Loading...
1989-19649-Minutes for Meeting May 16,1989 Recorded 8/7/1989S9~19649 0050 0743 DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SURFACE MINING HEARING MINUTES Tuesday, May 16 , 19 8 - PIG A!", 35 6:00 PM - { Juvenile Justice Building Conti :fie -V t A'.?'cs i 3 Call to Order Chair Prante called the meeting to order at 6:02 PM. Commissioner Throop and Commissioner Maudlin were also present. Staff members present were Craig Smith, Planning Director, Karen Green, Legal Counsel, Chuck McGraw, Planning staff, and Sue Stoneman, recorder. Public Hearing on Acceptance of Thompson Site (Site 540) to Inventory of Mineral and Aggregate Resources Chair Prante outlined the purpose and procedure of the hearings. The first hearing is to consider whether or not the Thompson site should be included in the resource inventory for aggregate and mineral resources. She noted that the Planning Commission had recommended that this site not be zoned SM. She called for declarations of conflicts or ex parte contact by the board. There were none. Chuck McGraw gave the staff report for site 540. The site is legally described as Township 18, Range 12, Section 24, taxlots 1500 and 1501. The site contains an estimated 340,000 cubic yards of good quality red and black cinders. The site is owned by Kenyan Thompson. Staff had determined that Mr. Thompson had met the requirements to have the site placed on the inventory. Staff recommended that the site be included on the inventory for consideration of SM zoning. Chair Prante called for any challenges and there were none. She then called for public testimony regarding placing the site on the inventory. Rick Ergenbright and Pat Rogers both stated they were opposed to mining this site. Both had come to testify on the Rose site. Public Hearing on Zoning Thompson Site (Site 540) for Surface Mining Chuck McGraw gave the staff report. Staff had identified two conflicting Goal 5 resources, fish and wildlife areas and habitats, and outstanding scenic views. Further conflicts identified were rural residential uses. Staff had recommended not to allow SM zoning because of the high availability of cinders in the area and the low value in relation to the conflicting uses. P E , . 1 MAUI-, ~ l~,i~ OOS6 0744 Chair Prante called for proponent's testimony. There was none. She then called for opposing testimony. There was none. She then closed the public hearing. MOTION: Commissioner Maudlin moved that they accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and not zone the Thompson site. Commissioner Throop seconded. VOTE: Unanimous approval. Public Hearing on Rose Site (Site 392) Chair Prante called for declarations of conflict or ex parte contact. Commissioner Maudlin stated that he had spoken with Sally Wegner in the office, but there was no conflict or ex parte contact. There were no challenges. Chuck McGraw gave the staff report for site 392. The site's legal description is Township 18, Range 12, Section 23, taxlot 300. The resource type is quarry rock, aggregate and fill. There is 7.5 cubic yards of fill. They propose removing the basalt and crushing it for road aggregate. Staff had identified two conflicting Goal 5 resources: land needed and desireable for open space and fish and wildlife areas and habitats. Further conflicting uses are rural residential uses in the area. Based upon the ESEE analysis, staff recommended SM zoning for this site. He noted a $.20 per cubic yard savings on hauling costs if this site is mined for fill material. There was a discrepancy with the amount of quarry rock. Estimates range from 59,000 to 10,000,000 cubic yards. Staff recommended that the fill material be protected and quarry rock be preserved but that blasting on site crushing should not be allowed. He read into the record the proposed conditions of mining the site. Chair Prante called for advisory testimony. Duane Clark, Planning Comission member, came forward. He stated that the Planning Commission had talked about retaining four feet of dirt and filling in the mined area with rock to be covered with at least four feet of dirt. He encouraged the board to zone portions of sites for mining, contrary to the memo Karen Green had issued. He stated that the Planning Commission recommendation to do so had been based on the information provided by the applicant. He felt there were additional adverse impacts to zoning the entire site SM. Chair Prante then called for testimony in favor of zoning the site SM. Bob Lovlien, attorney representing Rose and Associates, came forward. He stated they had earlier requested that they consider the fill material and the quarry rock as separate issues, and they are making that request again at this time. He noted the site contains two Goal 5 resources, aggregate, which is the crushable basalt, and 7.5 million cubic yards of fill material. They had testified that the county was no longer selling fill material, but since then they have resumed dirt sales out of Knott pit. Based on current rates of use, there is about two more years' supply at 2 000' 0745 Knott pit. Based on the fact that the Knott pit resource will be gone in two years and the proximity of this resource to the Bend urban area, he stated that this was a significant resource. With regard to the aggregate, he stated they could provide at least 25,000 cubic yards of aggregate, but they feel it is substantially more than 59,000 cubic yards at the site. They have test results showing that the resource meets ODOT specifications. With respect to wildlife, he noted that deer are in the area, but this is not a winter deer range or any other significant deer area. The deer are already impacted by Knott pit and they have further addressed this issue by allowing only a small area of extraction at any one time. They will transfer irrigation water rights to this property and they are looking at installing an 8-inch water main from Avion to control dust. Rural residential conflict raises the issue of transportation, which has been addressed by limiting access to the north end of the site. This traffic will be traffic that was previously using Knott pit across the road, so no more traffic will be generated in the area as a result. He stated that they agree with the staff's and planning commission's recommendation with respect to extraction of the select fill material at the site, however, whether the county has the authority to do this under the ESEE analysis is a challenge they would preserve. Backfilling the excavations with waste rock would be acceptable to the applicant as well. Equipment impacts to open the site will be limited to a dozer, loader, and backhoe. The did not agree with the planning commission's recommendation on aggregate. They feel there was a misinterpretation of Goal 5 as it relates to the conflicting uses. They would like to have them address each of the two issues separately. The applicant does feel that the basalt rim should be preserved. Chair Prante then called for opposing testimony. Ed Sullivan, 101 SW Main, Portland, came forward. Mr. Sullivan is the attorney representing the the Southeast Property Owners Association. They oppose the site for either aggreage or fill use under SM zoning. He noted that the Planning Commission had recommended not allowing SM zoning for the aggregate resource. He noted that a controversy had developed last fall over the lack of quality and quantity information for aggregate on the site. They request that this site be removed from the inventory for those reasons. He stated they had previously thought they had an understanding with the county to that affect, and he noted that he had listened to tapes of earlier proceedings. He stated that the applicant has bought no new information before the board since that time. He then outlined what testimony and expert witnesses they would be providing, and stated they would provide information about alternative sites that have not yet been listed on the inventory. He noted that there exists a fault line through the site and they will address its implications. He stated that no site should be considered by the county for placement on the inventory or for SM zoning unless accurate quantity and quality data is provided. They 3 00S6 0746 believe the figures provided for total aggregate need is overstated and that transportation costs as stated have been too high. This information comes from the industry rather than an objective third party. They plan to complete a study on this and submit it to them in about one week. They also feel that mineral and aggregate resources on federal lands should be included on the inventory. He stated that processing and extraction are proposed at the bottom of a bowl which is surrounded by homes so noise cannot be mitigated. They are concerned about the affects on rural residential and agricultural uses, conflicts regarding noise and dust and effects on property values and interference with the extention of the urban growth boundary and a possible taking claim. He stated that they would present evidence of one large house deal that fell through because of the possibility of this mining occuring. Louis Scott, 13855 SW Arlo Road, Beaverton, came forward. He is a regustered engineering geologist and geotechnical engineer with over 40 years' experience. He reviewed the geological features of the Rose site using an aerial photograph. The site lies in a valley with houses on the bluffs overlooking the site. The material is sedimentary water deposited material through the valley that reaches through the area. There are other sites which contain this same general type of material which was deposited by a large river at one point. On March 27, he did a site study. He referred to two studies done by Century West Engineering, one in 1977 and one in 1980. He noted that the 3/19/77 report from Century West estimates a 7,000,000 cubic yards. He stated that the estimate is based on intuition, they only know about material to a depth of 15 feet. Seven test holes were dug with backhoes, and of those only two went 15 feet without encountering rock. The 1980 report refers to a siesmic study which proves a depth of 30 to 40 feet. He disagrees with that estimate because the skill or experience of the person analyzing the data not documented. He stated that this test is not as accurate as test pits. If they have to prove the amount of resource, they can only use the test pit data reliably. Using that data, they can only prove 1,000,000 cubic yards of material. If they slope the site, it will be less. He stated that there are three other sites west of Knott pit and 40 acres east of Knott pit and the area near Arnold Market and Rickard Road for the same types of material. They took traffic counts on Rickard Road and had a study done by an acoustical engineer to determine the ambient noise level which is extremely low in this area. That data was submitted for the record. That report indicated that processing would be considerably in excess of 10 dba. He stated that they could only get 218,000 cubic yards out of a five acre site with the sides sloped as requested. He submitted a letter from the Forest Service indicating that they would make available to the county their sand, gravel, and aggregate resources, so there would be no dire need or sole source component. He indicated that the testing performed on the quarry rock are from only two samples from the face of the bluff, which he did not feel was an adequate sampling to base the 4 00A 0'74'7 quantity estimates on. He stated that this is Newberry lava, which has a poor reputation for quality. He felt that the two small face samples were not adequate to make a determination about the quality of the resource. He noted that blasting would be necessary to extract the rock. There were some questions regarding the other sites. They are mostly privately owned parcels not on the inventory, and the demo dump site. It was noted that these sites are not mentioned because they have less conflict impacts, but just to show there are other sites. He noted that the dirt on this site is easier to work than most. Rick Ergenbright came forward. He discussed the scenic beauty, wildlife, clean air and water, and other quality of life factors which bring people to Bend. These factors are Goal 5 resources. He did not think that rock and dirt should be allowed to outweigh the other resources which exist at this site. His homesite directly overlooks the Rose site. He stated that he would supply copies of publications and photographs showing the beauty of the surrounding area and photos taken from the Rose site. He stated that on page one of the staf f report there is no mention of the wildlife conflict at the site. He stated that the site visit had been made on a day when temperatures were below zero and so no wildlife was present at that time. He stated that deer frequent the site as well as other wildlife including endangered species. He has observed two coyotes and a pup in a den on the Rose site. He felt that the additional travel costs to truck in material from another site was worth it. Franklin Gist, 60386 Arnold Market Loop, came forward. He presented a petition signed by about sixty owners or property all around the Rose site who are opposed to mining it. He also mentioned being opposed to blasting at the site. He also questioned the quantity estimates provided in the Century West report. Pat Rogers, 60500 Arnold Market Road, came forward. They have lived across from the proposed mining site since 1972. She talked about how they love the land and what grows on the property and the animals that live there. Their hobbies revolve around their land and they are outside a great deal of the time as a result. They were given assurances in the past that a dirt mine would not be allowed due to the incompatibility in that area, that the site was only a potential resource. She stated that the use would have impacts on the roads, dust, and noise, and the quality of livability in the area for over fifty years if allowed, and would ruin the land forever. William Thomason, 60660 Bobcat Road, came forward. He showed the location of his parcel on the map. He stated that their family has their place for sale, and listed it almost a year ago. Recently they had a serious offer that was supposed to close on June 10, but fell through when the prospective buyer found out that 5 0090 0748 this action was pending and saw how it would impact this property. He stated that he is against the proposed mining because it will devalue surrounding properties, possibly affect wells in the area, increase truck traffic and adversely affect wildlife. He regularly sees from 30 to 50 deer on the property. Joan Hale, 60635 Bobcat Road, stated that she has 20 acres within one half mile of the proposed site and another 14 acre site to the west. She has lived on the property since before it was zoned SMR and has developed her property into a ranch. She stated that her property assessment has increased 40%, but if the pit goes in the valuation will go down at least that much. She is unaware of any instance where property values held where there was a mine. She stated that if the county would tax everyone a small amount they would find all kinds of areas. She also stated that the area east of town has many old seabeds containing resource, and there is no need to put these mines in suburban areas. She mentioned that the hospital had lost two prospective doctors coming to the area because they did not want to live near this pit. She did not feel it was right that a few men should make millions of dollars at the expense of the surrounding property owners. She felt the property would make good suburban ranchettes. Sally Wagner, 60675 Bobcat Road, came forward. She showed the location of their home on the map. The live above the Rose site. She mentioned a sound study that had been done, and noted that due to the prevailing winds, they will not be able to meet DEQ noise standards at their home. She stated that llama breeding programs can be upset by noise and that the dust that will coat the pastures can kill animals that injest large amounts. She stated that Al Driver at the Public Works Department had told her that there is about 250,000 cubic yards of dirt remaining at Knott pit and that supply is expected to last another three years. Duane Manweller, 21395 Rickard Road, showed the location of his property on the map. The Rose site is adjacent to his property, as is Knott pit. He stated that he would not have moved there if they had known of all this. They were not told of the Rose site potential, and they almost didn't move there because of the dump, but they were told that the dump would be made into a park in five years. He said he had been told that the two rock samples taken for testing had actually come from his site. He stated that they hear a lot of noise from Knott landfill at their house which would be further compounded by the proposed use. Bob Marcott, 60789 Rickard Road, came forward and described the location of his property. Their raise champion Chesapeake Bay retrievers and have lots of animals. He stated his concern about the dust harming their animals. Michael Jeffries, 21079 Woodhaven, came forward. He stated that his wife is a doctor. He stated that they are buying property in 6 ®096 0749 the area and that they moved here because of the quality of life, the weather, and the people. They have to live near the hospital due to his wife's profession. They have had a difficult time finding property, and if this goes through, they will not buy this parcel. This use will compound dust, noise, and traffic. He stated that their house will be 3,000 square feet and very valuable. Patsy Schueller, 22232 Rickard Road, stated that she lives about one half mile from the site. She stated they bought their property about one year ago and were unaware of the proposed mine. They oppose it. Lester Alford, 60376 Arnold Market Road, stated that he moved here about two years ago and is retired from the Air Force. He stated that he chose to live here rather than his hometown in Central Florida because of the development problems they have had here, which is what Central Oregon is now facing. They had faced a question of growth versus quality of life, which is what is being faced here. He felt that we should be prepared to pay the transportation costs for this material as the price for being able to live here. When they purchased their property two years ago, they called the Planning Department and he was assured that there were no zoning changes contemplated in that area, and was told that this area was zoned agricultural and nothing was mentioned about rock mining. Patricia Gainsforth, 327 NW Greenwood, Bend, testified about the impact on land values. She is a real estate broker, and had people looking at some property in the area. When they were informed of this, they withdrew their earnest money offer. Bob Archer, 22175 Rickard Road, stated that he is probably the farthest from Knott landfill as anyone who has testified, but when the wind is going east he can hear everything at Knott landfill, so this is not just a noise problem for those nearby. On Sundays they can hear the model airplanes flown near the landfill. He bought his property two years ago and was told at that time there were no problems in the area. He has a view of the mountains from his property, and on certain days he can see clouds of dust and the house gets very dirty. His house is two miles from the landfill. Linda Entlecoffer, 60361 Horse Butte Road, stated that they purchased their home two and a half years ago and have five acres with a great view. Even though she lives a good distance from the landfill, she deals with the constant truck traffic which has a great impact because their area is so quiet. She noted they are seeing a great deal of desireable growth in the area that will be affected. She felt it was worth hauling dirt. She felt it was important to protect the natural scenic beauty of the area. 7 QvOJS6 075-0 Chair Prante called for further testimony. There was none. Mr. Scott asked to clarify some previous testimony, correcting the statement that the two rock samples had come from the Manweiller property. That had actually come from the Rose site. Ed Sullivan came foward to summarize their testimony. He stated that this is another application to mine this property but with no more documentation than existed in 1985 when the county turned it back for lack of adequate information. He felt they should resist the approach of separate consideration for dirt and aggregate. He stated that the site cannot be designated for aggregate use or fill dirt use because the applicant did nothing to give the county any idea for a reasonable amount of resource at the site. He stated that they could not compete with Knott pit or other sources with the conditions as proposed by the Planning Commission. He noted that all known significant fill material sites must appear in the inventory, but the two that they identified as alternative sites do not appear in the inventory. He noted that even though there would be no crusher at the site, there will be trucks and equipment creating noise that will carry a great distance in that area. He stated they would present live testimony Thursday on mining noise and violations of the 10 decibel rule and showing that this site cannot meet the 10 decibel rule. He indicated that Thomason's had lost about $100,000 profit through the lost sale of a house because of the status of this site. He concluded that their testimony indicates without question there is substantial, severe, and irreversible unmitigable conflicts from this site. He stated that there was insufficient information upon which to predicate an aggregate decision and even if the guesses are correct, they can't get the material without blasting. He stated there was insufficient data on the quantity of the fill material, and that the applicant had failed to meet the burden of proof. Chair Prante then called for rebuttal by proponents. Bob Lovlien asked to have a couple of days to review the new material that had been submitted. It was noted that the hearing would remain open for five additional working days to allow additional written testimony to be submitted. He reiterated their request to have the two resources considered separately. Commissioner Throop asked about rebuttal to the 15 foot testimony. Mr. Lovlien responded that there is a 90 foot resource right across the street, and so it is safe to assume this site is at least 50 feet deep, and that is confirmed by the siesmographic testing done at the site. Commissioner Throop asked for some rebuttal on the estimates on the aggregate material. Mr. Lovlien responded that they did establish where the samples had been taken from and that the samples met ODOT standards. He noted that there had been testimony by Joel Smith on how to calculate total volume. In a report dated May 10, 1983, the resource was estimated at 59,800 cubic yards on a 200' x 200' quarry site. With regard to the CWE seismographic tests on 91 acres, they are confident that the 7.5 million cubic yard estimate is accurate on the fill material. He noted that sloping will 8 OOS6 0 751 reduce that by 20% to 25% at the most. He noted that a backhoe and trucks would be the only equipment at the site, and if they can't meet DEQ standards for noise, they won't be allowed to operate. Under opponent's rebuttal, Rick Ergenbright stated that the wind blows six months of the year from the west/southwest and in the spring and summer it blows from the east/northeast. From Knott pit there are very few people raising animals in the direction of the wind but if this pit goes in they will definitely be affected. Louis Scott came foward. He stated that in order to accurately identify quantity, they would have to conduct a systematic testing program including drilling holes to the planned 40 foot depth spaced 20 feet apart. They should be core drilled with samples taken at various depths. Instead, he stated they took two samples from the face of the rock and from that they estimated length, width, and depth of the entire area. With regard to projecting depth based on the depth of Knott pit across the road, he stated that this was not a valid conclusion, because that depth may or may not extend to this area. He stated that based on his experience and training, he concludes that more testing is necessary. Commissioner Throop asked about seismic tests. Mr. Scott responded that he thought this was a poor report because it did not give explanations and give details. The testing is done by creating a noise and computing refraction of the sound. If it is not accompanied by control tests they could get misleading results. Ed Sullivan stated that they were unaware that Knott pit had suspended dirt sales before the last hearing, so the alternative sites had not been proposed until now. They found these sites by consulting a DOGAMI map, and that map indicated lots of areas with fill dirt on them, however, those areas are not on the inventory. Pat Thomas came foward. She stated that she had been told by Bud Rose that their land had a lot of fill dirt and they should get into selling it. There was some discussion about placing additional sites on the inventory at this time. Adjournment Chair Prante noted that written testimony could be submitted until 5:00 PM on May 23rd. They will announce their decision on this hearing for June 7, 1989, at 10:00 AM. 9 0000 0'75 Being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 PM. S UTES COUNTY BO OF COMMISSIONERS is BB ~towG~PKJrante, Chair Tom Tliroog; Commissioner ss 10