltinue
past its three llour deadline. The l1lotion resulted in a tie vote. There \vas gen_eral consensus to
continue the n1eeting until 10 pm.
. Noise
Staff Recommendation: The commissions should find that there is a conflict due to noise and the
proposed mitigation measures are sufficient to minimlze 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 tIle public 1learings. She
said there had beel1 a new developtuent after the first public hearing ill that the applicant reexamined the
110ise zone map and 11ad determined that fl. . . tvithout mitigation, DEQ noise standards l1/ould be exceeded
at the residences on the site ovvned by the applicant and approved uses lvithin the noise lil11it boundary~
lvould also be affected. "
Mr.Yeiter said the definitions in the adolinistrative rules for minimization said tllat n1inimization.ll1eal1t to
reduce an identified cotlflict to a level that was no longer significant He said w"hen there was an adopted
standard, as was the case \vith noise, the commission s110uld target that standard wIlen consideling
nlitigation nleasnres.
In response to a question from Ms. Nichols regarding \vhether the City's noise limitation stal1.dards
matched those of the State, Ms. Schulz said noise standards were established at the state level. Mr.. Yeiter
said the"noise ~rould not be coming frotTI the city litnits. He confirmed that City duration of noise-
standards were the same as those being proposed by the applicant.
1fr. Duncan said he \vould support the staffrecomtnendation since the state standards vvere already
established.
In response to a question tromMr. Belcher regarding how.noise standards were enforced, Mr. Lanfear said
there \vas no longer any state agency that enforced noise standards.
Mr. Zdzienicki said noise ellforcen1ent \vas a conlplaint driven process and stressed that proxinlity to
residential areas "vas a conflicting issue.
Ms. Colbath said she agreed \villi staff that there was a conflict due to noise.
In response to a question from Mr.. Duncan regarding complaints about noise and whether DEQ standards
\vouId be used to meastlre noise, Mr. Lanfear suggested a condition of approval that the operation
maintain the correct tloise standards laid out by tIle Department of Environmental Quality. He said Lane
County \vould then l1ave the autllority to enforce noise regulations.
MINUTES-Lane County Planning Comn1isslon
July 25, 2006
Page 13
In response to a question. frolll Ms" Nichols regarditlg whether the commission had the authority to change
the hours that noise was allowed, Mr. Yeiter said he did not know ,vhat the state stalldard was for lateness
of noise but the applicant had agreed to use the City of Eugene noise standards.
Mr. Lal1fear added that there \vas a. certain level of noise allowed until 10 pm. and the applicant \vasnot
trying to operate until the established tinle limit.
Ms. Arkin said the suggested noise standards\\lere hard to enforce. She said 10 pm" \vas late for fanlilies
in the area to hear operations going on. She said she \vas saddened that the applicant could not take
families and \vorking class people into account She said for the record that 10 pm. \vas -a burden on
neighbors and she felt sad for the people ,vhowould have to listen to it.
In response to a question fron1Mr" Carroll regarding \vhether excavation of the 10\v peolleability\vater
barrier ,vas a construction activity and therefore exempt fronl DEQnoise standards) Ms. Schulz said she
did not agree \Vlth t11at conclusion.
Mr.. Carroll said the issue had been raised by the opposition that excavation for the 10,'" permeability
barrier should be included under DEQ noise standards. He said the applical1t had stated that the excavation
was a constnlction activity and therefore had a different noise standard.
In response to a question from Ms" Colbatll regarding whether a construction permit would be'issued, M:s..
Schulz said it\\lould be part of Delta's operating plan and 110t a separate permit
III 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 appl.icant 11adnot.
In response to a question fron1 Ms. (~olbath regarding whether the construction of the barrier would be
included in the time linTits established in noise ordinances, Ms.. Schulz said yes if the activity ,vas included
in the plan to allo\v mining.
Mr. Belcher said the equipn1ent for constructing tile 10\'/ permeability barrier \vould not bebelo,,, ground
level like the mining equipment. He added that the construction \\'ould also be closer to residential areas.
Mr. Lav.lless said he agreed that there \vas a noise conflict issue. He said 11e was in favpr of considering
aHo,ved hours of operation. He said if the mitigation measures proposed met DEQ standards then he sa\v
no reason not to support the idea that.the conflict could be Ininitnized.
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
compliance ,vith DEQ standards.
.Mr.. Becker said noise was a major issue for residents. He said the 10 pm. allo\\'anc.e seemed.extrenle to
hin1 and added that 7 am operation on a Saturday also felt unreasonable to him. He suggested that the
allo\vable hours of operation should be re-exall11ned.
Mr" Carmichael said it appeared that staff and commissioner comnlents indicated tllat there was a noise.
issue. He stated for the record his hope that the elected bodies \vouldtake a close look at the noise issue.
MINUTES-Lane County Planning Comn1ission
July 25, 2006
Page 14
Mr. Belcher COI11IDented that holding to the .150 foot setback would have a positive iInpact 011 noise
mitigation.
Mr. Dignanl said he believed tl1ere \vas a conflict due to noise but the miti.gations suggested by the
applicant were adequate. He said he vvould support the Initigation me-asures as proposed. He stressed the
inlportance of looking at the big picture of all th.e nlitigation 111eaSUres beil1g proposed.
The Eugene Planning Comnlission took a straw vote and established general agreenlent
that there \vas a conflict due to noise.
Ms. Colbath called for a straw vote that the proposed ll1itigation measures \vere sufficient
Mr. Lawless reiterated that mitigation measures \vould comply \vith DEQ standards.
Mr. Belcher questioned \vhether the DEQ standards were sufficient for the neighbors. lIe added that
construction of the lo\v pen11eability barrier \vould have its O\\ln inlpacts and raised concern that there was
not suffIcient mitigation.
Mr. Lanfear said the conflict was minimized if the noise metDEQ standards.
The result of the straw vote was 3:2 \vith COlnmissioners Colbath and CalToll voting in
opposition.
TIle Lane COUllty Planning C:ommissiotl took a straw vote alld unaninlously decided that
there was a conflict due to noise
The Lane County Planning COll1missiol1 took a straw vote on whether the conflict could be
minimized by the proposed mi.tigation lneasures. The resulting vote ,vas C0111missiollers
Cannichael, Dignam, and Nichols voting yes, Commissioners Arkin and Zdzienicki voting
n.o andC0111missionerBecker abstaining.
. Flooding
Staff Recommendation: The Planning Commission should find that there "ras no conflict due to
flooding.
There was consensus to revieVvt the record and address the flooding conflicts at a future meeting.
. Groundwater
Staff recolnmended that the Planning Commission find that there ,vas a conflict due to groundlvater
that could be minimized by constructing tbe low permeability barrier. The applicant should be
directed to address the location of the IOlV permeability barrier and map its specific location in the
Operations Plan
MINUTES-Lane County Plalming Comtnission
July 25, 2006
Page 15
Ms. Schulz said there had been a lot of ground'Vvater testimony sublnitted into the record. She expressed
her belief that the conflict could be minil11izedby the construction of the lO'WT permeability barrier.
In response to a question from ~1s. Colbath regarding whether there had been other instances of similar
barriers being used, Ms. Schulz said there had not. She said the applicant had nlad.e his case in the record
regarding how the barrier would function..
Mr. Digtlanl clarified that a low penl1eability barrier had not been seen in Lane Count}'. He said it \vas his
recollection that the tecImiqlle had been used successfully else\vhere. He stressed that this \vas a relevant
fact and asked staff if there are other places this technology is used.
There was general. consellSUS 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 \valved the applicant's requirementto conduct a traffic inlpact
analysis bec,ause 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 COllcenlS raised by the City Traffic Engineer, Mr.
Yeiter said gravel pernlits had a life expectancy and tnlck'traffic was \vorked in to that expectancy.. He
said the streets use,dwere scheduled for itnprovements. He ackno\vledged that in the future the area "VQuld
be more developed and there could be an issue in 20-30 years.
tvls. Colbath commented that the City\vas not sure.what the long term plan ,vas going to be for the
roads/intersections and there ,vas sonle movement to the idea of increlnental impact and development
paying its share for road improvenlents in the area.
Mr. Yeiter said the concern was that there ,vould be more difficulty in the future wIlen traffic levels
increased. due to future development if Delta \vas still operating at that time.
Ms. Schulz said the level of change in traffic did notfise to the threshold \Vllere the applicant \vas required
to do further al1alysis. She noted that road improvements would be done in .the future to increase traffic
capacity in the area.
Mr. Zdzienicki said the projected gro\\lth in traffic was 1 percent. He said the current operating permit
aUo~red 2 n1.111ion tOllS per year and Delta was currently close to that limit so there would not be Sigtlifical1t
truck traffic added.
Mr. Belcher commented that it vvouldbe unfair to penalize Delta for any future gro",rth and development in
the area. He remarked that the City concern \vas not valid.
Mr. Duncan said l1e supported the staff conclusiol1.
Mr. Dignanl said he accepted. the staff conclusion. He stressed that there ,vas no conflict with
transportation in the application.
MINUTES-Lane County Planning Commission
July 25, 2006
Page 16
Ms. Colbath" noted that the record showed that the applicant had stated that trips ~rould not increase so
there \vasno conflict.
Eugene Planning Comlnission took a stravv vote vlith tIle result of unanimous
consensus that there \vas no conflict due to traffic impacts.
.Lane County Planning Comnlission took a straV'l vote \vith unanimous consensus
that there Vlas no conflict due to traffic in1pacts.
Next Steps
Ms. Schulz suggested n1eeting every Tuesday until the deliberations \vere completed.
There \vas general consensus to tentatively schedule fU11her deliberations for August 8 and ..A.ugust 15.
The uleeting adjouD1ed at 10 pn1.
(Recorded by Joe Sa.ms)
MINUTE.S-IJane County PlanningColl1ffiission
July 25, 2006
:Page 17
Joint Meeting
Lane County and Eugene Planning C ornmiss ions
Harris Hall-125 E,ast 8th Avenue
August 30, 2006
5:30 p.m.
PRESENT:
Lane County Planning Commission: Jim CarmicllaeI, Chair; .Ed Becker, Vice-Chair; Juanita
Kirkham, Lisa Arkin, Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki; John Sull.ivan; Staff: Stephanie Schulz, Kent
Howe, Plallning Department
ABSENT:
Lane County Plamling COffiluission: Steve Dignam, N aney Nichols, Todd Johnson.
PRESENT:
Eugel1e Planning COlnmission.: Mitzi Colbath, President; Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon
Belcher, Pllillip (:arroll, John, L.awless men1bers;Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development
Depart111ent.
ABSEN'rr:
City of Eugene Plalml11g COffill1isslon: Randy Hledik (recused frOll1 the.proceeding), Phillip
Hudspeth.
MT. Carmichael convened the meeting of the.Lal1e County Plannltlg Con1mission at 5 :30 p.m.
Ms. Colbath convened the lueeting of the Eugene PlalUlingColnmission at 5:30 p.ll1.
Those present introduced the111selves.
M:r. Camlichael noted there were no 111embers of the public who \vished to 111ake Public COl11ffienL
!vis. Schulz distributed a 111ClTIOral1dum dated August 30, 2006; subject PA05-6151 Delta Sand and Gravel
Post Acknowledgel11ent Plan Amend111ent. Mr. Ho\ve offered the staff report and. explained tIle information
on the handout, noting 1. ReCOln.mendations from Ju(v 25, 2006 described the \vork conlpleted by the
c0111missions, II. Continued Deliberations idel1tified issues yet to be discussed.
Mr. Howe noted the role of the Planning COll1ffiissions \vas to determine if conflicts existed, and if so, had
the applicant subluitted mitigating proposals that ",'"ould reduce and mininlize those c.onflicts. Mr. Howe said
\vith most of the issues, vvith the exception of the agricultural impacts, state standards needed to benlet,
addin.g if there was not a conflict ullder Goal 5, state standards V'vere 'n1et He said it "vas not necessary for
the commissiol1S to "vord smith conditiol1s.
Ms. Arkin asked how resource site significal1ce issues should be addressed when the Lane County and
Eugene Planning COll1missions held different views.
Mr. Ho\ve replied that each of the cOlumissio:ns \vQuld n1ake recom111endatiol1s to their respective elected
officials who would make the final decision. Mr. Howe. opined different recomn1endations \Vere not
problematic.
Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki said he had voted yes on item 1. ,Step 1 of the stra\v poll, and \vishe,d to cllange his
vote.
Mr. Can11ichael noted no objections to Mr. Siekiel-Zdziellicki's request, and asked that the record reflect his
MIN-u~rES- August 30, 2006
Joint Lane County alld Eugene Planlling Commission
Page 1
request. He said the July 25, 2006 poll. was only a straw poll.
In response to a procedural question raised at the August 29, 2006 Lane County Planning COlnnlissioll
meeting., Mr. Ho\ve, UpOl1 consulting \vith the County Counsel, said it was not legally required for
connnissioners to listen to recorded tapes of prior deliberations they had nlissed.
M.r. Sullivan s8:id he had listened to the tapes of the deliberations nleeting in question.
III response to ~1s. Colbatll, Mr.. Ho\ve said if the impact area need.ed to be greater than 1,500 feet; it should
be raised ltIdividually with each issue discussed.. He added that Goal 5 established an auto111atic 1,500 foot
inlpact area around the perimeter of the subject property in a PAPA. plan anlendnlent Furthenl1ore, he stated
that because the variance process \\r~s a separate one, the connnissioners should assunle a request for a
related variance \vas approved..
Mr. I-Io\ve concurred with Mr. Sullivan's .assertion that that the applicant \vould not request a variance in the
residential zoned area, but \vould ask for a variance in tIle agricultural area.
In response to Mr. Cannichael, Mr..Ho\ve iterated tbat the variance issue bad beell adequately addressed; in
that the assumption tllat.the variance was approved.
In response to Ms.. Arkin, ~Ms. Schulz said there "vas nO.1l1ap of the variance locati011 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 Conunissions could make a recomtnendation
to the elected officials to address minil11.izing the impact of fencing at the site.
Mr. Carmichael opel1ed. the discussion, comnlencing with:
· Determine if ",ining conflicts can be lninilnized:
o Groundwater:
· Is tllere a conflict due to groundJvater?
Mr. Siekiel~Zdzienicki sought clarification of the location of the low-permeability barrier \vithin the 150 foot
setback.
Mr. Ho\'ve stated that the aquaclude bad been well presented in the. rec,ord around the perimeter of tIle
expansion area.
Ms.. Schulz said the aquaclude had never been removed from the proposal, explaitling that it.\vould be
constructed to provide the mitigation for reduction of ground.\vater in the area. She concurred \vitl1 Ms.
Arkin's statem.ent dIat EGR'sFebruary 16, 2006 E,xhibit 55 contained a diagram that illustrated the
ground\vater barrier.
The question, Mr. H,owe stated, was tl1.ere c.onflict due to ground\vater?
Ms. Colbath called for a Eugene Planning COlumission straw vote that
asked: Was there a conflict due to groundrvater lvithout the aquaelude. The
result of the straw vote was 5:0 that there \vas a conflict due to ground\vater.
The Lane County Planning Commission took a stra\v vote, 6:0 that there
\vas a conflict due to groundwater.
MINUTES- August 30, 2006
Joint Lane County and EugenePlannulg Comnlission
Page 2
M:oving to the next issue, Mr" Carmichael asked,
.
Do yo.u believe the groundlvater conflict call be m.in.intiz€tl through tlte applicant's
proposed conditions?
In response to Ms. (~olbath, Ms. Schulz concurred that tile n1aps illustrated that the aquaclude was outside of
the 150 foot boundary of the adjacent uses.
Ms. Arkin stated tllat the EGR report stated that the ground\vater \vould rise on the\vest side of the barrier,
claiming that tile level \vould not impact anyone. She added that both groundvvater and surface \vater
responded to l11flux of precipitation, vvhich \vould cause a rise in the \vater table, and subsequent n10vement
of groulld\vater.
Mr. Sullivan referred to a Novelllber 8, 2006 staff report, in \vhich staff expressed concerns. lIe stated the
report indicated there were no local, state or federal standards effecting ground\vater, al1d responsible state
agencies did not have tile resources to COl1duct due diligence regarding ground\vater concerns, although the
Departnlent of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) did have enforceme11t authority through GoalS.
He asked how the staff COl1cem had changed since November 8, and expressed coneenl th.at tbe respOl1sibility
for n10nitoring would fall directly on the elected officials.
Ms. SCllUlz responded that additional u1aterials had been..submitted in the record describing professional
phblications and discussions tllat described the technology as being useful and capable of providing the
re-quiredprotection for the groundwater.
Mr. Sullivan asserted that was one of the few places in the application that placed the onus 011 th.e elected
officials ,vas the governing agency of \vbat ,vas and what \-vas not good groundwater.
Mr. Siekiel-Zdziel1icki said a proposal stipulated that mitigation l11easures, i.e, the aquaclude, \vould be
111stalled according to. an approved plan by DOGAMI, the responsible state agency.
Mr. Sullivan this would fall on the operating plan for enforcement, \vhich Vias a long way off. He said the
Plarnling COlnmission could reconunel1d to tbe elected officials that they require a barrier map.
Ms. Colbath asked if there \-vas an oversight agel1cy to revie\\t, as \vell as provide follow-up to ensure
continued compliance.
Ms. Schulz was unaware of such an agency.
Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki opined the follow-up \vas complaint driven. He cOll1ffiente,d tllat in the expansion
area for the quarry, the applicant would dig 60 feet to extract aggregate, whilepumpi11g water constantly. He
said that the aggregate did not end at the expansion area, but continued to the residential area. He stated the
aqllaclude was planned for 30 feet because of an impermeable barrier of concrete and aggregate. He
expressed concern that groundwater ,vouldbe effected~
Mr. Carroll said the applicant's proposal indicated it would minimize groundwater conflict. He understood
the impermeable barrier would not impound water, butrather would divert the water. He added the
testill10ny offered at the public hearing .did not cOllvincingly argue agaillst that diversion concept. H.e
concluded this was a logical way to ntinimize the groundwater effect.
MlNUTES- August 30, 2006
Joint Lane County and Eugene Planning C0111mission
Page 3
Mr.. Belcher expressed frustration by his lack ofkno\vledge and being forced to. vote o.n an issue 11e did nat
clearly understand. He was ch.allenged to. ul1derstand hQW an aquaclude that prevented lo.SS of groundwater in
summer did not increase the chance of flooding in the \'(tinter..
The E.ugenePlanning Comnlission took a straw vote o.n: If the conflict due to groundlvater
could be minimized through the conditions proposed by' the applicant to a level that lJ'let
applicable the state or.federal standards, or ifno government standard applied, could the
conflict be l11ini111ize(1. The result of the stra\vvote was 4; 1 vvith COilllllissioner Belcher
voting in opposition.
Mr. Belcher reconsidered his vote to be in favor of the stra\v poll later in the meeting. The
revised result of the stra\v vote \vas unaninlous, 5 :0. .
The Lane County Planning Con1n11ssion took a stra.w vote the result afvvhich \vas 2:4, with
Conlmissioners Becker, Kirkhan1~Arkin and Siekiel-Zdzienicki vo.ting in opposition.
o JVetlands and Sensitive Habitat:
· Is tit ere a cOllflict due to wetlaltds anti sensitive habitat?
Mr. Carron asked if the variance requested for non-residential lands included a reduced set-back on adjacent
properties on the northwest conler of the proposed site.
Ms. Schulz responded it \vould be outside of the 150 fQot setback. She COI1C1UTed \\lith Mr. Carroll's query
that since the setback under Goal 5 for gravel fell at least 150 feet from the lueander se,ar \vetlands, no
conflict existed.
Referring to a July 17, 2006 staff report, Ms. Arkin 110ted C01llInents that indicated a no fil1 and remo,re
pennit \vas necessary to minimize conflict. However~ she saw the issue as having potential fo.r a differellt
impact, from either flaoding or dewatering, that \\'ould create an impact on the ,wetlands. She said the issue
\VaS nQt 0Il1y about construction or fillin.g, but there could be itnpacts due to. the presence or absence of \vater.
She encouraged comll1issions to keep this in n1ind during their deliberations.
The Eugene Planning Conunission took a straw~ vote on: Is there a cot!flict due to }vetlands
and sensitive habitat? The result of the stra\v vote \vas 3:2\vith (~onunissioners Duncan and
Ca.rroll voting in opposition.
The Lane County Planning COl1]mission took a stra\v vote the result of\vhich \vas 4:2, \vith
Comnlissioners Cannichael and Sullivan vo.ting in oPPo.sition.
In respol1se to a question fro.m Mr. C arn1ichae I,. Mr.. Howe said tile intent of the question ("Is there a
standard that a]Jplies ?") \vas to serve. as a renlinder for comnlissioners to detenl1ine if there was a standard,
and had the applicant met that stalldard. He reiterated that Goal 5 ,vas a standard that applied to. all the
questions..
· Do we believe tlte 'U-'etlands cOliflict call be ,ninimized through the applicant's
proposed conditiolls?
Ms. Arkin opined the applicant.wo.uld need to. file an Environt11ental Impact Statelnent (ElS) before the
question could be al1swered, and she did not see an EIS in the file.
Mr. Siekiel...Zdzienicki said the Santa Clara Waterway extended beyond the 1,500 footitnpact area, al1d an
impact in one place would impact all.the \vay along the 1,500 foot length to the river.
MINUTES- August 30, 2006
Joint Lane County an.d Eugene Planning Commission
Page. 4
The Eugene Planning Commission took a straw ,vote on: Do lve believe the lvetlands cOl~flict
can be mini111ized through the applicant 'sproposed conditions? The result of the stra\\r vote
was unanimous ,5:0.
The Lane County Planning COlnmission took a stra\v vote tile result of which \vas 2:4, \vith
Comnlissioners Becker, Kirkham, Arkin and Siekiel-Zdzienicki voting in opposition.
o Floodin!!:
· Lv tllere a conflict (lue to flooding?
The E,ugene Pla1l11ing Con1mission took a stra\v vote on: Is there a cOl~flict due to flooding?
TIle result of tIle stra\v vote was 2:3, witll COl11missioners Duncan, La\vless, and Carroll
voting in opposition.
The Lane County Planning Comlllission took a stra,v vote the result of \vhich was 5: 1 , 'v.lith
Commissioner SiekielOAZdzienicki voting in opposition.
. Do .ve believe tlte flootling conflict can benlillilltized to lIteet the FEMA standard?
Mr. DUllcan asserted that adllerence to FEMA standards \vould result in n1ininuzatioll of contlicts.
Mr. Canllichael concurred with rvlr~ Duncan.
Mr. Howe stated that FEMA had dra\vn the line, and the subject property \vas not in the floodway but was in
tile floodplain. He added that proposal would not raise the floodplain by adding ll1aterial. Rather, material
would be extracted, alld \vould not inlpact'the floodplain.
Mr. Belcller stated lllaterial would be added by construction of the aquaclude, and could raise tIle water table.
Mr. Howe said tIle aquaclude would be below" groundVvrater~ From tIle standpoint of this development
contributing to tIle 100 year floodplain, tIle concept behind the floodway'and floodplain \vas that aU of the
,floodplain could be completely built and it \vould not increase the elevatioll in thefloodway by nlore than
one foot He added tlle applicant was not proposing any developnlent in the flood\vay.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' FE-MA modeling, and \vould not increase the likelihood of flooding.
Mr. Belcher said the issue was the ability of the subsurfac,e to absorb \vater and prevent flooding.
Mr. Becker said the question asked if there \vas a conflict due to flooding, and did not discuss floodplain
designations. '
Mr. Duncan looked at ground\\'ater or flood potential as sOll1ething that occurred over a l:arge geographic
area, \vith the aqtlaclude being relatively small in comparison to \\There the groul1dwater and flood \vater
\voltld disperse. Any water that backed up \'i"ould do so over several 111iles rather than in a snlall area, and
\vould not have ll1uch impact.
Mr. BelcIler again expressed his frustration over being asked to take action on an issue in \VIlich he was not
an expert. He felt the local effect of placing a dam near housing could be significant if the ,,"vater \vas not
able to disperse over a much longer distance.
Ms. Arkin stated the ground\vater and surface water effects could not be separated. She felt strol1gly the
MINUTES- August 30, 2006
Joint Lane County and Eugene Planning Con1ll1ission
Page 5
aquaclude could contribute to .flooding in residential areas. Additionally, the applicant had stated they had
assumed that the Santa C:lara Watenvay ,vQuld relllove the ground and surface \vaters.
Mr. Lawless sa"v the aquaclude, not as a dam, but more as a storm ,vater retention and illfiltration pond, ,vith
the capacity to handle a rapid influx of water, as a best practice, providing a safety valve. This served as an
overflow that \vould go into secondary stolID\Vater manage111ent systenl. He savv the design as being practical
and reasoll.ab Ie.
Ms. Colbath expressed concern that the aquaclude vvould cause flooding problems. In response to Ms.
Colbath, Ms. Schulz said topographic 111aps were included in the record.
Mr. Ho\ve iterated that the FEMA regulatiollS ~lere the applicable standard. He asked if the proposal \vould
meet FEMA regulations, that being in a 100 year flood it \vould not raise the "vater level to one foot above
the 100 year floodplai11 elevation. This \vas not in the flood\vay, and in a fl.oodplain, the entire floodplain
could be filled and it \votdd not increase the flood\vay in violation of the FEMA requirement.
Mr. Ho",re said in tllis situation, the stal1dard for the proposed extraction fronl the pit \vould be ifit violated
the FEMA 100 year floodplain requireluents.
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 area.. She added that applicant had stated that V\later \vould not only move
horizontally but would also rise. She said that the EGRdra\vings did not shovv \vhere the ,vater table \vas
located, or \vhere the excavated dirt would be placed. She stated slle did not believe the applicant had S110\V11
they could nlitigate inIpacts to the neighborhoods to the \vest.
f\,1s. Schulz asked if the \vater would rise to one foot above the ground, 'Vvhich \vas the standard for the flood
regulations. She added t.llat digging gravel \\rent do\vn.ward, 110t up\vard.
Mr. Becker expressed concern about how the subterraneandanl \vould impact adjacent neighborhoods.
Mr. Howe said the standard was within the impact area, and \vhether the FEMA 100 year floodplain standard
could be met.
Mr. Sullivan accepted the stateme,nts by the area residel1ts that they currently experienced floodingproblenls
that existed before the excavation request. He said there "vas nothing in the record that indicated that the
existing permit vvould exacerbate a flooding problem in that area. If the applicant met the FEMA
requirement; the aquaclude could possibly dimil1ish flooding possibilities in the area because it could become
a reservoir for the\vater ITlnoff tIle residents experienced. He eUlpllasized this assertion \vas his opinion, and
had not been scientifically proven.
Mr. Belcher ~xpressed concern that the aquacludecould 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 oppoliunity to provide evidence before a final decision \vas made.
Mr. Siekiel-Zdziellicki stated the danl \vould \vork both ways, and it was unknown how it would function,
making it difficult to determine if the flooding conflict could be rnil1imized.
Ms. Colbatll aske;dwhat recourse \vas available to FEMA if the aquaclude did 110t 11leet FEMA's standards.
Mr. 110\\'e reiterated tile Plamling COl11ll1issions criteria: was there a standard a.nd does the applicant meet
that standard?
MlNUTES- August 30, 2006
Joint l~ane County and Eugelle Planning C0111mission
Page 6
The Lane COUl1.ty Planning Com111ission took a stra\v vote on: Do rve believe theflooding
conflict can be minin1ized to nleet the FEMA standard? . The result of the straw vote was 2:4,
with Commissioners ~ecker, Kirkhanl,.Arkin ~ndSiekiel....Zdzienicki voting in oppositio11>>
The Eugene Planning Conlnlission took a straw vote the result of\vhich \\Tas 3:2, with
Comnlissioners Belcher and Colbatll voting in opposition.
o Atlricultural IntPacts
· Is there a conflict due to agricultural inlpacts?
TIle Eugene PlanningCornmission took a stra-vv vote on: Is there a cOl~flict due to
agricultural irnpacts? The result of \vhieh \vas 3 :2,\vith Comnlissioners Duncan and
La\vless voting in opposition.
The L.ane County Planning Comnlission took a stra\v vote the result of\vhich was 4:2,\vith
COll11uissioners Carmichael and Sullivan voting in opposition.
.
Is tl1ere factual infoYl1tation in the record tllat indicates conflict with agricultural
practices extends bej'olld 1,500feetfrolU the boundar}' oftlte expal1sion area?
Mr. Sullivan expressedconcem 011 ho,v to appropriately apply the requirements. He noted the Full Circle
Farm owner had testified he would be itl1pacted by the proposed action, and asked how far beyond 1,500 feet
should the cOnltuissions use, 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 \\las convincing evidel1.ce in the record that the conflicts extended
beyond 1,500 feet, the Planning Conlmission could tllenmake arecomnlendation that the inlpact area should
go. beyond 1,500 feet.
Mr. Sullivan stated his vote would i11clude tllat the applicant would 11ave to be directed to address the issues,
opining tllere must be otller property o,vners within a mile of the proposed action that \vould also be
impacted. Mr. SuUivall u.nderstood the Full Circle Farm concern was related to subsurface water>> He had
asked staff why a ,veIl was being use for residential purposes when public \V"ater was available, and been
advised that the action was permitted but 110t recoffinlended.
Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki stated. that the Eugene Tree Nursery had a \vell failure that had been attributed to both
aggregate excavation a.nd the well had simply filled up.
Ms. Arkin stated testimony in the record from Oregon State University Extension Service staff cited
COl1cems for dust raised by the nuning operation that vvould settle. on crops raising the cost of farming
practices for dust renloval, as \vell as some products from \vhich the dust could not effectively be removed.
Mr. Howe clarified tlle.stateme,nt under discussion: Is there convincinfl.factual inforn-tation 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 C011Ul1issioners were convinced by the infonnation that \vas 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 PlanningComrn.ission took a stra\\T vote on: Is there convincing factual
information in the record that indicates conflict lvith agricultural practices extends beyond
1,500 feet Iroln the boundary of the expansion area? The result wa.s unanimous, 0:5.
MINUTES- August 30, 2006
Joint Lane County and Eugene Plann111g Comnlission
Page 7
The Lane County Planning Commission took a stra\\' vote the result of\vhich was 2:4, with
Commissioners Becker, Kirkham, Cat1nichael, and Sullivan voting in opposition.
.
Can ti,e conflict due to agricultural practices be minimized tltrougll the
applicant's proposed conditions to a level that will not force a significant change
in accepted fart1l us nor increase the cost to conductfarlning significantly? The
agricultural practices standard is found under the provisions of ORS 215.296.
1\18. Colbath comlnented the person testified against the .proposal and \vho lived \vithin the 1,500 foot
expansion area \\las leasing the property. She a.sserted a lessee, as a third party, did not have the same level of
independence or authority to C0111TI1ent on the request
Mr. Belcher said there \vollld be no\vay to n1.itigate the conflict on. a farm that \vould not exist if the request
was approved.
Mr.. Sullivan stated the owner had a right to faml or not to faml the property~ Ifhe chooses not to farln the
property and chose to use G'Oal 5, Goal 5 took precedence over farm land if the owner could tlleet the
requirements. He a.dded \vhether it was a faul1 or not a farm \vas moot if the O\Vnernlet the PAPA
requirenlents since Goal 5 clearly superceded a fann.
Mr. Sullivan stated that tlle person who testified from OSU Extension Services was a good friend. He said it
\vas iUlportant to look at the broader picture, asserting that farm land was extremely important and very
valuable. He said the issue \vas not fann land versus Goal 5, but rather does the PAPA l11eet the
requirements necessary for that o\vner to be allowed to. use that property the ,vay s/he chooses to.
The Eugene Planning COlnmission took a stra\v vote on: Ca~1 the conflict due to agricultural
practices be minin1ized through the applicant's proposed conditions to a level that ltdll not
force; a significant change in accepted farm use nor increase the costoto con (luct farlning
significantly'? The agricultural practices standard isfound under the ]Jrovisions o./YORS
215.296. The result "las unanitnous, 0:5. ,.
Th.e Lane County Planning COl11lllission took a stra\v vote the result of which \vas 2:4, with
C0111mlssioners Becker, Kirkham, Carmichael, al1d Sullivan voting in opposition.
The Planning Commissions. took at recess from 7: 19 p.m. to 7:31 p.m.
Mr. Caullichael reconvened the con1ffiissions. He stated the goal was to conclude the Step 3 discussion and
proceed to Step 4.
Mr. H.o\ve stated the conllnissioners had successfully con1pleted Step 3, alld each knevv where their
respective commissions stood on making recomtnendatiotlS to the elected officials on tile various areas of
potential conflict Referring to the Goal 5 process flow chart previously distributed, Step 3 called for
detenllining if the tninin.g COllflict could be minimized.
Mr. :Ho\ve recalled on the issue of dust, both Planning Comt11issions were recQtnmending to the elected
officials that the dust conflict was..not luini111ized to tIle level that ,vould meet DEQ. and LRAP A standards
through the conditions proposed by the applicant
Mr. Howe 'said this was the tinle for each Platmitlg COmIl1ission to ll1akefinal recoIllinendatiolls to the
elected officials. He explained tllat if the comnussions felt an impact llad not been Ininimized, the applicant
MINUTES--- August 30, 2006
Joint Lane County and E.ugene PI aIming C01TI111.ission
Page 8
\vould need to go to Step 4. It \vould be appropriate at this t1nle if the Planlling Conlnussions chose to
reCOffilllend whether or not tIlis application met the requiren1ents for a Metro Plan a~endment
In response to ~1s. Colbath, Mr. Ho\ve said if the elected oftlcials felt the conflict 11ad been minimized there
was no need to go through the E,SEE analysis. Othef\vise, the applicant has the burden of going through the
ESEE analysis.
Mr. Sullivan said he felt compelled to explain to the Board of Comnlissioners \vh,y he was in the nunority on
every vote. It tnightbe appropriate for eac.h commissioner be given an opportunity to explain clearly \vhy
there \vere in nlajority support or majority opposition.
Ms. Colbath said under their process, if there are any con1illissioners ,vho \vere in the n1inority, a mitlority
report could be fonvarded to the Eugene City Council along with it's the Planning COll11llission's
reconunendati ons.
Mr. Carn1ichael noted consensus to follo\v Mr. Sullivan's suggestion.
Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki said the City of Eugene nlade a 111ajor mistake by not arulexillg but by al1o\ving
residential land along the future extraction area, rather than creating a 11eavy illdustrial to a light industrial to
a commercial to a multi fal11ily to a buffer zone these problems would not exist if a buffer zone had been
created. He said dust and water issues had not been adequately addressed, and he \vould deny the application
because he did not think the issues could be nlitigated.
Mr. Becker said it \vas difficult to support action that \vould move a mining operation v~lithin 150 feet of
residential properties, and he would vote to deny the approval of the application.
Mr. CaIToIl had nothing further to add.
Mr. Duncan \vould vvait until the minority report \vas published.
Ms. Colbath passed.
Mr. Sullivan said this was a difficult deliberation. 1"h1s \vas a larger issue than an aquifer or a question of
"rhetherflood waters could be present, and cited several points supporting his position:
. The applicant clearly qualified as a PAP A as provided by L.CDC. The property \vas contiguous to an
existing, approved sand and gravel operations. Goal 5 resources \vould be protected and future
approval \vould be subject to DOGAMI regulations in accordance with the Metro Plan.
. Many of the mi1limizations proposed would be measured only after construction began. lIe said he
would support verification on conditions of approval by authorized authorities.
. State Goal 9, economic development, relied on this critical component for environn1ental and
economic developnlellt.
. The applicant listened to the opponents, and had nlade SOHle of the requested changes.
. This \vas 'an issue of balance, but the balance had to do with Goal 5, that stated when there \vas a
conflict that could be nlinimized then Goal 5 superseded agricultural land.
. The L,ane C~oullty cOInprehellsive plan stated that the county was required to protec.t aggregate
deposits from encroachment The applicaIlt did not encroach upon the residential area; rather, the
residential area, through no fault of the residents, had encroached upon a very valuable GoalS
resource that \vas needed in this area for both environmental and agricultural purposes.
. Randy Moore, fro111 the responsible enforcenlent agency, had assured the COI1ll11ission in \vriting that
if the application \vas approved by the Board of COl11ffiissioners and the Eugene City Council, he
MINUTES- August 30, 2006
Joint Lane County and Eugene Planning C01l1mission
Page 9
would look at the plan to ensure that it was adequate, and ensured that no off site impacts \vould
affect either the floodplain or ground\vater. The letter had been entered into the record.
· Other conflicts \vould be miniInized by the. applicant and those copflicts \\'ould be monitored and
authorized by DEQ through LRAP A and LCDC.
For those reasons, Mr. Sullivan was strongly in support of fonvarding this to the elected officials v>lho \vould
approve or disapprove, and if they disapproved, vvould get the ESEE undenvay.
Mr. Belc,her, although conflicted, \vas encouraged by the fact that issues had been raised for consideration by
the elected officials.
Ms. Arkin said aggregate and fann land is Goal 5 resources. There was 110t convincing evidel1ce in the
record that the resource site was significant She \vas concerned about health impacts StIch as dust leading to
asthn1u and lung disease on school children and the children who lived in the nearby residences. The
applicant had not provided sufficient n10deling to del110nstrate 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 fun.ding and staffil1g to do so. She asserted the application did not meet the
criteria to allow nlining.
Ms. Kirkham said it "vas her responsibility as a Planning Commissioner to decide if the application
convinced her 100 percent that they had met the criteria. l\lthough there \\'ere ulany places \vhere this
application did convince her, she had concerns about dust and "'later. She wanted the county cOll1missioners
to look at dust, groundwater, vvetlands and flooding.
Mr. La\vless said the Plamling Conunissions \\Tere in the position ofpretel1di11g to know about things they
kne\v nothing about. He expressed conflicted feelings due to the social, econolnicand civic nature of our
land use, and goals and rules that required compact gro\Yth and reduction of travel. He agreed this was a
matter of balance. He hoped that the responsible nlonitoring agencies \vould be able to fulfilltheir
responsibilities. He was convinced the applicant would comply ","ith applicable regulations. He said he
\vollld support nloving this for\vard to the elected officials.
(;oncluding the discussion,. Mr. Canllichael thanked the applicant for their patience; the citizens involved in
the opposition who offered articulate, polite, and compelling comnlents; the Lane County and Eugene
Planning COll11llissions for "llangingin there" for a long period oftinle,and doing tlleir hOllle\Vork to reach
reasonable conclusions to fonvard to the elected officials. He stated Mr..Sul1ivan articulated 11is feelings,
wlaile Ms. Arkin offered thoughtful opposing points. Mr~ Cannichael opined there \vas 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 \vhatever mitigating fonns to ensure the safety and
well. being of the people \vho moved close to that nuning operation. He expressed. optimism that as the
elected officials proceeded they \vould take the cOlnnlissioners' comnlents 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 Comtnission on the question Do lve believe the dust conflict can be minl1nized to a le~Jel
that lneets DEQ and LRAPA standards through the conditions shovvn in attachlnent 2? "vas sho\vn as 3 yes 2
no., while the infonnation in the packet for today's meeting \vas corrected to 2 yes 3 no.
Ms. Colbath called for the motion.
Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Lavvless, 1110ved to recomn1end to the Eugene
City Council that the Planning Commission felt the PAPA information \vas
adequate and that the resource "vas significant. All conflicts \vere able to be
ntinitnized by.the applicant except the dust conflict, \vhich the PI aIming
MINUTES---- August 30, 2006
Joint Lane County and Eugene Planning Commission
Page 10
Commission majority did not believe could be mininlized to an acceptable
level. The motion passed, ullanimously, 5:0.
In response to a question from Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki, Mr. Howe stated that the Lane County Planning
COnl111ission needed to address the variance issue in its motion to provide direction to the Lane County Board
of C01l11nissioneJ's.
1'he L,ane C:ounty Planning COl1unissioll took a recess fronl 8:00 p.m. to 8:05 p.m.
M.r. Canl1ichael, seconded by Ms. Kirkham, moved to recomnlend to the
Lane County Board of Conlrnissioners that the Planning C0111ffiission felt
the PAPA information \vas adequate al1d that the resource was not
significant. Lal1e County Plalming Comnlission did not find that the
conflicts witll dust, groundwater, \vetlands and flooding were minimized and
therefore could 110t recomnlend approval witIlout an ESEE allalysis.
Ms. Arkill stated the Plannitlg Com111ission never discussed \vhether or not it could approve tlle 1110t10n \vith
approval'of all ESEE analysis.
Followin,g a brief discussion, M:r. Cannichael \vithdre\v the motion.
Ms. Arkin, secol1ded by Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki, 1110ved to recommend to the
Lane County Board of Commissiol;.lers that the Planning Commission felt
the PAP A infornlatiol1 \vas adequate and that the resource \vas not
significant In addition, tIle Lane County PlannitlgComn1ission did not find
that the COllflicts with dust, groundwater, \vetlands and flooding could be
Inininlized to an acceptable level and therefore cannot recoffil11end approval
of the application.
Mr. Sullivan said he would vote against the 1110tion. Addressing the members of the public ir! attendance, he
said \vhile he often spoke sternly and in'a straightforward manner, he had a great deal of compassion for the
residel1ts, in that he faced mall)' of ' the san1e challenges. He \vas confident that the Eugene City Council and
Lane County Board of Conlffiissiol1ers would be highly compassionate to\vards the residents of the area to
find balance in their decision. He applauded the residents for their patience, courte-sy and respectful
behavior.
The n10tion passed 4:2, with Comnlissioners Calwichael and Sullivan in
opposition.
Mr. Belcller tllanked the Lane County Planning Comlnission for tlleir efforts throughout this difficult
process.
Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki said it was good to have a different perspective brought forth by the Eugene Planning
C:olnnlission on the issue. He added tllat the variance issue still needed to be discussed prior to the LCBCC
meeting.
Mr. Ho\ve said stafflleard the frustration expressed by tIle lay menlbers of the Plaruling Commission
regarding their lack of experienc.e and expertise. He adde.d it \vas 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 infoflllation. He'added the LCBCC were not technical experts either, but relied upon the lay
body to nlake recoml11endations that \vould help them as they \vorked their \vay through the process. He
comnlended the con1ffiissioners for their work 011 the issue.
MINUTES- August 30, 2006
Joint Lane County and E.ugene Planning COlnnliss1on
Page 11
Ms. Colbath explained that the Eugene Plann_jng (~ommission denied approval based on non-mitigatitlg
factors and based its approval 011 the 150 foot variance being approved.
Ms. Colbath adjourned the Eugene Planning Commission 111eeting at 8: 15 p.1l1.
The Lane County Plallning COmtllission took a brief one minute recess.
Mr. Carmichael said t\\'o issues needed to be addressed, that of a zone change request and the 1,500 foot
setback.
~lr. Ho\ve explained that because of\vhere the Planning C:0111nlission ended up on the post acknovvledgenlent
plan amendment, PAPA, the Plaluling Conlmission \vas reconunending that the applicant had not met the
requirenlcnts for that, therefore, the Planning COmtl1ission could not proceed \vith the zone change and the
varIance.
Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki said the setback \vas like sacred land that served as a buffer zone-"don't 111ess \\'ith."
The proposal to put the aquaclude in the setback \vas classified as construction by (~ounty Counsel, and
construction should not be in the setback. lIe disagreed vvith the applicant that the aquaclude could be and
should be in the setback. He said the UGB \vould gradually expand and it \vould be a mistake to minimize
the setback where it adjoi11ed the tree nursery. He opposed a variance from the setback.
In response to Ms. Arkin, Mr. Becker said the Plamlmg Conlmission had made a recommendation in
opposition to the zone change, thus the 'variance was a 11100t point.
Mr. Ho\"ve suggested that the Planning Commission detemlined that as a result of the recomnlendation of the
PAPA not meeting the Metro Plan requirel11ents, the application for the zone change and the setback varial1ce
were not appropriate to be dealt with at this time.
Mr. Carmichael asked if the Planning COl11ll1ission \vas ,vining to accept _Mr" Howe's statement as a motion.
Mr. Dignam proposed accepting Mr. Ho\ve's staten lent as a motion. ivfr.
Becker seconded the 1110t10n. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0.
Mr. Carmichael said the next meeting ,vould take place on at 5:00 p.m. 011 Tuesday, Septelnber 5, 2006.
Mr. Carmichael adjourned the ~al1e County PIanningConunission at 8:23 p.ll1.
(Recorded by Linda Henry)
nl: \2006\lane county1dand managetnent division \planning comnlission \lcpc060830.doc
MIN-UTES- August 30, 2006
Joint Lane County and Eugene Planning C0l111nission
Page 12
Attorne\IS and
Counselors at La\v
!istablish(?tI191{)
, .:id vi c {'
lu ;{f {'onlple,\" H(irlit
200 FORUM BUILDING
777 I-ligh Street
Eugene~ ()regon
97401-2782
PHONE
541 686-9160
FAX
541 343-8693
vV\iVVV .eugene-Ia,,, .conl
Jam.esK. (:00n8
John C;. (:ox
[)ouglas 1\1. [)uPriest
Frank C:. Gibson
Stephen j\. Hutchinson
1~.Bradley Ijtchfield
Zack P. JVlittge
~rhomas ~1. Orr
\Villianl H. Sherlock
Pat.rick L. Stevens
l\f~lrk .lVI. \\liUianlS
ATTACIIMENTG
PAZC Q..,5 -bl~.l
ORD \PA J ~q
Date .. ) -~- 0]
January 22, 2007 Exhibit No. .. .. ~<t l . .. ..
VIA HAND DELIVERY
I.Jal1e COll11t)1 Board of CC)il1mission.ers
a11d Ellgyene CityCc)u.11cil
c ..
c/o Stepllartie SClltllz, IJla1111.er
Lal1e County LaI1d ~/lanagelne11t ~Di\risi()n
125 E. 8th l\ \len.ue
Etlgen.e, ()R 974111
Re:
Pi\. 05-6151/Delta Sand and Gravel Plan Alnelldluent/Rezol1e
Ollr Clients: Joel & Tllerese Narva
Otlr I:;ile Nc). 6274/9064/\.
Dear Cc)mnlissiol1ers and CO.Llncilpersons:,
vVe submit this letter 011 behalf of our clients Joel al1d rr11eresa Nar\'a.
A. ADDITIONALE\lIDENCE OF DUST Il\!{p J-\CTS.
On Decelnber 12, 2006, City Councilmember Betty! rra)rlor. requested
.il1for111atiol1 frol11 the Lal1e Regiol1al Air Protecti.ol1 "t\.geI1cy (LRAP A)
regarding th.e nurnber of comf)lail1ts al1d citations tllat Delta 11as received.
~rherespoll.se from. I...JRi\P A provides valttable irtformation regarding dllst
ilnpacts froIn Delta 011 sllrroul1ding neighborhoods and tile limited respol1se
tllat thc)se c()lnplai11ts gel1erall}T receive. Ul1forttlnatel}', LRAP Af s reSp()flSe
also te11l1S to LlJl.derstate t11e extent of tIle problel11, botll by! liln~ting its re\lievv
e)f pric)[ C()111plai11ts tCJ J a11tlar)1 c)f 2000, an.d. by' failil1g tC) aCC()UJlt f()r all
CC)ll1f-11aiI1.ts filecl agaiIl.st Delta San.d all.d Gravel tl1ereafter.
1. -LI~l\P j\ C:c)mplail1ts Reflect That Dust Im.pacts fron1 t11eExisti11g
IJit i\re Not Q1IClIltifiecli\.11d rrhat Erlforcelne11tIs Unreliable.
COl1trary to applica.l1t's represerltatiorls tllat .Delta "Delta has a proven
track record of cOlnpliallce ()\7er tIle life of itsI.JRAP~t\ perlnits,1f Itel11 No. 68;
Cc)ver letter frC)nl Steve C()r11aCcllia/ p. 4 (en1p11asis added), the thirteen
COl11plai11ts l-lrovidell by LR~A.P A ftlrther demOl1strate that Delta has a pro\ren
track record of 11a\lillg sLtbstantial dust inlpacts on SltrrOltndi11g
11eigl1borlloods even froll1 its relativel)' isolated current locatio11. In fact, just
last l\/larch, Iv1ary Pon.d, a neigh.bar of the pit was so concerned abOltt the
alll.0unt of dtlst s11e \,\'a5 seeiIlg fronl the existi.Ilg operations that she
COl1tacted LRt\I;i\ regardil1g possible health effects:
Lane County' Board of Commissioners
and Eugene Cit)r Council
c/o Stephanie Schl.ilz, Plal111er
J antlarv 22, 2()07
Page i' of 9
IJ1vly~ htt slJ and. a11d I 11a\Te bee11 11()ticil1g a large increase in dttst
build-up ill our home, to the point that I think it is ttnhealthyto
li,re in. I wipe nlY COtlllter tops evet)1 dayalld by the next day I
can already see a gooli amount of dust build-up.1I C()InplaiIltNc).
13748 (Emph.asis added).
It Inllst LIe €111pllasized tl1at this c()lnpla.int related 0111)1 to 'lisible anl0ltnts of
d.llSt. It is literaH.y ilnpossiL)le to kI10vV 'vvllat dose of ilT\lisible, and harlnful
ill11alable particulate matter that the complail1ant and llt!1ers arOUl1d her were
receivi11g fronl tIle activities i11 tIle pit.
Moreover, ratl1er than conduct an investigatioll to deterluine vvhetI1er
t11e pit \tvas actually. producillg amOu11ts al1d t)rpes of dtlst \l\Thich vvere
actually harmful to su.rr(}u.ndillg propert}r o\l\rners, LRAP A representatives
attell1pted to mi11inlize 1\;1r8. POll(l'S concerns. LRAP A represelltative Tonl
Freelna11 first appears to qtlestiol1 vvhether Ivlrs. Rond has a11}' frame of
referellce tC) base her clailn tl1at there l1as beell a "large dust build up" given
that slle 11ad apIJarentl)T anl:? recently 11loved illtO tIle area. !vir. Freeluan
\/Ve1lt 011 tC) indicate that, althougl1 IIsmaller [dust] particles might be luore of a
prot) 1 ern. for sonle people/fI the visible .dtlSt tl1at Mrs. PC)lld and her fanlily V\las
experiencing v\Tas 'Iprabably be classified as a "n.uisan.ce" du.st, as opposed to
a healtll risk." Complaint No. 13748 (En1p11asis ad.ded)~
\Vllat is renlarkable abC)tlt this c()rrespon.dence is tile fact tllat Ivfr.
Freema11 appears to be \/villing tC) render an opinion 011 the health effects of
tl1e existirtg operatiollvvithout actttally. verif:yillg or }Jerfofl11i!1g all)l testing to
determine if t11ere is a l1ealt11 h.aza.rd. Botl1 .DEQ- arid LRAPA regulations
place stri11gellt restrictio11S on tIle amOtl11t of i11vrisil)le dtlSt - onl.y nlicrons 111
size - that l1lay be produ.ced. b:y the operatio11. III fact tvfr. Freenla11 ev'en
aCkl1Cyvvledges tllat tllese i1sn1aller particles" pose a il10re significal1t l1ealth
risk. '~{et,f it appears t11at 11e 0111)' "\\!ellt by Delta" t() see if e\ler}1tIlillg looked
all rig11t.Conlplail1t No. 13748. Dri\lil1g by aI1 ()peratiC)Il to detern1il1e if tIle
illvisible partiCtllate nlatter is \\rithin safe limits is not an adequate protection
of tIle public 11ealtl1.
U11fc)rtlll1atel:y/ tIlis is r1C1t an isolated incidel1t. ()f tIle 13 conlplail1ts
prtJvided l-)yLRAI)~l\, none reflect th.at LRt\Pl\ t:tndertook testing to \lerify
that Delta vvas cOllfor11ling to applicable DEQ al1.d LRAP f\ stal1dards for
particlllate dtlst. In fact, o11ly h,v() of th.e otller cOlnplai11ts reflect t11at
investigators forL.Rf\P j\ actually 'vvel1t to locatiol1.See Complaint No. 8852 &
13041. Five of the complaints reflect that LRAP A took no action
''''}la.tsoever. See Complaint No. 8225, 8371, 9023, 13132, & 13152. For
i11stal1ce, on Septelnber 7, 2001, a cOlnplai11a11t stated tllat:
Larte COUllty Board of Commissioners
and Ellge11e Cit)! Council
c/ 0 StephanieScl1ulz, f)lallller
J a1111ary' 22, 2007
Page 3 of 9
IIt}1.ere vvas so 111 llC 11 dust blo\ving across tIle road alld il1tO
residences early Tllursday. afternoon (noon to 2pm) tllat it
appears that Delta "has backed off on tlleir watering." He said
that \\l11en h.e vvas on the 11ig11v'vay yesterda)r tllere was so nluch
dllstblovvil1g arC)Ul1d it lool<e(l like a farlner lvas plowing the field.
11ext to the road.l! C:on1plaint No. 8371 (Emphasis added)
rf11at Con1plaint fC)rn1 reflects that LRAPA took no actioll. '-rhis apparent
failure tl) respc)nd ttl lu<)re tllaIl a tllird of the conlplaillts presellted, thrl)vVS
intc) qtlestion NIr. Rut111S prior testilnony that iI[o]ne of tile highest priorities
of I.JRr\Pi\ is reSpC)11ding to citize11 cOluplai11ts." Iten1 No. 240; Ex. 217. In' an}T
case, regardless ()fLRAP A's priorities, it forcefully demonstrates that the
In.ere existellce of an eI1forcement body like I.JRi\P A does 110t gu.arantee that
bllsil1esses v~lithin L~t\P A' s jurisdictioll conforn1 to all applicable air qualit)r
sta:t1dards.
Ill. fact, LI~L\PAf s most COffiln011 actiol1 t1PC)11 recei'\le a complaiIlt
appears to be merely 11:1ake telepllo11e or e-mail COl1tact.IIlabc)tlt 11alf ()f the
cases presented by! LRAP.it\f LRAPA did 110tcolltact Delta but OIlly the
c()Inplailla11t. rr11ese COl1.tacts appear tC) be Inerel}T a v'va:y to aSStlage tl1eir
COl1.Cer11S vvitll()tlt LRt\I),4.t\ taki11g allY action. ~A. c()mmc)n th.read in tllese
discussions appears t() be that LRAP A is \lvorking vvith Delta to address tIle
Complaints CC1ncerllS. For i11stance, 011 Oct()ber 10, 2001 'LRAP A spoke \l\ritll a
representativTe of a concerned grOtlp from the \VillaInette Oaks Retirenle11t
Cellter ab()llt the, II COIlstal1t dtlSti.11g" tlle:y v\lere receiving from Delta's
operation. Complaint No. 8490. At tllat time LRAP A assured tIle vVillan1ette
Oaks represerltative tllat the)l '\rvere u\vork[ing] V\T[ith.] Delta t() tryl a11d
nlillill1ize their fugitives; vvateli.ng )Tard - paving road.1f Id. Hovveverl more
thall four years later, .1\lr. Freeman told 1\{rs. POl1d, in reSp()11Se to I1er
concerllS ab(lLlt her faI11il}T's healtll, t}lat LRAP A was still "currently workillg
,,,1:ith Delta" t() resolv:re partiCtllate 111atter issues tllrOtlgh 'vvatering an.d street
cleanil1g. COluplaillt No. 13748.
There are also illstal1ces \!vhere LRAI)~t\. n1akes COl1tact \\lith Delta t()
address neigh-borhood complaints. See COl11plai11t No. 8872, 9120 & 10091.
I1ov~re,\;rer, tIle extcl1t of these COl1tacts are unclear. r-rlley appear to reflect a
vvillill.g11.eSS tC) IJer111it Delta tC) police its OVVI1 llperatiol1s. Cc)mplail1t Nc). 9120
reflects t11at \l\l}1€Il LRAPi\ v'vas COl1tacted about tr'Llcks smoking so badl~yl'~y()u'
call't see t11e cab of tIle truck cl[r] oIl-canling traffic'l LRAP A "[n]otified
George Staples ([,I) Delta of Conlplaint - No other action.fI Likevvise, \vhen a
COll1.plaill.a11t called regardil1g Delta's failure to COlldltCt regular vvatering
acti'lities 011 a 20 acre field, the extent of LRAP A' s il1volvTement appears to
llave been lin1ited to discussi11g tl)e matter "vitI1 Delta. Complail1t No. 10091.
Lal1e COU11ty "Board of COlnmissiol1ers
and Ellgene Cit;l Council
c/ 0 Stephallie Sc11ulz, Planrler
Jallllary 22, 2007
IJage 4 ()f 9
:[\/!c)reoverl LRA.P A has eve11 perl11itteLi Delta to explain-a'\lvay' infractio11s
vvithout an.)! appare11t il1'lestigatio11 or fttrther actiC)11. COlnplaint No. 8872
(IIt.arge al11cnlI1ts ()f t1 ust frCH11 crllshing acti \rities. . .. Cllec.ked vvi th Delta, 'Ille)l
had mechanicallJrc)blell1s.. . ")
i\l-lf)licant relies (lIt tl1e mere eXlstel1ce of LRl\.Pl~ tC) clain1 that it
\Ivill adJlere tC) DEQ alldL.Rl\l) A standards, a11d tC) n1ake IIp for the fact
th.at it has failed tC) prl1\riLie th.e l1eCeSSar)l e\lide11ce deIllonstratillg tllat its
existil1g tlperatit)n cOl1fornls t() tl1ese sta11dards ()r that its proposed
operati()n \:\tc)tlld do se). J--I()vvever, as demo11.strated. abO\le and reflected ill
the catalogue of cOlnplail1ts provided b~y LRA.P AI tIle City a11d COltnt}l
~h()tlld 110t rely ()n LRAPi\' as tll.eir proxy',
LRAP A 11as failed to C011d.tlCt testing or mon.itoring to ensure that
neighbor's are not recei\Tillg substalltial doses of harmful iIlhalable
partiCtllate Inatter frC)ffi tIle Delta's existing O}lerat1C)n despite clllnplaillts
regarding healt11 effects. Indeec1, LRAP A appears to l13\re taken no action
tln. nlore thaI1 a tllird e)f tIle c()lnplail1ts from l1eig111Jors of the existing
developlne11t. \I\litll regard to t11c)se ha11dful of complaillts that it does act
()11, .LRi\Pi\ eitl1er attelnpts tC) explain-av\t~ay the prol)leln or relies on Delta
toad.dress its crvvn problems. It does not address conlpliance vvith eitl1er
its C)'\t\}11 stalldartis or tll()Se ().f the DEQ e\'en \'v11en tllese issues are
l1rollght t() its attentiC)11 11:/ con1plaillants.
As a reslllt,LRi\Pi\ flvv()rks \.vithlf Delta oI11argely the saIne issu.es
time-and-again \:\rithOttt reaching a resolution, al1.d vvhile failillg tC1 address
pc)terltiall)! serious public health iSSltes. .
It is little v'vonder t11atApplicant \1\ris11es tC) cl1ntin.ue rel)'illg 011.
LRi\,Pi\'S oversight 110\:'\1 t11at it is proposin.g to relocate into the heart of a
largo .elyl residential area. IJ1d.eed, it takes ll() 'b"-reatinl.agi11atiol1 tC)
~ ~ ~
al1ticipate tIle host ()f complaiI1ts that\\lill reCei\le norespc)nse, as Ule dllst
fr()m i\llplicartt's to})sc)il strippill.g blc}vvs ilTto tIle residences C)rU y a fev'v
hll11dreti feet a'vva}r. See Complaint No. 8371. I11deed, (J11e ca11 almost
anticipate IJRi\P./\ ad\t'isi11g neig11110rs that t11ere is nc) health: risk, e\ren. as
it fails t<'1 c()nduct testing to ellsure t11at the P1\lI 2.5 arld PI\ll 10 staIldards
are 110t \riolated, an.d tl1at it is still vvorki11g vvitl1 the i\pplicant to s()lve the
SalTI.e prol-')lelTIs. See COluplaint No. 13748. 1'11is is 11ot.ll1itigation, and it is
nC)\tvhere n.ear substaI1tial ev~jdel1.Ce delTIOllstrating the al)Sel1Ce of a
1 Tvvo large parcels to tIle north are not predOlninantly reside11tial. One is a large
area of agricultural property tllat vvould stand to receive substalltial dust frOITI
i\pplic311t'S relocated haul road alolle. The otller is o\l\rned by' Euge1.1e'S 4J 5c11001
District.
Lan.e COUl1ty Board of Comnlissiol1ers
and Eugen.e City' COUllCil
c/o Step11anieScllulz, Plal1ner
JanLlary 221 2()07
Page 5 of 9
conflict. i-\cc()rdil1gl)l, as t11ere is insllfficient e\ridellce to Stlpport approval
()f t11.ls ap.pIicatic)1l its shc)tllli lJe (Jellied.
2. LRAP A Failed to I'rovide All COlnplaints tCl COllncilmelnl1er
T ajrlc}r.
~ 111 adcliti(}n to tIle dust inlpacts appare11t fr()ln the con1pla.illts t11at
LRAF)/\ sublnitted tllere a variety ofcil1st impacts tll.at are n()t apparel1t
()eCallSe LI~I\P.f\ failed to for\/vard the applicable c()ulplaints. In particular,
LRl-\I-> A .Directc)r rvlerlY11 Hougll stated that:
IIJaIluar:y I, 20()O t() preseIlt, LRAPi\ received 13 complaillts
regarding Delta Sal1d&Gravel.1l
There are t\l\l() problems \/vitI1 tllis statement. First, it is ul1true, and secoIl.d it
is Il()t fully respol1si've to COtlncilnlenlber l"'a)llor' s reqllest.
1"11ere are at least tllree additional complail1ts tllat were filed against
Delta San.d and Gravel for tile tinle period betvveel1 Jantlar}! 1, 200() al1d tIle
presellt. (I'hese iI1Cltlde C0111plai11t 10088 011 SepteIllber29, 2003:
IiC()JlstrllctiOtl gOill,g 011 at N. 30th llear Gc)()d \\7i11, and t11ere is lots
of dust, making it difficult for nle to breathe. They should be
"vatering, but they are not.1f2 (Erhp}lasis added);
Cc)mplail1t 1()()92 ()n SCIJten1.ber 30, 2003:
/I COllstrllctioll g()il1g ()11 a.tN. 30th l1ear Good 'lViII, and tllere is l()ts
()f d.tlst nlaking it difficult for nle to breathe. Th.ey sllouldbe
"vatering, bllt they are not. Didl1't call yester<.iayr btlt k1l0VVS Ius
neighbors did." (El11p11asis added);
i\11d COl11plai11t 9824 ()11 Jtll)l 19, 2003:
i./Delta S & G is doirlg r()ad constrllcti()ll pr()ject (J11 IrviIlgti.Oll. Drive
[11lear tlleN()rtll\:vest Expressvvay. 1-'he complail1arlt sa:ys tIle
2 AJ.-.1l-1licant 111ay arguel as it has before, th.at this is all offsite violation that does 110t
count. Hovvever, Applicarlt has yet to preserlt a prirtcipled reason \-vhy the City arld
Co Llnty .sllc)"uld trust it to adllere to LRAP,t~ and DEQ stant.iards on site, vV11€11 it
violates tllese stal1dards offsite. Ivforeover, given the location of tlle existing
o}Jeration, t11e violatiollS 1Ioted 011 offsite projects (by persolls vvho are 110t used to
signific311t levels of dust in the air) probably paint a good picture of \-,\that area
resilie11ts are gOi11g to experie11ce once the operation il10'les a half-luile closer t() t11eir
11on1es.
Lane COUllt)T 'Board l)f C()mmissioners
and Etlgel1.e Cit~yCourlcil
c/o Stephanie.Schulz,Pla1111er
J allllary 22, 2()07
IJao-e 6 of 9
b
OlVller of Delta S& G as v,vell as the rt)ad construction ellgineer,
assttred the residellts tllat the}T lVOllld be applyillg ,vater to the
site to l(eep tIle dust liolvn. This has not been dOlle, and tIle dllst
is very bad. The cOlnplainant aIld her 11tlSband both 11ave COPD,
alld Iler llusband lIas throat cancer. TIle OIlly \,vaterbeing applied
to tIle street in front of their home is '\-"hat her 1111sband is
applying lvith a garden hose. Please dl) sOfi1ctll.in.g ab(}ut tIlis."
(EmI)hasis added.).
LRAPr\ took no actioll ()11 tIlese COll1plaints apart froIll calling Delta.' No
testin.g "\lvas u.l1dertake11, no site visit made, and no 110tice of violation 'vvas
issLleci or ()tll.cr en.fC)rCeluel1t actil)11 take11. ~rl1ere is an iI1dicatiC)11 in Complaint
9824, that 'Delta. \/vouldbu)T the C011lplainal1ts a sprinkler.
TIlis track record of failLlre to v'vater titne-aI1d-agai11 a11d vvith()ut
C()11Se(lueIl.Ce, sll()u.ld not be played ()llt ill the residential n.eighbc)rhoods
arOU.1l.Ll the r)foposed. expa11sioll area, especially \/vh.ere, as here, persons - the
elderl)t, tlle very' yrc)ung, al1d persons "\tvith respiratc)rYT distress - stand to be so
severely! iJl1pacted b~y Applicant's failtlfe to conduct its OIlly proposed
mitigatic)n - \Vateril1g. J-t\pp1.icant can, and prolJabl)T vvilt argue tl1at t11is tinle
it really' IneaI1S it, this tilne it ,<viII actu.all ~y vvater. III all1ikelill()od, hOv\le'ler, it
il1ade sin1ilar aSStlra.!l.Ces to the rrreI1ts (tl1e couple \lvith C11ronic Obstructive
PUlm()11ar~y Disease alld tllroat cancer fron1 Complaint 9824), a.nd I1earljy
residel1ts ()f tIle propc)sed expa11sioI1 should 110t be expected or required to
have spril1klers 011 th,eir property to makeup for Applicant's failure to
c{)nduct its prolnised mitigation, agai11.
i\11()ther aspect of LRAP 1~1 S respon.se tC) C()uncilmelnLler Taylor that is
ctlric)L1S is its failllre to i11clude arty COlllplail1ts prior to Ja11uary 1, 2000.
C:C)UI1Cillne:rl1.ber 'T'aylor does n.()t appear to h.ave lilnited 11er request to that
till1efralne, al1d tIlis excl udes at least nit1e ()ther COIn plail1ts, i11Cludi11g a
~Jeti tic)n sigIled by ()\ler 20 resideJlts \vl1() Ov\Tl1ed prc)perty mi1.eor lTIOre .
avva}T fraIn Delta Sal1d a11d Gra\Tel bllt v\'ere still experiellcillg Sllbstal1tial dust
i:rn.pacts. Th.ese C()11ll-11aillts il1.clu.de:
Conlplaint No.
5117
5186
5238
5500
6008
6315
6316
26308
Date
6/3/96
7/22/96
9/4/96
6/10/97'
8/20/98
6/11/99
6/11/99
3/16/99
Conlplaint
Dust/Failure t() \t\later
Silt on Di\tisiol1 Avenue
Dust Very Bad
Track()llt
Horne Coverecl vvi th Dust
Failure to \VaterRoad\vay
Failure toV\7ater Roadvvay
Dtlst (Petition to Cit)r of
Larle Countvr Board of COlnluissiol1ers
. and EugenJe City Council
e/t) Stephanie SCllUlz1 PlallIler
J a11uary 221 20117
.Page 7 ()f 9
(S489
9/28/99
ELlgene Public \\Torks)
Trackottt and DLlst
These complaints serve to further illustrate that Applicant's proven
track record is 110t (Hle ()f a(illerel1ce to DEQ a11<.-1 'L.RAPi\ standards, but
rather a track record of adverse dust impacts. Expanding the existing
operati()11 in.tc) an area adjacerlt t() residel1tial uses 011 th.e south aJld vvest!
\/voulti 0111)/ ser\re to lna'ke a bad sittlatiol1 vvorse arld place more neighbors
at risk. i\pplicarlt d()es n.ot e'/e11 acknovvledge these adverse ilnpacts,
mtlcll. less del11011st.rate that tIle)l call be n1itigateci. Its application S110111d.
be denied.
3. Delta's Experts Have 'Docun1ellted TIle Exte11t To vVhich
SUlnITI.er v\Tinds \\rillDirect Dllst Front TIle Expa11ded Operatiol1
50111]1 ilTtoResidential Areas! Incltldillg vVl1ere The Narvas i\nd
Th.eir. NeigI1bc)rs Ij'le. TIle i\chlUI IITllJact BOlll1dary For.Dllst Is
lv1uch Greater]~haI1 1,500 Feet.
r'\pparelltly 11ecallse Inal1Y reside.nces are located vvest ()f the
pr()})()sed expa11Si()Il siter Delta's experts have illsisted that dust will110t be
a prcJ'ble11l f()r Delta's l1eigll11lJrs because, d.ming' tIle driest al1d dllstiest
part ()f tITe )Tearf\'Vill.ds are precic)min.ately from the D.ortl1. r-rhis is of little
or 110 CC)lufort tC) Otlf clients, th.e Narvas, ()I" t11eir ilnITI.ediate neigl1bors,
"'Alh() Ii "\le s()ttth of Delta's }1I'lJposed expa11Sic}n area.
Residellces ill the Beaver Lan.e area are SC1tltJl of the current pit. rrhe
proposed expan.sicin area vvould 1110ve the pit '\-vest. It v\rOllld create a
,// pellill.sulalf of gra'lel. rnini11g, "\\ri tho mallY InC)re residences bein.g dlle
SOLlth ()f Delta's lui11illg activities tllall bef()re. HOll1es north an.d south (}f
I--Itln.saker La11e, ()11 streets StlcIl as Echo Lane (vv11ere tIle Narvas live), Tazt
Taitc), Gerald,R()ssr Hele11 al1d i\tltu.n1n,\V(}Llld, accordil1g to Delta's
experts" be stlbject tC) \\rin.ds fron1 the 11()rth, cOlnillg across the expa11Si()Il.
area, frOll1 tC) 807~) ()f tIle tinl.e dtlriIlg the Stlillmer.
'Delta a.lso insists that its expal1ded pit operati()n vvottld have no
significallt ill1pacts il10re tllan 1/500 beyo11d t11e.i.r property's bC)Ulldar)T.
Please 110te that, gi\rCl1 t11e location and s11ape of the expa11sion area, the
pr()p()sed 1/500 feet inlpact bOll11dary' d()cs not even extend soutl1 as far as
Divisic)n l\ \'en11.e.
Yet cOfl1plai11ts made to LRAP A delnonstrate tllat residents livil1g
3,000 l)r more feet a\,vay 11ave conlplained about dust frani Delta" s
operatio11s. rrhese iIl.cltlcie pers()n.s residing soutll of Belt Lille Road, Ilear
Ov\TOSSO Dri\lC (e.g., CC)I-1ping, Skip and CarOl)111) and at v\Tillall1ette Oaks
Lal1C COU11t)" B()ard ()f COIUl11issiollerS
and Eugene Cityr COUI1Cil
c/ 0 StephaIlie Schulz, Plal1ner
J aIltlar}' 22, 2007
Page 8 of 9
(near lvlarist High School). Please see the enclosed map Sllovving the
lc)catic)11 of those reportillg dust prc)blems CatlSetl by Delta's ()peratio11.
Sc)me complaints are rece11t. Otller c()nlplaiI1ts illdicate tl1at tlle dtlst v\'as
v\!()fSe \-\TheIl Delta vvas excavating t11e SOLlthvvest caf1ler of its Cllrrent site.
Si11ce .Delta 11as ()nl~y exaluin.cci dtlst issues \ivitlli!l 1,500 feet ()f the
expallSic)11 area, its a11alysis fails to ad(iress liemtlIlstrated dllst iI11pacts tC)
residertces locatedn1uc11 furtller a\v"ayT. Delta/s application. s110tlld be
dell.ied.
B. NOISE Is A SERIOUS ISSUE THA1~ DELTA'S ANALYSIS FAlLS
ADEQUATELY To ADDRESS. DELTA'S NOISE ANALYSIS UNDERSTATES
N OI.SE LE\'ELS IN A VARIETY OF WAYS.
The handvvrittel1 illus trati. OIlS prepared by the oppC)n.e11t/s acoustic
e:rlgil1eer Art Noxonj and SUbluitted earlier tllls mOl1tll (]al1u.a:r)T) illtlstrate
a series ().f serious defects i11 Delta Sand and Grav:relf s (Delta! s) nc)ise
a11al~y"sis. rr11ese errc)rs i.11clu.de:
1. Delta's truck hauling ffiovem.cnt and loadingL50 11ulnbers a.re
tln.derstated b\l 3 t{) 1() dB. Since Delta's calculations sl1o\iv it tC) be close to
tIle allo\i\'ed. ~oise tllresll()ld, c()rrectil1g this calCtllatiol1 resttlts il1 a
\liolatic)n of DEQ rules.
2. Del tal s allal )Tsis fails to account for reflected SOtllld at all, 1/\l111Cl1 call
llnderstate results by {j dB, \lvhicl1 cOlJ.ld cause a \riolation of DEQ rules.
3. T11e location ()f trtlck drivevvays al1d haul roads tl1rOtlgh the pit
area is a significallt factor i11 deterl111Il.ing hov\l nluch. lloise nearby
reside11ces \vilI experierlce. Delta's n()ise ffi()deI aSStlmes tl1at such roads
\;vil1 alvva)ls- 11ave mi11il11.l1Ul inlpact, regardless of \/vhere t11e trtlck path is
actually lc)cated. Hartl r()ads directed t()vvard and a\l\ray frolll 110ttses call
add tIt) to 15 d.B. Delta/s Iloise lllodel seric)usl:y llnderstates the Iloise
11ear()y reside11ces vvould recei\re. This/by itself, cou.ld reSltlt ill Delta's
exceedi11g tIle DEQ stall.tiardof al11.biel1ce pItlS Il) dl).
4. TIle effects of the 11aul truck lllovelnent and loading, reflections
and truck drivevvay locatio.us discussed above are cttnlulative. Taking
th()se noise ill1pacts together c()uld easil}T raise nc)ise le\lels b}T 16 to 18
d,BA. That alTIOtl11t of 110ise puts the proposed Delta expa11Si()11.0peratio11
substantially Otlt of compliallce v\'itll DEQ noise regulations.
5. Delta's Table 9, of predicted luitigated cOlnlnunity' noise impacts,
contail1S errors. Correctirlgfor those errors raises C()1111ntlnityr 1..410 al1d L50
La11e Count}l Board ()f COlnlnissiol1ers
and EtlgeneCity Council
c/ 0 StelJh.a11ie SChlIlz, .Plal1ner
J al1Llary~ 22, 2007
Page 9 ()f 9
abC)\Te levels perlJ1ittedb}' DEQ rtlles. See corrected Table 9 as re\lised by
NOXC)11 (the table is corrected t)11I)1 f()r this Olle err()r, 110t f()f ()tI1ers).
6. Delta's expert ITlade varioLls 111ista.k.es ill C()11ducti11g its noise
testirlg arid al1alyrsis. Delta n1istakenly aSSllJl1.es it is erltitIed to produce Ul)
tC) hvice tIle all10llI1t ()f 110ise allo\l\ledb~y D'E(,2. For tI1is type of use, DEQ
rllles allo\\t degradatic)11 ()f up tC) 10 dB above anlbient. TIle maimer 111
\Alhic1.1.Delta/s expert 11leasllred ambient restllts 1rt Delta'streatil1g its
Jlallo\fVa11Celf of "u1itigatedU noise as beillg as mucIl as 18 dB above
anlbiel1t, \'vIncI1 is l1earl"v double '\-vllat it ShOllld be, \lvluch is an obviotts
\lil)latiol1 ()f t11()se rldes. ~
DeItafs Ill1ise expert vvas on.ly able to find com}11iallce '\-,Titll DEQ rLlles by?
makillg all ()f th.e aSStln1ptions previously' 11(1ted. AdjuSti11g f()r th()se
111istakes results il1110ise le\lels that exceed DEQ's permitted levels.
c. CONCLUSION. For all of tIle reaSOllS previously stated,
Delta's applicatiol1 sh.oultl l)€ de11ied.
'DlvfD / arc
Enclc)SLlfeS
cc: Cl iel1. ts
Ver}" 1--rtll)l '{ OLlrs,
l-IlfT(=HINSC)N.r Cox, CC)()NS,
. . RIBSTt a g j:CKt P.c.
DOU41. DuPriest
C
::J
-;)
01
3r;
"0
<Ii
w
DC
::>
C>
G:
t
o
N
o
o
I
"'t'
o
,.-
o
q)
.....
:J
en
G:
Location 1 -More than 20 complaints from
personll of Skip Court, Carolyn, Copping
and F?rmac Streets (Complaint No. 26388)
L~cabon 2 - Complaint from group of
concerned seniors at \'Villamette Oaks
Retirement Center at Alexander Loop
(street not pictured on map)(Complaint No.
8490)
Location 3 - Complaint from Curtis Street
by Norkenzie (Complaint No. 13041)
Location 4 - Complaint from Applewood
Street (Complaint No. 5117)
C)
'G:
U
t-
:l
o
>-
...:(
-J
E
0..
fot')
t")
1....'''1 ..
I .N
f I
l ;to
a
o
N
l'
j
! :E
t, ..,~
z
..:.(
a...
X"
, w
r-
a:
..q-.
o
o
N
(I)
C)
'3:
a
o
<(
)t
'C
o
'(ii
c
o
0-
x
4J
. +4J
0::
o
N
o
o
I
~
o
/'
'~
o
l...
o
l<S
'tJ
C
o
(/)
o
~
1)
o
'0
'0)
eN
o
,.-
(;
FIGURE 1
VICINITY MAP
DELTA SAND AND GRAVEL
EUGENE, OREGON
",,-- L OC~-J-\1>/.A. 0\ 0 1000
I t:oo -L-pt<A-' B'c>'<-.-J~ (Arf..-bl>l. J
\]J;' EGR &: Associates, Inc.
Y' Engfn..1'lI end G4ologlm
'25358 PrelIM. Road (541) 688-8322
Eugene. Oregon 97402 Fax (5.41) 688-8087
~/.~~~,0~0~~Z;:@;??4
L ANEREGION AL AIR POLL UTIONA UTHORITY
COM P L A I N T
FOR M
Date Recei ved 07/19/2003
Time Recei ved 1.0:23:00 AM Complaint No: 9824
Complainant Name TRENT\BARBARA
Address 1302 IRVINGTON DR
Phone
City EUGENE 974~_______
Location of Complaint Condi tioD E-SC Santa Clara
Date & Time o:f Complaint 07/19/2003 10:23:00 AM
Frequency of Occurrence
Source: DELTAS &G (ROAD CONSTRUCTION
Location IRVINGTON DRIVE
EI tJo.
City~ EUGENE 97404
Type of Complaint:
IX] Fallout
o Fume
o Odor
IX] Heal th
o Other
Type of Source:
IX] Industry
o Field Burn
o Unknown
o Visibility (Aesthetic) 0 General Air Quality
DVisibility (Traffic Safety) DGeneral Practice
D Smoke (Impact)
o Smoke (Visibility) 0 Expense
Complaint Received
Referred By:
Remarks: Delta S& G is doing a road construction project on Irvington Drive hear the Northwest
Expressway. . The complainant says the owner of Delta S & G, as well as the road constructionengineer,
assured the residents that they would be applying water to the site to keep the dust down. This has not been
done, and the dust is very bad. The complaina.nt and her husband both have COPO, and her husband has
throat cancer. The only water being applied to the street in front of their home is what her husband is applying
with a garden hose. Please do something about this.
D Fugitive Dust 0 General
o Slash Burning D Backyard Burn
IX] Other Road Construction Fallout
By: MJD
Open Burning
o Home Heating
Investigator: TF
LANE REGIONAL AIR POLLU'TION AurI~HORITY
COM P L A I N T
FOR M
Time Received 2:34:36 PM Complaint No: 10092
Date Recei ved 09/30/2003
Complainant Name MONTGOMERY\JOHN
Address 32ND ST.
Phone 746-9434
Ci ty SPRINGFIELD 97477
Location of Complaint Condition S-M Mid-Springfield
Date & Time of Complaint 09/30/2003 2:34:36 PM
Frequency of Occurrence
Source: FUGITIVE DUST
EI No.
Location N. 30TH ST.
Ci ty SPRINGFIELD 97477
Type of Complaint:
(xl Fallout
DFume
D Odor
D Heal th
D Other
Type of Source:
DVisibility (Aesthetic) DGeneral Air Quality
o Visibility (Traffic Safety) 0 General, Practice
DSmoke (Impact)
o Smoke (Visibility) 0 Expense
D Industry IX] Fugi ti ve Dust
D Field Burn 0 Slash Burning
o Unknown D Other
Complaint Received By: MRM
Referred By:
Remarks: Complainant states "construction going on at N. 30th n.earGood Wilt and there is lots of dust,
making it difficult for me to breathe. They should be watering and should know better. Didn't call. yesterday but
knows his neighbors did.
D General
D Backyard Burn
D Open Burnirlg
D Home Heati11g
Investigator: TF
Investigation Results:
~~ "', ~,'""
i.: (Ii ~. .... c:..C:. ~Ji!
., . f;q' L...;' II
i ;L'L_~.:__J.L_.J W
of (... ~~
LA.NE REG.IONAL AIR POLLU'TIO'N A'lJTHORITY
COM P L A I N T
FOR[\1
Date
09/29/2003 Time Rece
...-.-._-~
1 :13:00 PM
int l"Jo: 1 0088
--'.:......-.--:..,..;.......
Complainant. t~,ame CULLENlCHARLES
747-3036
~l .$PRINGFI.~!:Q 974ZZ______
Address 511 N 32ND STREET
c
Loca i:
of Complaint Condition
Date & rr
of
lEii11t 09/29/2003 1:13:00 PM
y ()f ()CC:lJrrerlc:e
SOlJrCe : DELTA S & G FUGITIVE DUST
EI 1'10_
Locatic)n CONSTRUCTION ON N 30TH AVEN
C:i t Y SPRINGFIELD 97477
Type of int.:
lx] Fallout
I?urne
Visibility sthetic)
DVisibility (Traffic Sa
General Air Quality
Gelleral Practice
r
E;ffiO ke
00 Heal th
()trler
Smoke (Visibility)
Expense
Tjlpe ()f S()1Jrce:
Irldust.
OCJ ive D11St
Slash
Other
C;erlel~al
Burl1ing
Home Heating
Burn
D l:Jnknown
Backyard Burrl
Complaint Recei \led By!: KIT _'.
Refe
In\lesti
or: TF
R.ema r ks :Com.Qlainant states t~.~.2.nstrugtiolL.9.QJng on at N. 30th near Goo_d '{till, and there is lotsof_~just,
!Il.E.~!l9_...!t_Qlfng_uJt for me to breathe. They should be waterin_g..LJ2.~t theY....~r~ not. Pleas's ha_y.~-.?-2D)eone check it
In'vestigatic)n Results: DC)rle Clr1: 09/29/2003 b~i:
Djscu~~~~__with Delta. Called complainant.
.;
t
LANE REGIONAL AIR POLLUTIOiN AUTHORI:'TY
COM ,P L A I N.T
FOR M
Date Rec~i~ed 09/28/1999 Time Received 1:33:34 PM Complaint No: 6~.89
Complainant Name CHRISTIANSEN\NORM Phone frPSt;5---- &/3,/
!
" '"
P.ddres's 365kSKIP COURT
Ci ty EUGENE
Locatioi} of Complaint Conditi'on E-R'R River Road
Date & Time of Complaint 09/28/1999 1:33:34 PM
Frequency of Occurrence
Source.:. DELTA SAND & GRAVEL"
EI No.
Location
Ci tyEUGENE
Type of Complaint:
IX] Fallout
o Fume
o Odor
IX] Heal th
o Other
~ Visibility (Aesthetic) 0 General Air Quality
o Visibility (Traff:ic Safety) ".*0 General Practice
o Smoke (Impact)
o Smoke (Visipili ty) o Expense
Type, of' S'ource:
IX] Industry 0 Fugitive Dust
O'Field Burn 0 Slash Burning
o Unkn'own 0 Other
Complaint Received By:MJD
Referred By: ...
Remarks:" Complainant is extremely angry a.bout the trackout from Delta Sand & Gravel. He says they water
. . .
.' ~
the yard but track mud out onto the road :whereit dries out and gets kicked up into the air by aU the traffic.. He
said Lane County applied a. chemical to sam's. dirt roads last year .which really helped to keep the dust down.
Why can't sand & gravel operations be required to do that? Hets really mad that nothing is done to protect
people from aHthe dust from these operations1and says Eugene S & G is the worst. He has to keep his
phone covered up so the dust doesntt get into the .number grid and mess up the phone. 00 DOHa also said
Delta's dump trucks are leaking aU and leave big puddles of it atthe si.gnal lights while they wait for the lights
to change. Hets mad about that too.OODOHewants Tom Freeman to call him and teU him what the sand &
gravel operators have agreed to do to help keep the dust down. He says if we care about a.ir, we should do
something about this. He also says he hasdeaft with Tom before on a previous complaint,and Tom made an
ass hole out of him. He'soot happy about thatl either. His speech was liberally dosed with colorfullanguage1
and he seems .to be reall crabb in . eneraL &aC
Investigation Results: Done On: 0 0 By: G{'!?]..LS- ~~rro
t'1r. C~~tiQ-U.~~ :oeJt ~~S ..~ .d~ ~.a.o. ~~4 < +fAil r-h
~~~ . ~ ~ ~ ~~'r1A · ~e.- sa...Lol ~ad: uJ~
r: . ,<",\ .;\ 0 .\ . /'"to n- 1: ~ ~ '" ; / \ _ _ L \ fi f^-. -4-. ^... fl J .. A ... ~ {I - '-. r-..-.. t\ _ n
o General
o Backyard Burn
o Open Burning"
o Home Heating
Investi~ator: TF
(~~
tte Cl414d w~ OAJL w~ l\A.-c+- '{e~yt4.A.-<! ~
~~ ~ p~'~ LtO~&s ~~~ ~ 1~Yl
+0 ~~~~ ~ cLvv:d:.- I ~ aQ~ 3~d ~_
W, y-~~ ~-J ~ ~'~ ~*L Oyd(~d.
~ LD&uQ.ct Y~YZ .,~~ 6 ~~ s 6 Q. ,
1-0 ~ '(~ y~ ~ ~~e1:~ ~ ~ ~+ f0~'
bl-e- oj <;-0' ~ cU.. cJ.Q.d ~ \' s . cz 00{ ~ ~
~ ~ trLl~s ~. L~ tt+ ~ ~- "roczds
~ ~+- ~ Tvd ~~~) . lte- ~d ~
_An ~l \ .' <J.-1 ~Clo(
CX>/-^.- ~~--?-~S ct. ~~ ~~ CUJ\). u
kCVVL ~ LU <?1 ~ +-,(C\ ~ ~ -h ~ lV~o-\ S-Q ~ h ;;
/ . . ./' ,',," .. r I ~ J I -+- +t ~
,~,~.,---".~ ,pl\.olo ~ ~ cl D-o ~ Kct tJ'-^--'\..
fnrj't.~;&~~Q~dfJf '~ ' . \
IUb,;, 0 d .' .lit c k r:-J +. .. ( [J . , _ 1
~. \ cr fJ Ccvl' tW~<M.-l ~LC ~l- ~ \J ~_ ~r I
~'~~ ~~~ kcj:-- UJayL O-AA-dl fV\A~ILA-'6
~. K.d w~ ~ W l~,,^- ~ Nl~'uS~.) ~
~ , , '... r:~u.s,~~ ~ ~v~~
0Cul.A- s ~~. t{ '( ~-H.CVA-~ WC06 ~ ~ c...(L
{)..AA-& ~1Ltu:4 ~ ~ y ffi.vy ~~ Us eo.JLQ..
~ f
LANE Rt;P~\ONAL AIR POLLUTION AUTt{PRITY ~.... ~..O." ......W>>....O'... .~.........
, COMPLAINT FORM ! ~ ~ . . U
Date Recei ved: 3-1& --q q
Time Received: / ~o5
Complaint No: c;( "300
Complainant Name
() crtJri c.~r~,,--~v.....,,)
Phone
(;:; g8--(f (~39
f:~~~.
Address
(..~ t C:r
~.2... l__. S """ J lLt
J ~ ~Lf:1.. . .lA.h.~
City
location of Complaint Condition
$-RR
Date and Time of Complaint
(' ('
Frequency of Occurrence . (;:trL{V1U~
n 'Cl. /) '1
Source: A::.;./ (( J!~Ll.-Y ~~... cy-- e- v~~~__C-
location
E . I. No.
City
Type of Complaint:
v' Fanout
Visibnity (Aesthetic)
_ General Air Quality
Fume
VisibU ity (f raffle Safety)
Smoke (Impact)
General Practice
(Field/Slash)
Odor
Expense
Health
Smoke (Visible)
Other
Type of Source:
. (.;/lndustry
Fugitive Dust
General
Open Burning
Field Bum
Slash Bum
_ Backyard Bum
Home Heating
Unknown
Other
Referred By:
b.A.-@. l21' p,.~
I~'~ Investigator:
/) .
j-J."cf..i!.A.~ _ j {t)(Pk k~;,
1- F
Complaint' Receiv.ed By:
Remarks: f.11,fJ '- ~ ) fA 2!Y'r ivy tl.lA.A2.&-><'1~~ -.11 {lL<<<- ,4f4"'1chL ilJ ~ (ldf) 'rfflJ.. a i' .d"\~~t
I \ ~
(L tILwriJ.'~ft / 1- ;{j,'r'iRd (2-t'\ -1,. (i.tr e.~ t~) ,Jr~~!tM~~ C\{d~ttulft. 'to LMfA.
0,~.J.caAP-d: ,-~ ,/l{}.(ru:'t,tl~':if f/2dl,,~vYjjJ-LU} 10 lfLtt<!5:] dt. ~'t: '>/A Z.<t1
j)JLkri J' '1),1- )~t1/1 ~J&t::l~4:.)j (~"-~C~~fJ..,frVD I h~tLJ .. rf ~,-
() AIi >. ~ I, I/-L]/)../; 'r1 --L.~ f1
(l.Jr~tl..-, t..~..J U-nrtPo.o (~jL,) .~pt Lr-rr-r'{I (!~.J2..a Cr-~~1_d/?---~4:
, 1" ,. "\. ....j~ J .'. .1 I I -..t
(\(:rrKf~-' Jr../J, ~)'~ /J'SJl~~ IY\.o.;jJ, \)/flR-tj (~JC( fL,) (P:gxL(> C,,~ e ~-t ~ '
(1J..-NJi ,X9i.J.. -' ,A"4'l'/ i T> f/;y f- (I -e:t,~ Co ';Li il--, t ,L'Vl'\ L ;<.MA: ·
Investigation Results:
~
Public Works
RECEIVED
#- <f/lw 7
MAR I 8 1999
City of Eugene
858 Pearl Street
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 682-5262
(541) 682-6826 Fax
March 16, 1999
LANE REGfONAL AIR
POLLUTION AUTHORITY
V~1~\~r'ftT TO- fr1 ~
~,~0H~''''' -.n~u._~~
~ : -_..B.f-
I \J .~u~L.E,.-....
LRAPA
Attn: Merrie
1010 Main St_
Springfield, OR 97477
..-. ...-~"",_..-..~~~
m #:.h.~~f~L:L.
~fA~
Fl LE__ ... - - .
Dear Merrie,
Enclosed is the citizen letter and petition that I called about. I havre contacted Mr. Christiansen
and let him know tllat I ,vas forwarding this to you. I noticed that his nUlnber "ras not in.eluded in
his letter. He can be reached at 541...688-8139.
Thank you for your llelp.
(C /~~
10tl..--~-,\\
~ f .~ 8 I L ) t \ \
-/' \dJ U~-v If
Sincerely,
Tracy Schermerhonl
Dept. Of Public. \V orks
City of Eugen.c
(541) 682-5241
~)~ ~ ~'..i~-1;; ~d
-1'v~' ~ ~jJ Y- y~
~' . ~
7C?9 ~~p~~.
ju:~h CY?~L ~~... -/~.~
~~ ~~ ?2-a-e,K-
;t~~~ q ~~
A/ rf M [3:
~21( .13r~
~Uiu~ /)[ ~Ju
g- 3) r7n.-Lc~ P o.-fJ~v
f5'-J( ((1v,J!t{~~dfr
8JI!N#~~
f 1--/
jJ.e.. t;
l{ A-(J~Jrb'~;l\
J~'>' wi ;{
:3 .(jA~/"> U ~< '1~: t~~-/
j
~ I,/: J; 9-A
3 g 7 G~-;7b)V:''';) et1~
~ /11 c:: fI . . It" ,
,) .-J L-o-~_~, ~,...-'l
,J" r L/' "^---/ ~
j
/~:;;ft. /" \' f ~ {
I.:J {DPt"7J -.JICiF ~Y<;
1710 C:?;P~/n:;$.~
· . ~ S" .tj' .;
f
.&)d/'
f
f
i
f
'1 I
!
~
/77? O'~V
Jf711... 0:J..:..!J.h,""?.</ j~_/
~i I r--".--t" /. ,
/ , .( . .{-
Iv' .. ./1
i\,....$
II fr? (tP:;;:,y'--.1J:
j/' /'
1
~ {Z/~:;
, I
)'?, I ~ IA-' tI~~.
v
~
( '~f}(}J
"- -
~~ //,
~_// ,X;1/.: Q
'~
~ ---~---
I ~ I'L' Ccrf":' A, f
9' .",c... k'j'. I {':)1 t
..~/ / .,..I.' I -- I J -
u / . ...{ v/j:".-tt. V . (,,F' .1-/"
I -7 C.o<' /': L/';
/6 L/ ~V
, ,I
I,)-?, /C .. '; r;
. I ~ U III u /<;'--/-./ ~~, ~f /, ,/7 .a: ,
\..--. / --....(.... . Jf ..
f') !~ ~ (Z r
--:.J .:J ..; I.. 0 L - I.' -t: r. "--" .
Y.l {jV .\:~ .
n ,IJ~ J>V1M
CJcuv
R~~:~IYEP 1 I.
-rn-?flt C;. 71 I
MAR 181999 I i
LANE REGIONAL AlR _J#
, POLLUTION AUTHORITY r'"
/'
<r: - 3/
~31
y 1;)(
1r0J
t'2..
AIL
L h .
a ~ ~'l' ~ ~./
/_ -Z _, -. ~~. -r'"~'~ ~./.-'~' '-L.~
~~~ ~f!:c'?~;kJ?&i~~
~
-~
~. I
" .3:3~,
.~
..::f-p (/
-=sse; S' kt C-f. fr::
3. <;'1 D
Skf/- CT:
/ % -;tC:7-?>~.J' 0
I 7 Ci I:: v.... y J~? _? ~~ <7 ?..~
;13 ~t:/yL"1 A-c q'1<7
~
/-cf t
[l~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~
~~~~~I/ _//L-tJ? /~ .' "
~ ~~ ~r
~~~.., ~ ~~~
~~ . "LC~ ~v1-z._6P.,
~~--<1. ~~ ~ G.. '.'
cr!.~ 0-,
~~ ~~~ ~~-:h
_~ ~-~ -A~,
~~- . e p :-c/ t' . _____l~ ~-u
a/C~O---z~
-?~~ ~~
~~ ~~'.
", ?~~./~~ ~ ~
JJ2~~f ~c;;;; ~ ~~
~--z:::--E:"""'- "
I~cn-~~~
3.. b." 5- ~.~.'~ ~:
0:/, tI~~ ~ ' I
~ .AAV ~-C~ ~Z...(t ~'<-<~
()-z'U_~~ _~ ~C~Z. CV~~
9 ~ &/~C;', ) ez-er ~;J-- ~~
~~ 't-c/ ~~ '
t7c1l~A-~. ~~
~~~
~ ~ cC2cP-Ci?~
.... .... -,
J--z-~1-<a~g e.c~~~~~--:e~
. +'f,
.. : ':'~i/'"
LANE REGIONAL AIR POLLUTION AUTHORITY
C 0 H P L A I N T FOR M
Date Received~~~\\~ Time Received \\\~()\J ~J~
Complainant Name (}'N\.S)~"f"!\"~\.)'
o ~f~
complaint No: ~
Phone
Address city
Location of Complaint conditio~~It ~~~ \b'\~-2.'(J~~ ~j\\{",-Vl"J 'h. \Ah(-~ \'-'B.~
Date & Time of complaint \r'S.~~ . . .
Frequency of Occurrence
Source: ~~ S"~\D~ <;~"J-{:.t-
Location \"- V\)\S:.\0{-~
EI No.
city
Type of Complaint:
o Fallout
o Visibility (Aesthetic)
o General Air Quality
o Fume
o Odor
o Health
o Other
Type of Source:
o Indust~y
o Fie1d Burn
o Unknown
o visibility (Traffic Safety) 0 General Practice
o Smoke (Impact) (Field/Slash)
o Smoke (Visibility) 0 Expense
o Fugit,ive Dust
o Slash Burning
o other
o General
o Backyard Burn
o Open Burning
o Home Heating
Complaint Received By:
Referred
Remarks:
Investigator:
.~LJ~~~)
-
~'"
Investigation Results:
~ 1(g-1
LA N E REG ION A L AIR P OL L UTI 0 N AUT H 0 R IT Y
(o,3[S
Date Received Time Received \\)'.\)t)I\I~ complaint NO:~~~~
Complainant Name "J.\J~ L:::t-~"DL '-I Phone 1 1.{l.{ :l1.oG
Addres~lt\ ~\) lJ0K~L 'f\R ! city S1~~6l'Lf-lJL)
Location of Complaint condition \[;,'\----'C"S: L~{"""/ \~\~~~~ ~tsSt1;,:'~A/1....~{'--~"<7..J'v..
Date & Time of Complaint '~'\"(.,~~. .. . . .
COM P L A I N T
FOR M
Frequency of Occurrence
Source: '\)\)~~.S~\Q 't.. G~\j{:'L
Loca tion '\ ~ \.) ~~.1 N'\S- -
EI No.
city
Type of Compla'int:
o Fallout
o visibility (Aesthetic)
o General Air Quality
o Fume
o Odor
o Health
o Other
Type of Source:
o Industry ~gi~ive Oust
o Field Burn 0 Slash Burning
o Unknown 0 Other
Complaint Received By: ~~
Referred
o Visibility (Traffic Safety) 0 General Practice
o Smoke (Impact) (Field/Slash)
o Smoke (Visibility) 0 Expense
o General
o Backyard Burn
o Open Burning
o Home Heating
IIlvestigator: ~~
LAN E R I~' G ION A L N A [R POL L U T [0 N' AUT l{ 0 R I l' Y
" -#"/.?OC)'O
o
~~(j
compla~nt No:i1~/c?~
Phone ;g C( Cf- ().;LLft/
C 0 H P L A~I N T
FORM
COlIlpla inan t
Date Received
Address
Location of Complaint Condition
ci ty ~P-41 X--'
Date & Time of Complai_nt
:::::c~~~e~,<......,.~~p
Locat~on 73k~~-e)
Type of Complaint.:
~ai-l.out ~iS~bil.i.tY (Aesthetic)
o Fume p Visi.bi.1ity (Traffic Safety)
o Odor 0 Smoke (Impact)
o Health 0 ~oke. (Visibil.i.ty)
o Other
EI No_
c~ty c-. n
o Genera1 Air Quality
o Gerlera1 Practice.
(Field/S1ash)
o Expense
~ Fugitive Dust.
~~1aSh Burning
O'Other,,/
Comp1aint Received By: ,,~J
r/A'd '/17
Referred By:.. ft-f
Remarks:
Type ,of Source:
~Indu.stry
O.Fi.e1d Burn
o Unknown
o General
o Backyard Burn
o Open Burning
o Home Heating
Investigator: _~
~~
~LA:-,
~Il ~
chI!!.M 1 p{ W ~ rA4 . e&ilL, &uJ.;L ~c.
~~ ~". ~ cA.u;t;L... ':tA..t ..At 4~jl, It.A/ # ~ <J · _
~, ~ q/7_JJ'7~
LANE Rf .'~IONAL AIR POLLUTION AU-r.'~ORITY
COMPLAINT FORM
00\
.,.,..
Date Received: &-)0 -Cf7 Time Received: Q9~O
Compl ainant Name /BerG:-- S;;pri C:,j(
,
Complaint No: ~ L/ <j 07 6<S-oa
Phone h~ c-;y~~)
City ~~
Address
location of Complaint Condition
Date and Time of Complaint
Frequency of Occurrence
Source: ~ S;~G-
Location ALt..:iLI'ttR..- 'of- {)/ ~
Type of Complaint:
v/Fanout
E. I. t,t"o.
City
Visibility (Aesthetic)
_ General Air Quality
Fume
Visibility (f raffle Safety)
General Practice
(Field jSlash)
Odor
Smoke (Impact)
Expense
Health
Smoke (Visible)
Other
Type of Source:
~ndustry
Fugitive Dust
General
_Open Burning
Field Burn
Stash Burn
Backyard Burn
_ Home Heating
Unknown
Other
Complaint Received By:
Referred By:
~-
Investigator:
TF
LANE RE' ~ONAL AIR POLLUTION AU. jORITY
COMPLAINT FORM
\
Date Received: 9 -4~ q {:j;e9 Time Received: /1/8'
Comp 1 a i nant Name S u.....6l::J r2J("",12
Address 3D3 ~ Si::o-Pr' 1)c
location of Complaint Conditi
5 d3 rrg
Complaint NO:_~
Phone 4{oS-q(aQ~
City ~9l40Q
Oate and Time of Conlpla'int
Frequency of Occurrence
Source: Su...~s. +~ ?
location
E.. I. No.
City
Type of Complaint:
vfallout
Visibility (Aesthetic)
_ General Air Quality
Fume
Visibility (Traffic Safety)
General Practice
(Field jSlash)
Odor
Snloke (Impact)
Expense
Health
Smoke (Visible)
Other
Type of Source:
~ustry
L/Fugitive Dust
General
~_ Open Burning
Field Burn
Slash Burn
Backyard Burn
Home Heating
Unknown
Other
("
Complaint Received By:
Referred By:
Remarks: f).L~~. ~.J <;*-6- ~d- '&~ dA"~~
~-(~<.Vl~ {Ht~;C~/) ,~~ ~+~)~ ~~ .~
,~, Jtf&. d-t,~. t{~ ~ ~ /21J)~ ~ '40 ~ AA:k~
11 "
~dU
Investigator:
"-,-r-:::-
( r
Investigation Results:
9)~
/;'''''..........,... '~
l~ A N ERE G 10 N A L . A I R POL L U T' ION A lJ THO R I T Y
COM P LA_IN T FOR M
, ,"OV
Date Received 7/.;;..>/9 ~ Time Received , {bJ:O?fYl complaint
Complainant Name . . ..... ()OV!Y1 ee /7f!~ (~'Pf1SJf1 Phone
Address 5KI'p (,~..A. city
sf?tp
No: ~
b tt-gPfC)
tLzjJ.Yl~
Location of Complaint Condition
Date & Time of Complaint
Frequency of Occurrence
~t1utJ.Pf
Y1 1\d ~ G, ya uJ..j
Source:
() \ \-tJ
Location
- alVlz} d)/~
EI 1'-10..
city C#
Type of Complaint:
P Fallout
.0 Fume
~ Odor
.5tkHealth
o other
Type of Source:
o Industry
o Field Burn
o UI1known
By:
CtA)
Investigator: 7F . Cc:DFf
. 0 visibility (Aesthetic)
o General Air Quality
P visibility (Traffic Safety) 0 General Practice
o Smoke (Impact) (Field/Slash)
o Smoke (Visibility) 0 Expense
~U9itive Dust
o Slash Burning
o Ot11er
o General
o Backyard Burn
o Open
o Home Heating
~.
17.. .O.tJi. u ". ~,S : ()
f J
Wa. ~,~'
(/... T~;j
LANE REGIONAI-J AIR POI-JLUTI.ON AUTI10Rlrry
COM P L A ..1 N T FOR M
Date Received~ Time Received~ Complaint No:
Complainant Name r _ Qno(\~ 0 L/ S Phone
. O.WLcuJoorl
5 f II
~
Address
. City
6A9~~
Location of complaint Condition
Date & Time of comPlaint--f)r-titL/7 f
Frequency of Occurrence
Locatio11
SQ {\c} '-\-. G ( Cl vL (
~Qjt\\Yv --\- Q~\~
EI l'Jo.
Source:
City
~E~n
Type of Complaint:
~
p Fallout
o Visibility (Aesthetic)
o General Air Quality
o Fume
o Odor
D' Health
o Other
Type of Source:
~dustry
o Field Burn
o Unknowr1
P Visibility (Traffic Safety) 0 General Practice
o Smoke (Impact) (Field/Slash)
o Smoke (.visibility) 0 Expense
)8LFUgitive Dust
o Slash Burning
o other
o General
o Backyard Burn
o Open Burning
o I-Iome Heating
Complaint Received By: C{AJ Investigator: 7F
Referred By:. ... ....... ...~
Remarks: .7f)J1q vusJ/IO/r:1 _l0illJd /r aJr7S;'4,lY(1.hjc.
hI{ 01 &d~ -- Don 'j-~ ho. L/1 7u Wa ky ? .
ATT ACHMENT H
HUNTER
Lt.?
STEVE CORNACCHlf\
scomacchi a@hershnerhunteLconl
HA.ND DELIVERED
January 29, 2007
Lane County Board of Commissioners
and Eugene City Council
c/o Stephanie Schulz
Lane County Land Management Division
125 E. 8th Avenue
Eugene, OR 97401
Re: PA 05-6151/DeltaSand and Gravel Company
Our File No. 6334.30006
Dear Commissioners and Councilors:
This correspondence shall serve as the final argument of our client, Delta Sand and G'ravel
Company (hereinafter referred to as HDelta"), in tIle above-entitled proce.edin.g.
Delta has demonstrated throughout this proceeding that approval of its application to add 72.31
acres of it.s property t.o the Goal 5 Significant Aggregate Site Inventory and to change the Metro
Plan Map designation of t.hatproperty from Agticulture to San.d and Gravel is consistent with
applicable Oregon Statewide Planning Goals and administrative rules that implement t.hose,
goals. Throughout these proceedings Delta has consistently de.monstrated particularly that it has
met all of the criteria of the Goal 5 Rule regarding expansion of aggregate mining sites.
While Delta has addressed all of the applicable criteria in this proceeding, the focus of public
testimony has been on the issues of the significance of the subject site's aggregate resource, the
potential land use conflicts resulting from Delta's mining of the subject site and the ability of
Delta to minimize those conflicts under the Goal 5 Rule. This c011'"espondence will also focus on
those particular issues.
1. Recent, correspondence regarding complaints received by LRAP A.
Opponents of Delta's application, in con~espondence delivered to the elected officials after the
public hearing, 11ave centered their arguments against approval of the application on complaints
regarding dust received by the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA) over t.hepast
I COpy II
ATTORNEYS 180 East 11th Avenue, Eugene, Oregon 97401 PO Box 1475. Eugene, Oregon 97440 541-686-8511 fax 541-344-2025
Lane County Board of Commissioners and Eugene City Council
January 29, 2007
Page 2
seven years from nearby residents. The opponents' reliance on complaints, rather than
enforcement actions taken 'by LRAPA against Delta in response to complaints, is n.ot responsive
to the Goal 5 Rule criteria. The. fact remains thatLRAP A has not issued anYnenJorcement action
or sanction againstIJe,lta regarding its operation of its. crushing operation, its mining operation or
its haul roads. While Delta has received one citation from LRAPA for a violation at a
construction site (dust control) and one other citation for failure to cover a load on Delta
Highway, it has not been found to be in violation of the LRAPA permit (or fined therefor) related
to it operations, both mining and production, on its current facility site.
Opponents cite the January 2005 incident during which Delta was cited by LRAPA for failing to
water Division Avenue during a period of extreme'ly low temperatures as proof that Delta has not
performed its requirements and responsibilities under its LRAP A fugitive air permit. The
LRAPA Notice of Violation served on Delta for that incident is the only Notice of Violation
received by Delta regarding its operations on or near the subject site. More importantly, Delta
points out that it received a complete dismissal of that Notice of Violation and was not
sanctioned or fined by LRAP A for that incident. Evidence of that dismissal is cun~ently in the
record of this proceeding.
Opponents cite the complaints as if they were proof of Delta's n.on-performance of its
requirements and responsibilities under its LRAPA permit. Opponents state: H[T]hese
comp:laints serve to further illustrate that Applicant's proven track record is not one of adherence
to DEQ and LRAPA standard, but rather a track record of adverse dust impacts." No, they do
not illustrate such a conclusion. First of all, opponents have not provided any evidence that the
complaints were legitimately connected to Delta's operation. Secondly, Delta did not receive a
single Notice of Violation from LRAPA regarding those complaints. The mere creation of a
complaint is not proof that Delta has violated the conditions of its LRAPA permit. Oppone-nts
attempt to disconnect the complaint-to-sanction process by arguing that LRAPA is somehow too
inefficient or incompetent to adequately protect the metropolitan area's air shed and that it
cannot be truste-d to re-gulate Delta's ope Tations. The fact that LRAPA has cited and fined Delta
over incidents at construction sites rebuts the opponents' theory that LRAPA turns a blind eye to
Delta operations and allows Delta to operate in violation of its permit.
We continue to emphasize that Delta has not bee,n sanctionedbyLRAP A, by fines or other
sanctions, for any of its operations on the subject site in the rnanydecades that it has been
located on the subject site. It has mined its resource, hauled its resource across the site and has
produced aggregate material on the subject site without a single violation of its LRAP A permit.
That is Delta's track record.
Delta's true track record of fulfilling all of its responsibilities under the LRAPA permit is what
the elected officials should and can expect from Delta as it mines and processes aggregate
material from the expansion site. Its performance over the last 40 )'ears at its current site is proof
of its commitment to fulfillin.g its responsibilities to its neighbors and the public.
Lane County Board of Commissioners and Eugene City Council
January 29, 2007
Page 3
OAR 660-023-0180(1)(g) provides the pelformance standard for mInImIzation of potential
contlicts. In defining minimization of conflicts, the rule states that for those types of conflicts
addressed byloca:l, state-, or federal standards (such as the Department of Environmental Quality
standards for noise and dust levels), to "minimize a conflictttmeans to ensure conform.ance to the
applicable standard. Delta has demonstrated throughout these proceedings that its operations on
the subject site have been in conformance with the DEQ standards as reg'ulated by LRAP A in
this community. Evidence in the record demonstrate-s that all operations on the expansion site
must be brought under and included within the LRAP A permit that covers the existing operation
and site. Delta's track record with its existing permit is a good indication to the elected officials
that its mining of the expansion area will also be performed in conformance with that permit.
2. The expansion area contains a significant aggregate resource.
Delta has demonstrated in these proceedings that the subject expansion site has a significant
deposit of aggregate resource. De]ta's initial evidence was provided by EGR & Associates, Inc.
(EGR), and consist.ed of EGR's sampling of material at several locations on. the expansion site
and the subsequent 'Iab testing. EGR published the results of its evaluation in the report titled
"Evaluation of Aggregate Resources: Delta Sand and Gravel Expansion Area" which is dated
June 2005. In that report,EGR determined that coarse aggregate sam.ple,s obtained during field
exploration of the expansion area meet ODOT base rock specifications. The report contains
laboratory data demonstrating that the coarse aggregate (gravel) fraction present at th.e expansion
site meets the base rock specifications required by ODOT and Goal 5. Similarly, t.he report
demonstrates that an of the coarse aggregate samples meet the O:DOT soundness requirements
for Portland Cement Concrete. Furthermore,EGR concluded that the estimated volum.e of
aggregate available within the proposed expansion area is 9,082,260 tons. Accordingly, Delta
has demonstrated that the proposed expansion area satisfies the criteria set out in OAR 660-023-
0180(3)(a).
Opponents, primarily through the testimony of Mr. R.e-ed, have argued that EGR's methodology
and conclusions are flawed and should not 'be accepted by the elected offIcials as evidence of a
significant deposit. Notwithstanding the obvious conclusion that the ex.pansion area is an
extension of an existing significant deposit that has been mined by Delta for over 40 years, in
response to Mr. Reed's criticism. Delta enlisted the review of the Oregon Departm.ent of
Transportation (ODOT) and the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries
(DOGAMI). Using the core borings of EGR, ODOT took its own samples and had those.
samples evaluated. OnOT concluded th.at the samples were representative of aggregate deposits
on site and that the deposit met ODOT specifications. Based upon ODOT's sampling and
conclusions, DOGAMI issued the same conclusion. Opponents now argue that the ODOT
sam.p.ling and conclusions are some'how tainted because it used the core borings produced an.d
analyzed by Delta and EGR. Evide.nce was produced at the public hearing, in the form of a
printout of the cores that displayed where with'in the cores both EGR and ODOT took their
samples. It is evident fro.m that printollt that ODOT independently obtained its own samples
from the cores and independently analyze,d its samples. The printout demonstrates that ODOT
Lane County Board of Comrn.issioners and Eugene City Council
January 29, 2007
Page 4
sampled from various levels of the cores as the opponents have argued must be done. The
opponents argurn.ent has been modified and reduced to its o'bjection that ODOT used the cores
obtained by Delta and EGR. That argume'nt is not substantial evidence that refutes or rebuts the
expertise and analysis of both EGR and ODOT.
The testim.ony of ODOT and DOGAMI regarding the significance of the deposit is included in
the record of tIlis proc.eeding. The t\\/O state agencies that are charged with regulating the
aggregate industry and its products associated with transportation facilities have confirmed
EGR's conclusions that the expansion area contains a significant aggregate deposit. DOGAMI
went so far as to state that EGR's estimation of the total amount of the deposit was understated
by over 50%. That body of evidence ism.ore than sufficient to demonstrate that the deposit is
significant as required by the Goal 5 Rule and the elected officials can and should rely upon that
evidence in finding that a significant aggregate deposit exists on the subject expansion site.
3. Delta has demonstrated that potential dust impacts can beminlmized.
We have addressed the significant portion of this issue earlier in this correspondence. Opponents
have argued other points regarding Delta's dem.onstration that it can minimize potential dust
impacts.
Opponents have argued that dust from truck traffic on local streets will increase if Delta is
permitted to mine the expansion site. Delta has de.monstrated that approval of use of additional
resource will not create any additional traffic. The LRAPA permit continues to have a
production level cap that will not change by the mere addition of additional resource sites.
Delta's production of aggregate material will not incre.ase due to the availability of the resource
in the expansion area-it will m.e.rely be extended into the future with the addition of the
resource into Delta's inventory of total material.
Opponents argue that the mining operation will produce what they claim is excessive dust. De.Ita
has demonstrated in testimony and in a dramatic visual demonstration on DVD at the public
hearing that it does not produce significant dust while mining. The vast majority of dust
produced by Delta emanates fronl its rock crushing operation. That operation is regulated and
limited by LRAP A and, again, Delta has not been found to be in violation of its LRAP A permit
in the operation of its rock crushing. Opponents argue that the proposed aquaclude will
somehow remove all underground moisture in the expansion area soil, that the existing "wet
mining"wiH cease and that dust will then be produced by mining. EGR has proposed a clay soil
barrier that will reduce the amount of groundwater moving into the pit during excavation. EGR
has never stated that the aquaclude will prevent all groundwater from moving through the sailor
will rem.ove all of the m.oisture that naturally exists underground. In addition, the opponents
seem to argue that the waterfalls th.at they witnessed in the DVD contain the only moisture in the
soil being mined. Com.mon sense should prevail on that argument. Opponents have provided no
expert testimony to support their argument that the aquaclude will remove all moisture from the
soil and cause excessive amount of dust to be. produced during mining.
Lane County Board of Commissioners and Eugene City Council
January 29,2007
Page 5
Opponents argue that Delta has not conducted an air dispersion model similar to that conducted
by Eugene Sand & Gravel Company in its application to locate a new mining and processing site
north of :Eugene. This application is not similar to that of Eugene Sand & Gravel Co. Delta is
not attempting to establish a dust-producin.g facility as Eugene Sand & Gravel attempted. It is
merely asking to expand its current mining site with its current dust-producing and dust-
minimizing operations. In its permitting of the Delta operation, LRAP A has already factored in
the dust-producing considerations that the opponents claim. m.ust be accomplished in tl1is
proceeding. Nonetheless, in consideration of the potential dust created by the haul roads (and
considering that mining does not create a significant amount of dust and that the crusher is
operated and limited in production by the LRAPA permit), Delta requested that LRAPA conduct
an air dispersion model for its haul roads. LRAP A published its "Delta Sand & Gravel Haul
Road Analysis" on November 1, 2006, and a copy of that 'publication is included in the record of
this 'proce.eding. In that analysis,LRAPA stated: "The modeled impacts from each haul road,
added to am.bientmonitored concentrations, is below the PMIO national ambient air quality
standard." .LRAPA's analysis took into account myriad factors, including haul road length and
width, truck tire size, number of trips, etc., to reach its conclusion.
Opponents continue to offer the testimony of Dr. Stephen Kimberley, regarding the negative
health effects of "rock dust." Delta continues to point out that Dr. Kimberley has not visited the
site and has not testified that Delta's mining operation will create the kin.d of "rock dust" that he
has testified about. He has merely provided testimony on the effects of "rock dust." He has
provided no evidence that Delta actually produces his type of "rock dust" while performing
mining operations at its current facility. Based upon Dr. Kimberley's own testimony, the "rock
dust" that he discusses is the type of dust that occurs during the crushing of rock and rock
material. If De"lta produces any of the type of "rock dust" that Dr. Kimberley discusses, it
produces that dust at the rock crusher. The rock crusher, and the dust it creates, is regulated and
limited by the LRAPA permit and its production cap. Delta has continually maintained that the
rock crusher will not be moved or relocated as a result of approval of this application. Delta has
continually testified that its rock crushing operation will not change as a result of its obtaining
additional resource to mine. Furthermore, Delta has testified and visually demonstrated that it
does not create significant levels of any kind of dust during its mining operation.
Delta's potential prod'uction of dust prim.arily occurs at the rock crusher and on its internal haul
roads. Delta's operation of both the crusher and its haul roads are regulated by LRAPA under it
current permit. That permit requires a production cap on the crusher an.d requires that the haul
roads be continually watered. Delta's adherence, to those requirements permits it to operate its
crusher and to haul aggregate material on its internal roads. Delta has met those requirements for
decades and opponents have provided no evidence that Delta cannot continue to meet those
requirements as applied by LRAP A to the expansion area.
4. Delta has demonstrated that potential noise impacts can be minimized.
Lane County Board of Co:mmissioners and Eugene City Council
January 29, 2007
Page 6
Delta's noise consultant, Daly-Standlee, concluded that, with appropriate noise mitigation
measures, noise generated by future mining operations in the proposed expansion area win
comply with the most demanding interpretation of the DEQ Noise Regulations for Industry and
Commerce at all residential properties around the proposed expansion area. Again, if .Delta can
demonstrate that it meets the regulatory standards of the responsible agency, then it has
demonstrated that it can minimize the potential impact
Opponents have enlisted the services of Arthur Noxon to criticize the Daly-Standlee reports, both
the original report filed with the application and subsequent reports and responses of Daly-
Standlee thereafter (including the most recent an.alysis of minimizing impacts from the
excavation portion of the aquaclude construction). Daly-Standlee has provided several responses
and rebuttals of Mr. Noxon's criticisms which demonstrate Mr. Noxon's mistaken facts and
assumptions. Furthermore, Daly-Standlee has provided both authority and re.asoning for each of
its assumptions and conclusions. A close reading of Mr. Noxon's reports and of Daly-Standlee' s
defense of its own work renders a reasonable conclusion that Mr. Noxon has failed to refute the
conclusions of Daly-Standlee. Accordingly, the elected officials have more than sufficient
evidence., expert and otherwise, to concll1ded that Delta can minimize the potential noise impacts
associated with minin.g of the expansion area. We remind 'both elected bodies that th.e Eugene
Planning Commission also found that Delta had demonstrated that it can rn.inimize the potential
noise im.pacts.
Conclusion.
Delta has provided substantial evidence to demonstrate that it has a sign.ificant aggregate deposit
and that it can ffi.in.im.ize all potential impacts with neighboring land uses. Delta has continually
provided to the record of this proceeding its responses and rebuttals of opponent arguments and
criticism of Delta's evidence. Throughout the proceeding Delta has demonstrated that it has
historically performed all of its obligations and require:rnents, without violation, of its LRAP A
permit to mine and process aggregate material on its existing site. Delta's evidence is substantial
and reasonable and supports a finding that Delta has demonstrated that approval of this
application is consistent with the Goal 5 Rule.
Best regards,
Is/Steve Cornacchia
STEVE COR.NACCHIA
PSC:ss
cc: George Staples
ATTACHMENT I
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 29a – Eugene Planning staff comments 01/09/06
43. Exhibit 29b – Eugene Planning staff memo addressing resources 01/10/06
44. Exhibit 30 –Lane Co. Waiver from Traffic Impact Analysis 01/13/06
under LC 15.697 (2)
45. Minutes -- Joint Lane County & Eugene Planning Commission 01/17/06
Hearing -- 11-15-05
46. Staff Responses to Planning Commissioners Questions from 11-15 01/17/06
47. Exhibit 31 – email from Janis Holmes 01/17/06
48. Exhibit 32 – email from Phil Evonuk, Lane County Farm Bureau 01/17/06
49. 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 also includes
Stephen Kimberley, Ph D. report on particulate matter.
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
50. Exhibit 36 – Hydrology-Geology Report, Malia Kupillas, author 01/17/06
2
Page
Printed 02/15/07
FILE RECORD CONTENT SHEET
Ordinance No. PA 1238
No. Item Date
51. Exhibit 37 – Testimony and resume for acoustical engineer Noxon 01/17/06
52. Exhibit 38 – viewpoints of concerned residents, photographs 01/17/06
53. Exhibit 39 – memo from James E. Knepler 01/17/06
54. 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
55. Exhibit 41 – photo of culvert at Miles Lane and Taito 01/17/06
56. Exhibit 42 – photos of flooding on Summer St. and Gerald Ave. 01/17/06
57. Exhibit 43 – letter from Sierra Club Debra Higbee, author 01/17/06
58. Exhibit 44 – letter from Paul Atkinson, Laughing Stock Farm 01/17/06
59. Exhibit 45 – letter from Land Watch Lane County 01/17/06
60. Exhibit 46 – Letter from Karen Reed 01/17/06
61. Exhibit 47 – Rebuttal to opposition from EGR & Assoc. 01/17/06
addressing groundwater mitigation, flooding, alternative to
alluvial aggregate, sampling (DLCD & ODOT Guide to
Planning for Aggregate Resources in Oregon)
62. Exhibit 48 – Rebuttal to opposition from EGR & Assoc. 01/17/06
addressing underground dam concerns,
BFE datum adjustment
63. Exhibit 49 – letter from George Staples, applicant’s geologist 01/17/06
includes DOGAMI update to Reclamation Plan and
revised noise mitigation map & implementing measures
64. Exhibit 50 – letter from Steve Cornacchia, applicant’s attorney 01/17/06
65. Exhibit 51 – memo from LRAPA 01/17/06
66. Exhibit 52 – email from Charles Oppenheimer, noise consultant 01/17/06
calibration certificate for noise analysis instrument
used to conduct analysis.
67. Exhibit 53 – Wind Rose Diagrams from Dick Ruth, retired 01/17/06
LRAPA Environmental Consultant
68. Exhibit 54 – Letter from Dan Stotter, attorney for the opposition 01/17/06
69. Minutes – Joint EPC & LCPC Hearing Continuation 01/17/06
70. Cover letter from Steve Cornacchia, attorney for applicant 02/16/06
71. Exhibit 55 – EGR & Associates Inc. rebuttal to M. Reed & 02/16/06
M. Kupilas regarding significance of the resource and
groundwater
72. Exhibit 56 – Bridgewater Group, Inc. rebuttal C. Sears air quality/dust 02/16/06
73. Exhibit 57 – EGR & Associates, Inc. rebuttal to E. Perkins 02/16/06
regarding wetlands
74. Exhibit 58 – Daly Standlee & Associates, Inc. response to A. Noxon 02/16/06
regarding noise
75. Exhibit 59 – Peer review testimony from John Hector 02/16/06
of Daly Standlee & Assoc. & of A. Noxon (noise)
76. Exhibit 60 – Applicant response to A. Noxon testimony (noise) 02/16/06
77. Exhibit 61 – Peer review testimony from Environmental Associates 02/16/06
Inc. of A.Noxon study (noise) and C. Sears (air pollution)
78. Exhibit 62 – Response to EGR’s assertion of significance of the 03/17/06
resource from Mark. H. Reed
79. Exhibit 63 – Response to Bridgewater testimony (dust) J. Knepler 03/17/06
3
Page
Printed 02/15/07
FILE RECORD CONTENT SHEET
Ordinance No. PA 1238
No. Item Date
80. Exhibit 64 – Letters from Robert Funk (dust, groundwater, noise) 03/17/06
81. Exhibit 65 – Rebuttal to applicant from Doug DuPriest, attorney 03/17/06
for Joel & Therese Narva (dust, noise, groundwater, wetlands)
82. Exhibit 66 – Applicant’s final rebuttal to Planning Commissions 03/31/06
83. Exhibit 67 – Letter from J. Narva 03/27/06
84. Exhibit 29c – Eugene staff memo re: groundwater & city dry wells 05/01/06
in vicinity of site
85. Supplemental Staff Memo for Deliberations 07/17/06
86. Minutes – Joint EPC & LCPC Deliberations 07/25/06
87. Minutes - Joint LCPC & EPC Deliberations 08/29/06
88. Staff Memo for second deliberations meeting 08/08/06
89. Notice, Legal Ad, Mailing List for BCC/ECC Hearing 10/12/06
90. Staff Memo for BCC/ECC Public Hearing 10/04/06
91. Ordinance No. PA1238, Maps, Findings and Conditions 11/01/06
92. Exhibit 68 – email from Jennifer Snider 10/05/06
93. Exhibit 69 – email from Klaus Pressler 10/09/06
94. Exhibit 70 – letter from Doug DuPriest, attorney for opposition 10/11/06
raising process issue on accepting new evidence
95. Exhibit 70.1 response to DuPriest from County Counsel 10/19/06
Process issue - conduct of hearing
96. Exhibit 71 – letter from Scott Caughell 10/23/06
97. Exhibit 72 – letter from Tim Cowdry 10/23/06
98. Exhibit 73 – letter from Cody Boyd 10/23/06
99. Exhibit 74 – letter from Chuck Hoefer 10/23/06
100. Exhibit 75 – letter from John B. Heideman 10/23/06
101. Exhibit 76 – letter from Arthur M. Silva 10/24/06
102. Exhibit 77 – letter from Mark J. Slinker 10/24/06
103. Exhibit 78 – letter from Bertrand R. Gosslein 10/24/06
104. Exhibit 79 – letter from Alan Collman 10/24/06
105. Exhibit 80 -- letter from Cliff Brown 10/25/06
106. Exhibit 81 – letter from Adam Cline 10/25/06
107. Exhibit 82 – letter from Ramon Villalobos 10/25/06
108. Exhibit 83 – letter from Jerry Robinette 10/25/06
109. Exhibit 84 – letter from Robert Cooper 10/25/06
110. Exhibit 85 – letter from Steve Agnes 10/25/06
111. Exhibit 86 – letter from Mike Holmes 10/25/06
112. Exhibit 87 – letter from Frank Horn 10/25/06
113. Exhibit 88 – letter from anonymous Delta employee 10/25/06
114. Exhibit 89 – letter from Meg & Evan Fringer 10/25/06
115. Exhibit 90 – letter from Michael Williams 10/25/06
116. Exhibit 91 -- letter from Gene Rocha 10/25/06
117. Exhibit 92 – letter from Girdon C. Kirkland 10/25/06
118. Exhibit 93 – letter from Michael Roy Roe 10/25/06
119. Exhibit 94 – letter from Raymond L. Bruington 10/25/06
120. Exhibit 95 – letter from Dennis Lanini 10/25/06
121. Exhibit 96 – letter from Tim Zwettler 10/25/06
122. Exhibit 97 – letter from Mike Morrison 10/25/06
4
Page
Printed 02/15/07
FILE RECORD CONTENT SHEET
Ordinance No. PA 1238
No. Item Date
123. Exhibit 98 – letter from Joe Grigsby 10/25/06
124. Exhibit 99 – letter from Denis A. Roles 10/25/06
125. Exhibit 100a – letter from DuPriest to County re: bifurcate 10/27/06
126. Exhibit 100b – letter from DuPriest to City re: bifurcate 10/27/06
127. Exhibit 101 – letter from Butch & Joy Primrose 10/27/06
128. Exhibit 102 – phone msg. from Eileen Pollard 10/27/06
129. Exhibit 103 – letter from Jolene Johnson 10/27/06
130. Exhibit 104 – letter from Terry Shulmire 10/27/06
131. Exhibit 105 – letter from the Gardner family 10/27/06
132. Exhibit 106 – letter from John Taylor 10/27/06
133. Exhibit 107 – letter from David Wallace 10/27/06
134. Exhibit 108 – letter from Evan Fringer 10/27/06
135. Exhibit 109 – letter from Bud Fritz 10/27/06
136. Exhibit 110 – letter from Jose Fuentes 10/27/06
137. Exhibit 111 – letter from Davin D. Druy 10/27/06
138. Exhibit 112 – letter from Carl W. Sonntag 10/27/06
139. Exhibit 113 – letter from William Silvanus 10/27/06
140. Exhibit 114 – letter from Cody Crumley 10/27/06
141. Exhibit 115 – letter from Michael D. May 10/27/06
142. Exhibit 116 – letter from Mike Parker 10/27/06
143. Exhibit 117 – letter from Rick Keegan 10/27/06
144. Exhibit 118 – letter from Denis Mackey 10/27/06
145. Exhibit 119 – letter from Justin Austin 10/27/06
146. Exhibit 120 – letter from Tyler J. Greene 10/27/06
147. Exhibit 121 – letter from Paul Yearous 10/27/06
148. Exhibit 122 – letter from Wendal Cooper 10/27/06
149. Exhibit 123 – letter from Brent Mobley 10/27/06
150. Exhibit 124 – letter from Lester D. Fuller Jr. 10/27/06
151. Exhibit 125 – letter from Shane May 10/27/06
152. Exhibit 126 – letter from Michael R. Holly 10/27/06
153. Exhibit 127 – letter from J. D. Mark 10/27/06
154. Exhibit 128 – letter from Cory Randall 10/27/06
155. Exhibit 129 – letter from Chris S. Hunt 10/27/06
156. Exhibit 130 – letter from Lawrence Gibson 10/27/06
157. Exhibit 131 – letter from Roger Childs 10/27/06
158. Exhibit 132 – letter from Sue Parmer-Boyd 10/27/06
159. Exhibit 133 – letter from Josh Farley 10/27/06
160. Exhibit 134 – letter from Wm. Dennis Boyd 10/27/06
161. Exhibit 135 – letter from Jeff D. Muren 10/27/06
162. Exhibit 136 – letter from Gary Brewer 10/27/06
163. Exhibit 137 – letter from Mike Perino 10/27/06
164. Exhibit 138 – letter from Eric Threalt 10/27/06
165. Exhibit 139 – email from Davin & Jeanine Anderson 10/30/06
166. Exhibit 140 – DOGAMI review of low permeability barrier 10/30/06
(aquaclude) and permit conditions required
167. Exhibit 141 – letter/email from Laske-Clifton Corporation 10/30/06
168. Exhibit 142 – email from Mike Solomon 10/30/06
5
Page
Printed 02/15/07
FILE RECORD CONTENT SHEET
Ordinance No. PA 1238
No. Item Date
169. Exhibit 143 – email from Paul Weinhold 10/30/06
170. Exhibit 144 – DOGAMI geologist review of onsite aggregate deposit 10/30/06
171. Exhibit 145 – letter from Curtis Jones 10/31/06
172. Exhibit 146 – letter from Levi Mills 10/31/06
173. Exhibit 147 – letter from Kim Miller 10/31/06
174. Exhibit 148 – letter from Russ Fuller 10/31/06
175. Exhibit 149 – letter from Patrick Kimel 10/31/06
176. Exhibit 150 – letter from James Boyles 10/31/06
177. Exhibit 151 – letter from Ed Glaspey 10/31/06
178. Exhibit 152 – letter from George Cervantes 10/31/06
179. Exhibit 153 – letter from Oscar Diaz 10/31/06
180. Exhibit 154 – letter from Scott Miller 10/31/06
181. Exhibit 155 – letter from Al Clifford 10/31/06
182. Exhibit 156 – letter from Travis Hillsman 10/31/06
183. Exhibit 157 – letter from Edwin M. & Marie R. Baker 10/31/06
184. Exhibit 158 – letter from Jon Bowers 10/31/06
185. Exhibit 159 – letter from Larry Jeff 10/31/06
186. Exhibit 160 – letter from Andy Bruhn 10/31/06
187. Exhibit 161 – letter from Jesus Gonzales 10/31/06
188. Exhibit 162 – letter from Mark Coon 10/31/06
189. Exhibit 163 – letter from Christopher E. Hale 10/31/06
190. Exhibit 164 – letter from John H. Baker 10/31/06
191. Exhibit 165 – letter from Kay L. Toolson 10/31/06
192. Exhibit 166 – email from Richard Skeie 10/31/06
193. Exhibit 167 – email from Paul F. Ehinger & Associates 10/31/06
194. Exhibit 168 – email from Stephen Wendell 10/31/06
195. Exhibit 169 – email from Ronald F. Taylor 10/31/06
196. Exhibit 170 – email from Richard I. Hansen 10/31/06
197. Exhibit 171 – email from Glen Coglietti 10/31/06
198. Exhibit 172 – letter from Robert Trease 10/31/06
199. Exhibit 173 – letter from Robert Hernandez 10/31/06
200. Exhibit 174 – letter from Jason Dull 10/31/06
201. Exhibit 175 – letter from George M. Norbest 10/31/06
202. Exhibit 176 – letter from Ron Crowson 10/31/06
203. Exhibit 177 – letter from Deric Edmundson 10/31/06
204. Exhibit 178 – letter from Josh Tayor 10/31/06
205. Exhibit 179 – letter from Bradley S. Kevelt 10/31/06
206. Exhibit 180 – letter from Ron Reynolds 10/31/06
207. Exhibit 181 – letter from Twyla & Joe Tatum 10/31/06
208. Exhibit 182 – letter from Debbie Morrison 10/31/06
209. Exhibit 183 – letter from Judith C. McNatt 10/31/06
210. Exhibit 184 – letter from Ted Boyd 10/31/06
211. Exhibit 185 – letter from Mike Green 10/31/06
212. Exhibit 186 – letter from Brian Hardin 10/31/06
213. Exhibit 187 – letter from Tom Waley 10/31/06
214. Exhibit 188 – letter from Hal Heideman 10/31/06
215. Exhibit 189 – letter from Mark A Laharty 10/31/06
6
Page
Printed 02/15/07
FILE RECORD CONTENT SHEET
Ordinance No. PA 1238
No. Item Date
216. Exhibit 190 – letter from John H. Haxby 10/31/06
217. Exhibit 191 – letter from Joe Larsen 10/31/06
218. Exhibit 192 – letter from Jeff Anderson 10/31/06
219. Exhibit 193 – letter from Steve Crippen 10/31/06
220. Exhibit 194 – letter from George D. Staples 10/31/06
221. Exhibit 195 – letter from Daniel Boyd 10/31/06
222. Exhibit 196 – letter from Kathleen M. Anderson 10/31/06
223. Exhibit 197 – letter from Craig P. Bierman 10/31/06
224. Exhibit 198 – letter from Mike Bruington 10/31/06
225. Exhibit 199 – letter from Gene Bryon 10/31/06
226. Exhibit 200 – letter from William Rhoads 10/31/06
227. Exhibit 201 – letter from Randy Spalding 10/31/06
228. Exhibit 202 – letter from Debbie & Mike Morrison 10/31/06
229. Exhibit 203 – letter from Robert C. Allwande 10/31/06
230. Exhibit 204 – letter from Dustin M. Smith 10/31/06
231. Exhibit 205 – letter from Todd Roemer 10/31/06
232. Exhibit 206 – letter from David Bennett 10/31/06
233. Exhibit 207 – letter from Kent Falk 10/31/06
234. Exhibit 208 – letter from Gerald Sandhorst 10/31/06
235. Exhibit 209 – letter from Betty Kennedy 10/31/06
236. Exhibit 210 – letter from Mike Swanertt 10/31/06
237. Exhibit 211 – email from Bob Cherney 10/31/06
238. Exhibit 212 – email from Yeiter to Eugene City Council re: DuPriest 10/30/06
process issue, Piercy reiterate new evidence OK
239. Exhibit 213 – email from Yeiter to Bettman & staff re: process 10/31/06
240. Exhibit 214 – handout re: Procedural Code diff’s. (from DuPriest) 11/01/06
241. Exhibit 215 – previous LUBA decision re: Goal 5 process supercedes 11/01/06
local process
242. Exhibit 216 -- Sample Log of bore hole & pit wall profiles from 11/01/06
ODOT, illustrates resource configuration & significance.
243. Exhibit 217 – letter from Dick Ruth, clarifications for the record 11/01/06
re: LRAPA Permit Compliance (dust)
244. Exhibit 218 – letter from Sandra Lopez, LRAPA Operations Manager 11/01/06
haul road emissions analysis
245. Exhibit 219 – EGR recommendation for Aquaclude modification 11/01/06
in design, diagram attached
246. Exhibit 220 – DOGAMI publication re: Mine Dewatering and 11/01/06
Groundwater Protection – Aquaclude technology
247. Exhibit 221 – memo from DSA re: additional analysis re: noise 11/01/06
248. Exhibit 222 – letter from Sandra Lopez, LRAPA Operations Manager 11/01/06
terminating Delta Stipulated Final Order 06-2753.
249. Exhibit 223 – letter from SAIF Corp. re: Industrial Hygiene Services 11/01/06
monitoring of personal exposure to dust and silica at
the quarry screening plant.
250. Exhibit 224 – memo from Sarah Hendrickson, M. D. re: general 11/01/06
nature of medical testimony from opposition expert
251. Exhibit 225 – email from Mark & Debra Stiffler 11/01/06
7
Page
Printed 02/15/07
FILE RECORD CONTENT SHEET
Ordinance No. PA 1238
No. Item Date
252. Exhibit 226 – letter from Robert A. Ballin 11/01/06
253. Exhibit 227 – letter from Steve Gross 11/01/06
254. Exhibit 228 – letter from Mike Higgins 11/01/06
255. Exhibit 229 – letter from Rodger Spears 11/01/06
256. Exhibit 230 – letter from Reid Findley 11/01/06
257. Exhibit 231 – letter from John Olafson 11/01/06
258. Exhibits 232a & b – letters from John Gregor 11/01/06
259. Exhibit 233 – letter from Bravo Excavation, LLC 11/15/06
260. Exhibit 234 – letter from Cynthia Tidball 11/01/06
261. Exhibit 235 – letter from John Nedele 11/01/06
262. Exhibit 236 – letter from Mike McMurren 11/01/06
263. Exhibit 237 – letter from Thomas T. Kersten 11/01/06
264. Exhibit 238 – letter from Svevo Brooks 11/01/06
265. Exhibit 239 – letter from Frank Hern 11/01/06
266. Exhibit 240 – letter from John P. Hammer 11/07/06
267. Exhibit 241 – letter from Carlton Woodard 11/07/06
268. Exhibit 242 – letter from Casey Woodard 11/07/06
269. Exhibit 243 – letter from Larry Campbell 11/07/06
270. Exhibit 244 – email from S. Hilton 11/07/06
271. Exhibit 245 – letter from Phil Shelley 11/13/06
272. Exhibit 246 – letter from Randy Hoepfl 11/14/06
273. Exhibit 247 – email from Julie M. Morris 11/14/06
274. Exhibit 248 – email from Jeff Goggin 11/14/06
275. Exhibit 249 – email from Michael& Mary Blackburn 11/31/06
276. Exhibit 250 – email from Mark & Debra Stiffler 11/31/06
277. Exhibit 251 – letter from DuPriest requesting bifurcate hearings 11/31/06
278. Exhibit 252 – letter from DuPriest re: limits on discretion and 11/31/06
scope of review by City Council
279. Exhibit 253 – email from Richard D. Stokes, Jr. 11/31/06
280. Exhibit 254 & 255 – letter from Quincy Powers 12/05/06
281. Exhibit 256 – letter from Avon Lee Babb to Steve Lee 12/05/06
282. Exhibit 257 – letter from A. Lee Babb 12/05/06
283. Exhibit 258a – letter from Gary Wildish 12/07/06
284. Exhibit 258 – email from Dan Revell 12/12/06
285. Exhibit 259 – Documentation of Groundwater Hydraulic Barriers 12/12/06
and Slurry Walls –applicant submittal
286. Exhibit 260 – Summary of Planning Commission Recommendations 12/12/06
287. Exhibit 261 – Excerpts from McKenzie-Willamette Medical Ctr. TIA 12/12/06
and color map of Eugene
288. Exhibit 262 – testimony from Mark Reed 12/12/06
289. Exhibit 263 – testimony from Stephen L. Kimberley M.D. 12/12/06
290. Exhibit 263a – Curriculum Vitae, Dr. Kimberely 12/12/06
291. Exhibit 264 – testimony from Arthur Noxon 12/12/06
292. Exhibit 265 – letter from Joel Narva 12/12/06
293. Exhibit 266 – letter from Mike Alltucker 12/12/06
294. Exhibit 267 – DVD of Delta Trucks Working in the Existing Pit 12/12/06
295. Resubmittal of Exhibit 33 from Doug DuPriest 12/15/06
8
Page
Printed 02/15/07
FILE RECORD CONTENT SHEET
Ordinance No. PA 1238
No. Item Date
296. Exhibit 268 – resubmittals from Kate Perle and Kevin Jones 01/06/07
Full Circle Community Farm (Ex. 33i, 33j, 40)
297. Exhibit 269 – letter from Joel C. Narva 01/08/07
298. Exhibit 270 – letter from DSA responding to A. Noxon 01/08/07
testimony (noise)
299. Exhibit 271 – letter from Karen Reed 01/08/07
300. Exhibit 272 – letter from Mark Reed 01/08/07
301. Exhibit 273 – email from Betty Taylor to LRAPA staff 01/10/07
and related documents
302. Exhibit 274 – submittal from Doug DuPriest w/attachments 01/08/07
303. Exhibit 275 – letter from Edith Nelson 01/08/07
304. Exhibit 276 – letter from Norman R. and Lillian E. Christensen 01/08/07
305. Exhibit 277 – memo from Beth Crawford 01/08/07
306. Exhibit 278 – summary conclusion from Noxon 01/08/07
307. Exhibit 279 – Notice to Interested Parties re: Taylor ex-parte contact 01/10/11
9
Page
Printed 02/15/07
ATTACHMENT J
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
Exhibit B 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
Exhibit C
Ordinance No. PA 1238
Metro Plan Amendment and Rezone
Delta Property Company
Conditions Necessary to Minimi.ze Conflicts are Req.uired to Become Part of Any
Operation Plan Reviewed or Approved under LC 16.217
NOISE mitiaatlon
All Zones:
1. Begin first and second lift mining operations no earlier than 7:00AM and end
mining operations no later than 1 OPM~
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'ofthewestern
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 I.ift 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 fro.m below) when the excavator is within 800' of the. western
boundary of the Expansion Area.
1 O.lf 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 theCA T 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 LRAPApermit
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 anyone
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 (fUerecord No.. 17):
The permittee shall:
1. be sure aJI 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,
a.nd 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 aniy 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