HomeMy WebLinkAbout90-028REVIEWED
90-23181 i 0
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DE
An Ordinance Amending Ordinance
No. PL -20, the Deschutes County
Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan,
as Amended, Revising Provisions
Concerning Surface Mining,
Repealing Ordinance No. 88-040,
Declaring an Emergency and Setting
an Effective Date.
ORDINANCE NO. 90-028
tbUNTY, OREGON
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUWX$
OREGON, ORDAINS as follows:
Section 1. Ordinance No. 88-040 is hereby repealed."""`
Section 2. Ordinance No. PL -20, the Deschutes County Year
2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, is further amended by
adoption of the introductory statement, goal and policies,
attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by refer-
ence, as the surface mining chapter of the plan.
Section 3. The Board of County Commissioners adopts as part
of its findings and conclusions in support of the amendment set
forth in Section 2 of this Ordinance the memoranda from County
Legal Counsel to the Board, dated November 30 and December 12,
1988, attached hereto as Exhibits "B" and "C," and the June 25,
1990, memorandum from County planning staff, attached hereto as
Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein.
Section 4. The Board makes the following additional find-
ings and conclusions in support of the amendment in Section 2 of
this Ordinance:
a. After the giving of public notice as required by law, on
September 28, 1988, the Deschutes County Planning Commission
held a public hearing on proposed amendments to the surface
mining chapter of the plan and received public testimony and
staff reports.
b. After the giving of public notice as required by law, on
October 12, 1988, the Planning Commission held a work
session at which it reviewed and considered public testimony
and staff reports, and developed and recommended for adop-
tion by the Board of County Commissioners proposed amend-
ments to the surface mining chapter of the plan.
C. After the giving of public notice as required by law, on
November 9, 1988, the Board of County Commissioners held a
public hearing on the amendments to the surface mining chap -
1 - ORDINANCE NO. 90-028 (7/12/90)
. cs145 IV
101 - 1033
ter of the plan proposed by the Planning Commission, and
received public testimony and staff reports.
d. After the giving of public notice as required by law, on
December 14, 1988, the Board of County Commissioners held a
continuation of the November 9, 1988, public hearing on the
proposed amendments to the surface mining chapter of the
plan, and received further public testimony and staff
reports recommending further modifications to the amendments
proposed by the Planning Commission.
e. On December 14, 1988, the Board of County Commissioners
adopted Ordinance No. 88-040, adopting amendments to the
surface mining chapter of the comprehensive plan including
an introductory statement, goal and policies.
f. During the period from December 14, 1988, to the date of
this Ordinance, the Board of County Commissioners conducted
public hearings under Statewide Land Use Planning Goal 5
concerning zoning designations for surface mining sites
included in the County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate
resource inventory, and concerning amendments to Ordinance
No. PL -15, the County's zoning ordinance, pertaining to
regulation of surface mining operations and adjacent land
uses, and made preliminary findings and decisions concerning
those sites and regulations.
g. After the giving of public notice as required by law, on
June 27, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners held a
final public hearing on the amendments to the surface mining
chapter of the plan, and received further public testimony.
The Board also received staff reports recommending further
modifications to the amendments previously adopted by the
Board in light of the mineral and aggregate resource inven-
tory, site-specific Goal 5 findings and decisions and zoning
ordinance amendments adopted on this date by Ordinances No.
90-025, 90-029 and 90-014, respectively.
h. The introductory statement, goal and policies attached
hereto as Exhibit "A" have been recommended for adoption by
staff and County Legal Counsel.
i. The introductory statement, goal and policies attached
hereto as Exhibit "A" and adopted by this Ordinance are
consistent with Statewide Land Use Planning Goal 5, its
implementing administrative rules, and other pertinent
provisions of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive
Plan.
2 - ORDINANCE NO. 90-028 (7/12/90)
0146
101 - 1030
Section 5. This Ordinance being necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency
is declared to exist, and this Ordinance takes effect on July 16,
1990.
DATED this � .. day of , 1990.
68/OAR/OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OFjpESCHUT,ES COUNTY, OREGON
PRANTE, Commiss
, Chair
DICK MAUDLIN, "Commissioner
3 - ORDINANCE NO. 90-028 (7/12/90)
(U47
EXHIBIT "A"
SURFACE MINING
The mining of mineral and aggregate resources, including pumice,
cinders, building stone, sand, gravel and crushed rock, is an
important local industry and a crucial resource for urban devel-
opment. Not only does this mining provide employment, but it
also furnishes products important to the economic development of
Deschutes County. While pumice and cinders have remained in good
supply, it has been increasingly apparent that good quality
aggregate and select fill dirt are rapidly disappearing. These
are non-renewable resource that must be protected if the com-
munity is to be able to take advantage of the lower costs and
economic benefit to the community involved with using local
materials.
At the same time, the increasing demand for mineral and aggregate
resources has led mining operations to come into direct conflict
with adjacent residential development. The County's previous
allowance of rural residential development has resulted in a
number of conflicts between surface mining and adjacent resi-
dents. As the area continues to grow this conflict will undoub-
tedly grow unless there is adequate planning. This is parti-
cularly true for rural residential development. Adequate surface
mining regulation and providing reasonable assurance to mining
operators of adequate resources have often been controversial
issues in Deschutes County. Some surface mines have been "poor
neighbors" in residential areas because of their environmental
impacts and, sometimes, delayed or incomplete reclamation.
Since Deschutes County will have a much larger population by the
year 2000, it is important that the mineral and aggregate
resources necessary to accommodate that growth be protected,
while County residents are protected from the adverse economic
effects of too rapid utilization of the resource, and the nega-
tive environmental impacts sometimes associated with actual
mining operations.
Surface mining, by its very nature, is a transient use which ends
with the depletion of the resource and reclamation of the site.
Therefore, it is possible and desirable to plan for second uses
of the surface mining site after mining and reclamation are
completed.
All local governments recognize that mineral and aggregate
resources in general, and sand and gravel in particular, are
valuable resources upon which their future development will
depend. Several factors necessarily affect the valuation and
development of mineral and aggregate resources, including loca-
tion, commercial value, types of uses and demand.
1 - EXHIBIT "A"
OAS
i0l 1041
Location
Most commercial deposits of sand and gravel are found in and
around valleys, terraces and fans of existing and pre-existing
rivers and streams; in coastal plains and lake deposits and in
formations deposited by receding glaciers.
Sand and gravel deposits produced by a stream or river that has,
or has had, a large volume and a steep gradient are common in or
near mountainous regions. Deposits are dropped in fan -shaped
formations at the mouths of canyons. Such deposits left by
floodwaters are called alluvial deposits. Sand and gravel
deposited by ordinary river or stream action and not by flood-
waters are called fluvial deposits.
Sand and gravel also occur on old lake bottoms. These deposits
usually are less desirable for commercial usage because they have
a high proportion of fine sands but sparse gravel.
A high quality source of sand and gravel is those deposits
resulting from glaciation. Geologists use a variety of terms,
such as eskers, kames and moraines, to identify the different
kinds of glacial formations in which the deposits occur.
Value
The commercial value of mineral and aggregate deposits depends
upon more than just the size and cleanliness of the product.
Value also depends upon its location in relationship to markets.
Aggregate is a bulky commodity and as such needs a nearby market.
There are no general standards or criteria for defining a valu-
able deposit. Instead, it is necessary to study the local sand
and gravel industry to find out the characteristics that make
deposits valuable in a particular locality.
For the typical sand and gravel producer, the commercial poten-
tial of a deposit depends on the following factors:
1. Thickness and variability of the overburden;
2. Thickness and extent of the deposit:
3. Physical properties of the deposit, including particle
distribution, mineralogy, durability, etc.;
4. Accessibility of deposits to heavy-duty roads, railroads or
navigable waterways;
5. Distance from point of use;
6. Availability of a sufficient water supply;
2 - EXHIBIT "A"
els
Al - 1042
7. Depth to groundwater; and
8. Governmental restrictions placed on operations, such as
local zoning ordinances.
Sand and gravel do not have to be used in exactly the same
physical state in which they are found. They can be artificially
upgraded by screening, washing and combining grade sizes, but
unsatisfactory size gradation or ratios can require costly
processing to meet market specification. Thus, geologically, the
ideal sand and gravel deposit is one that consists of clean, hard
particles that are present in quantity in a wide range of grade
sizes.
For aggregate, high quality deposits usually contain at least 25
percent gravel in a variety of particle sizes necessary for both
coarse and fine aggregate. In general, the more gravel, the more
valuable the deposit is to the producer.
When there is a high sand ratio and a low amount of coarse and
medium-sized gravel, the producer may be required to blend
crushed stone with the naturally occurring material or may screen
the material to meet market specifications. Similarly, an excess
of coarse material may require costly crushing operations. But,
in all types of sites, there usually are lower quality deposits
that are economically valuable for producing useful grades that
meet specifications less restrictive than those for use in
concrete.
Demand
The major use of mineral aggregates is in concrete. The low
cost, high bulk aggregates tend to keep concrete construction
costs at levels competitive with other building materials. Other
major uses of aggregates include highway and railroad base,
ballast materials, graded fill and various industrial uses.
Crushed and broken rock used directly in construction as aggre-
gate accounts for about half the value and 2/5ths of the quantity
of natural aggregates consumed in the United States. Sand and
gravel provide most of the balance of aggregates, except for some
light weight materials such as pumice and expanded shale.
Conditions necessary for production of crushed rock from a
deposit are:
1. Quality - should pass rigid specifications for strength and
durability.
2. Cost - low average total delivered cost.
3 - EXHIBIT "A"
(JJ -50
i0l - 1043
Construction aggregates are hard, essentially inert materials
suitable for being formed into a stable mass by either:
1. The addition of cementing or binding materials that produce
a concrete; or
2. Compaction or by natural weight to produce a road base or
foundation.
Principal aggregate mineral categories are:
1. Crushed rock.
2. Sand and gravel.
The uses of crushed rock are divided into two broad categories:
1. Those uses in which the physical properties of the rock are
more important; and
2. Those uses in which the chemical properties of the rock are
utilized.
Construction uses of crushed rock can be divided into four end-
use categories:
1. Highway.
2. Residential.
3. Non-residential (commercial).
4. Government.
Highways account nationally for about 2/3rds of total use, though
the average for an individual producer may be different.
When the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan was
adopted in 1979, a thorough analysis of historic and projected
supply and demand for mineral and aggregate resources had been
completed. That analysis produced the following data, upon which
the County relied in developing the plan:
Table 1
Year
Population
13 yd*
15 yd*
23 yd*
1980
53,400
694,200
801,000
1,228.200
1981
55,803
725,439
837,045
1,283,469
1982
58,314
758,082
874,710
1,341,222
1983
60,938
792,194
914,070
1,401,574
1984
63,680
827,840
955,200
1,464,640
4 - EXHIBIT "A"
0.1351
101 „ 1044
Year
Population
13 yd*
15 yd*
23 yd*
1985
66,600
865,800
999,000
1,531,800
1986
69,597
904,761
1,043,955
1,600,731
1987
72,729
945,477
1,090,935
1,672,767
1988
76,002
988,026
1,140,030
1,748,046
1989
79,422
1,032,486
1,191,330
1,827,166
1990
82,900
1,077,700
1,243,500
1,906,700
1991
86,631
1,126,203
1,299,465
1,992,513
1992
90,529
1,176,877
1,357,935
2,082,167
1993
94,603
1,229,839
1,419,045
2,175,869
1994
98,860
1,285,180
1,482,900
2,273,780
1995
103,400
1,344,200
1,551,000
2,378,200
1996
108,053
1,404,689
1,620,795
2,485,219
1997
112,915
1,467,895
1,693,725
2,597,045
1998
117,997
1,533,961
1,796,955
2,713,931
1999
123,306
11602,978
1,849,590
2,836,038
2000
128,200
1,666,600
1,923,000
2,948,000
Totals
23,450,427
27,058,185
41,489,677
* The first estimate of 13 cubic yards per County resident per
year is based upon an average of the use from 1969 through
1978. The estimate of 15 cubic yards is based upon the
average use from 1974 through 1978. The final estimate, 23
cubic yards, is based upon the highest use year during the
study period, 1978. These figures are then multiplied by
the projected populations for each year to obtain an esti-
mate of the amount of material that will be used.
This table projected an average need, based upon 15 cubic yards
per capita per year, of 1,567,083 cubic yards per year from the
year 1990 through the year 2000.
When this table was adopted in 1979, it was estimated that
Deschutes County's population was increasing at the rate of 4.5
percent annually.
In the eleven years since the above table was adopted, Deschutes
County has had the opportunity to assess the validity of its
projections for growth in both population and supply and demand
for mineral and aggregate resources. From available data, it
appears that a projected demand of two million cubic yards of
aggregate per year is an appropriate measure in planning for
future mineral and aggregate resource usage for Deschutes County.
Inasmuch as the County's comprehensive plan determined that a
twenty-year planning period is appropriate, that number trans-
lates to a projected demand of forty million cubic yards of
aggregate in the next twenty years, from 1990 through 2010.
The available data from 1979 to the present supporting this
projected aggregate demand is as follows:
5 - EXHIBIT "A"
I ()152
1045
Population
Portland State University's Center for Population Research
estimated Deschutes County's population on July 1, 1985, at
65,400 and on July 1, 1989, at 70,600. Assuming straight line
growth under PSU's estimates, Deschutes County's 1990 and 2000
estimated population would be 71,900 and 102,072, respectively.
The population projections in Deschutes County's acknowledged
comprehensive plan are somewhat higher - 98,200 for 1990 and
128,200 for 2000.
If PSU's more conservative population estimates are utilized, the
projected annual demand for aggregate at a consumption rate of 15
cubic yards per person per year would be 1,078,500 cubic yards in
the year 1990 and 1,531,080 cubic yards in the year 2000. Using
the annual per capita consumption rate of 23 cubic yards, the
projected annual demand for aggregate would be 1,653,700 cubic
yards in 1990 and 2,347,656 cubic yards in the year 2000.
The above figures project aggregate demand on the basis of
population alone. They do not take into account major road
construction and reconstruction programs adopted by Deschutes
County and the Oregon Department of Transportation.
For estimating consumption, ODOT used factors including 18 -inch
depth (base and surfacing), four lanes with 9 -foot shoulders and
10 to 16 -foot median, or about 80 feet of width. This volume,
times length of jobs, provides reasonable aggregate consumption
estimates.
The ODOT 1989-1994 Six -Year Highway Improvement Plan identifies
56.7 miles of construction projects within Deschutes County.
This translates into a need for approximately 1.3 million cubic
yards of aggregate for the six-year plan projects.
The Deschutes County Major Roads Capital Improvement Program for
Fiscal Year 1988-89 to Fiscal Year 1993-94 identifies some 74.6
miles of County roads needing reconstruction and 19.2 miles of
unpaved or new roads needing work. This translates into a need
of approximately 1.7 million cubic yards of aggregate for these
County projects.
Considering all of the above factors, a projected demand of two
million cubic yards of aggregate per year is an appropriate
measure to use in the planning for future mineral and aggregate
resources usage for Deschutes County.
Deschutes County's adopted mineral and aggregate resource inven-
tory shows a total of approximately 63,500,000 cubic yards of
6 - EXHIBIT "A"
OL53
-'01 1046
aggregate material (rock, sand and gravel) located within the
planning area covered by the Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan.'
In order to address the projected demand for aggregate material
in view of the available material, and within the framework of
statewide land use planning laws and the Year 2000 Comprehensive
Plan, Deschutes County adopts the following goal and policies:
SURFACE MINING GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL: To protect and utilize appropriately, within the
framework established by Statewide Land Use Planning
Goal 5 and its implementing administrative rules, the
mineral and aggregate resources of Deschutes County,
while minimizing the adverse impacts of mineral and
aggregate extraction and processing upon the resource
impact area.
POLICIES:
General
1. These policies set forth the general guidelines under
which the County will implement the Goal 5 process for
mineral and aggregate resources, and assure compliance
with all other applicable statewide land use planning
goals. More specific policies relating to utilization
of mineral and aggregate resources under particular
circumstances and at particular sites may be adopted by
and set forth in the County's zoning ordinance provi-
sions.
2. For purposes of these policies, where applicable, the
terms used shall have the same meaning as those terms
in the administrative rules implementing Statewide Land
Use Planning Goal 5.
3. The mineral and aggregate goal and policies outlined in
the comprehensive plan are intended to reflect the
requirements of Goal 5 and the implementing administra-
tive rules. Where a policy or interpretation conflicts
1 An additional amount of approximately 20,000,000 cubic
yards of aggregate material is apparently located outside the
Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan planning area within the Bend Urban
Growth Boundary. Some or all of this aggregate material may be
available to meet the demand for aggregate in Deschutes County,
depending upon factors such as quality, accessibility and zoning
restrictions.
7 - EXHIBIT "A"
0154
01 - 1047
with Goal 5 or the rules, the provisions of the Goal or
rules shall control.
Surface Mining Identification and Designation
4. The County shall encourage resource conservation.
5. The County shall encourage the use of materials which
can be substituted for sand and gravel.
6. Land use decisions of the County shall be based upon
balanced consideration of the location, availability
and value of mineral and aggregate resources, and
conflicting resources and uses as designated in the
comprehensive plan.
7. The County shall review, as part of each periodic
review process, the status of mineral and aggregate
resources in the County.
8. Sufficient SM (Surface Mining) zoning shall be main-
tained by the County to satisfy, at a minimum, the
demand for mineral and aggregate resources of the
County as reflected by the data contained in the
comprehensive plan.
9. The County shall retain ownership of County -owned lands
which are zoned SM pursuant to this plan and the Goal 5
process. The County may permit private operators to
mine County -owned resources.
10. A mineral and aggregate resource site not on the
current inventory shall be placed on the inventory and
zoned SM when the following conditions are met:
(a) A report is provided verifying the location, type,
quantity and quality of the resource; and
(b) The Goal 5 conflict identification and resolution
(ESEE) process results in a determination that the
resource is of sufficient importance relative to
conflicting resources and uses, if any, to require
protection.
11. The County shall identify and protect sites for the
storage, extraction and processing of mineral and
aggregate resources within the framework of Goal 5 and
its implementing administrative rules.
12. If the Goal 5 process does not identify resources or
uses which conflict with inventoried mineral and
aggregate resource sites, such resource sites, whether
8 - EXHIBIT "A"
.1-55
i0l - 1048
or not they are actively being utilized at the time of
plan amendment, shall be zoned SM.
13. If conflicting resources or uses are identified through
the Goal 5 process, a mineral and aggregate resource
site shall be zoned SM if it is determined to be of
such importance relative to conflicting resources or
uses as to require protection. Uses which would
interfere with the present or future use of the SM site
shall not be allowed, or shall be limited so as not to
preclude use of the SM site, until the mineral and
aggregate resource has been depleted.
14. SM zoning shall be prohibited in critical and sensitive
resource areas (such as fish and wildlife habitats,
wetlands and riparian areas, recreation and open space
areas, and archaeological and historic sites) when such
areas and resources have been evaluated in light of all
comprehensive plan goals and policies, and are deter-
mined through the Goal 5 process to conflict with the
SM site and to be of such importance relative to an
inventoried mineral and aggregate resource site as to
require complete protection.
15. Although extraction of mineral and aggregate resources
is considered by this plan to be a transitional land
use, interim uses (prior to extraction) and secondary
uses (after depletion) compatible with the development
of lands in the impact area of an SM site shall be
designated as allowed uses on SM sites. Such interim
and secondary land uses shall be identified prior to
extraction so uses inconsistent with the plan are
avoided.
Surface Mining Operations
16. Uses permitted outright or conditionally in the SM zone
shall include:
(a) Extraction, processing and storage of mineral and
aggregate resources; and
(b) Necessary ancillary activities related to the uses
listed in paragraph (a) above.
17. If timber or other similar renewable resources are
identified in the Goal 5 process as existing on an SM
site, the utilization of such other resources before
use of the mineral and aggregate resources shall be
encouraged.
9 - EXHIBIT "A"
,.r 0156
ul 1049
18. Extraction and processing of mineral and aggregate
resources shall be conducted in accordance with all
applicable county, state and federal standards.
19. Increased setbacks, insulation, screening and other
similar conditions, required as a result of a site-
specific Goal 5 ESEE analysis, shall be required for
approval of any new residential, recreational or other
conflicting development or use on lands in the impact
area of SM sites.
20. The county may establish additional standards and
procedures to minimize visual impact, noise, air and
water pollution, natural and operating hazards and
other environmental impacts of the extraction and
processing of the impact area, where required as a
result of a site-specific Goal 5 ESEE analysis. The
County shall adopt and apply more stringent operating
standards, if required by a site-specific Goal 5 ESEE
analysis, where lands in the impact area are zoned
residential, landscape management, wildlife or other
similar overlay zones, or where such impact area has
particularly sensitive resources or uses identified in
the comprehensive plan, such as wildlife nesting or
spawning sites or intensive recreational uses.
21. Where operating standards and procedures are estab-
lished for a surface mining site through a site-
specific ESEE analysis, and such site-specific stan-
dards and procedures conflict with standards and
procedures in the surface mining provision of the
County's zoning ordinance, the standards and procedures
in the site-specific ESEE analysis shall control.
22. Surface mining sites which on the effective date of
this Ordinance have a valid permit or exemption from
the DOGAMI and/or the County shall be registered with
the County. Once registered, such sites shall be
subject to the standards and procedures in a site-
specific ESEE analysis and/or the surface mining
provisions of the County's zoning ordinance only when
the surface mining activity on such sites is expanded
beyond the boundaries of the area covered by the exist-
ing DOGAMI and/or County permit or exemption.
23. Mineral and aggregate resource sites zoned SM, except
those with a valid DOGAMI permit or exemption and/or
County permit on the date that SM zoning is applied,
shall not be operated for extraction or processing
unless a site plan and reclamation plan, including
mitigation measures where required, have been approved
in writing by the County and DOGAMI, respectively.
10 - EXHIBIT "A"
0i --1050
Site plans shall be developed with citizen participa-
tion. Site plans shall, at a minimum, comply with all
DOGAMI reclamation plan requirements, and may include
additional requirements.
24. Identified conflicts between mineral and aggregate
resource sites and resources and uses in the impact
area where the conflicting resources and uses have been
determined to be of equal importance relative to the
mineral and aggregate resource, shall be minimized by
plans developed under the Goal 5 conflict resolution
process and which utilize methods including, but not
limited to:
(a) Requiring that the surface mining operator to
comply with all applicable requirements of county,
state and federal agencies;
(b) Planning the development of lands in the impact
area so as to minimize disruptions in the benefi-
cial use of both the mineral and aggregate
resource and the uses in the impact area.
(c) Imposing appropriate conditions on land use
permits and approvals.
25. Extraction of mineral and aggregate resources for non-
commercial uses shall conform to the same environmental
and regulatory standards as are applicable to commer-
cial operators, when necessary to protect land uses
adjacent to the resource site. On lands not zoned SM,
such non-commercial extraction may be allowed as a
conditional use.
26. The County shall have the authority to enforce condi-
tions of approval and provisions of the County zoning
ordinances, and to the extent otherwise provided by
law, the regulations of other governmental agencies,
relating to the extraction and processing of mineral
and aggregate resources, and the reclamation of surface
mining sites, to prevent violations thereof.
11 - EXHIBIT "A"
6:1.58
i:niLi. bIJ. b
50
Uj -A Legal Counsel
- o " A. .A ti -<
Administration Bldg. / Bend. Oregon 97701 / (5031388-6623
Richard L. Isham, County Legal Counsel
Karen H. Green, Assistant Legal Counsel
November 30, 1988 Bonnie Cargill, Legal Assistant
MEMORANDUM:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY OMMISSIONERS
FROM: KAREN H. GREEN
Assistant Lega Counsel
SUBJECT: Surface Mining Goals and Policies
FILE NO. 1-534
COPY TO: Craig Smith, Planning Director
Chuck McGraw, Associate Planner
On December 14, 1988, the Board will conduct a final public
hearing on adoption of the proposed surface mining goals and
policies. As you recall, proposed goals and policies were
developed by staff and the Planning Commission after public
hearings and considerable public comment. The goals and policies
submitted to the Board prior to its November 9th public hearing
incorporated many of the modifications suggested by participants
in the public hearings.
During and after the November 9th public hearing, several parties
submitted comments on the revised goals and policies. In addi-
tion, Craig, Chuck and I met with Doug White of DLCD and dis-
cussed the revised goals and policies and his written comments.
After reviewing the comments submitted concerning the revised
goals and policies, I have made several minor revisions. A copy
of the revised goals and policies is attached to this memo.
(Also attached is an introductory discussion of surface mining to
precede the goals and policies in the comprehensive plan.)
The purpose of this memo is to identify the revisions, to sum-
marize the comments, and to explain whether and how those com-
ments have been addressed in the revisions, and the rationale.
A. Revisions to Goals and Policies
The revised goals and policies, and the purposes for the revi-
sions, are as follows:
159A
Al - 1052
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Page Two
November 30, 1988
1. A new Policy 1 has been added, stating the purpose of
these general policies and that more specific policies
may be adopted in the zoning ordinances. (All policies
consequently have been renumbered.)
This new policy has been added to clarify that these
policies are general guidelines which logically should
be adopted prior to the Goal 5 "ESEE" analysis.
2. Policy 9(b) has been revised to remove the word "more."
This revision has been made to clarify that, under the
Goal 5 administrative rules, the county can zone a site
SM if the mineral and aggregate resource is determined
to be important enough to merit complete or partial
protection. In other words, to protect the resource by
zoning it SM, the resource need not be more important
than conflicting resources and uses -- it need only be
"important" relative to them.
3. Policy 11 has been revised to remove the word "com-
plete" from the first sentence, and to add the phrase
"or shall be limited" in the second sentence.
The purpose for these revisions is similar to that for
the revision in paragraph 9(b) above. The revisions
clarify that, under the administrative rules, a site
may be zoned SM if it is determined to require protec-
tion -- whether complete or partial -- and that con-
flicting uses may be prohibited or limited to protect
the resource.
4. Policy 15 has been revised to remove the word "primary"
and to add the words "and conditionally."
The purpose of these revisions is to clarify that,
under the administrative rules, the county may allow
certain uses connected with surface mining, such as
processing, conditionally rather than outright, if
conditions are deemed necessary as a result of the ESEE
analysis concerning a particular resource site.
1 Sig
1.053
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Page Three
November 30, 1988
5. Policy 17 has been revised to add the word "county."
The purpose of this revision is to clarify that surface
mining operations must comply with county regulations
as well as those of state 'and federal agencies.
6. Policy 21 has been revised to add the phrase:
"under the Goal 5 -conflict -resolution process, and by
utilizing methods including, but not limited to.'
The purpose of this revision is to clarify that con-
flicts must be resolved by the process set forth in the
Goal 5 administrative rules, and that the "minimizing"
factors identified in the policy are examples.
7. Policy 21(a) has been revised to add the word "county."
The purpose for this revision is the same as that
discussed in item #5, above.
8. Policy 23 has been revised to add the words "and" and
"to enforce."
The purpose for these revisions is to clarify that the
first phrase of the policy refers to county enforcement
of county regulations, and the second phrase refers to
county enforcement of of er entities' regulations,
where such enforcement is authorized by law.
B. Summary of Comments on Goals and Policies
The comments received concerning the revised goals and
policies are summarized as follows:
1. Douct white (DECD) - November 7th letter
Doug White stated that the goals and policies were
acceptable to DLCD, with the exception of the issue of
conflict resolution between mineral and aggregate
resources and existing conflicting uses (e.g., houses).
ISYC-
t0, - 1054
A -
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Page Four
November 30, 1988
Doug White's concerns will be specifically addressed in
the development of the ESEE 'model' or 'matrix by
which the county will determine how to weigh various
conflicting uses and resources against mineral and
aggregate resources. However, the revision to Policy
21, discussed above, also addresses his concerns.
2. Frank Parisi (R.L. Coats) - November 7th letter
Frank Parisi raised five major objections:
policies should restate the Goal 5 administrative
rules verbatim, and not paraphrase them;
Not adopted because the goals and policies are in-
tended to explain how the administrative rules will be
applied in the county, not merely to restate the rules.
policies should not allow any limitation of
impacts of mineral and aggregate extraction;
Not adopted because not consistent with Goal 5 ad-
ministrative rules, which do allow such limitation.
Policy 7 should not state that "need" for the
resource is limited to Deschutes County;
Not adopted because, historically, the county has
limited its 'need' analysis of 'consumable" Goal 5
resources -- e.g., energy -- to the local area.
Policy 12 should reflect that conflicting uses may
be allowed fully or may be limited under the ESEE
analysis;
Addressed in revisions to Policy 12.
Policy 22 should clarify that processing opera-
tions such as asphalt batch plants should be an out-
right permitted use on all SM sites.
Not adopted because, in my opinion, county has author-
ity -- and in some cases may be required -- to condi-
tion siting of some batch plants. Addressed in revi-
sions to Policy 15.
151
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Page Five
November 30, 1988
3. Ed Sullivan (Rose Site Opponents) - November 8th letter
Ed Sullivan raised three major objections:
The goals and policies should give 'equal weight"
to the value of mineral/aggregate resources and ad-
jacent housing.
Not adopted because, in my opinion, not consistent with
Goal 5 administrative rules, which to give greater
protection to Goal 5 resources.
Policy 15 should impose limitations on the siting
of batch plants, or require a hearing before such
siting decisions are made.
Addressed in the revisions to Policy 15.
Policies 17 and 21 should include references to
county regulation enforcement.
Addressed in revisions to Policies 17 and 21.
4. Steve Janik (Bend Agareaate and Paving) - November 9th
letter
Steve Janik raised two major objections:
Policies should allow "maximum utilization" of
mineral and aggregate resources, and should not provide
for any restrictions on such utilization.
Not adopted because, in my opinion, not consistent with
Goal 5 administrative rules, which expressly provide
for some limitations on Goal 5 resources when deter-
mined necessary as a result of ESEE analysis of con-
flicting uses.
Policy 9 is inconsistent with county's practice in
developing surface mining inventory because it provides
that a new resource site may not be included on the
inventory or zoned SM without report from a certified
geologist.
l5 -V C
of - `1056
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Page Six
November 30, 1988
No change necessary to Policy 9. The policy provides
that requisite information on site's location, quality
and quantity must come from a geologist, engineer or
other qualified person. In my opinion, the phrase
;other qualified person"' can include the resource site
owner, if the owner is able to supply such inventory
information.
5. Richard Angstrom (OCAPA) - November 9th letter
Richard Angstrom concurred with the objections presen-
ted by Frank Parisi on behalf of R.L. Coats, which are
addressed above. In addition, Angstrom objected to all
policies which state or imply that the county may
establish regulations on surface mining activity,
citing state law which conditionally preempts local
regulation.
As Angstrom noted, the state statutes purporting to
preempt local regulation of surface mining provide that
counties may enforce land use regulation of mining
activity if their land use ordinances are approved by
DOGAMI. It is our intention to submit to and obtain
approval from DOGAMI of our adopted surface mining
goals, policies and ordinance provisions.
6. William Kinsey - November 25th letter
Mr. Kinsey raised two major objections:
The county should not adopt any goals and policies
specifying how the Goal 5 administrative rules will be
applied, but rather should simply state that Goal 5
will be followed.
As discussed above, purpose of goals and policies is to
describe, in part, the county's Gaal 5 process. Not
only is the adoption of such policies logical, but in
my opinion, it is required by DLCD to demonstrate the
county's compliance with the Goal 5 and the administra-
tive rules.
The county should not adopt any goals and policies
until the ESEE analysis of each site is completed.
15f F
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Page Seven
November 30, 1988
As we have discussed before, and
the new Policy 1, these goals and
guidelines which logically should
ESEE process is begun.
a02 --10a7
as is now addressed in
Policies are general
be adopted before the
7. Norm Behrens/Ted Fies (ODFW) - Novembr 29th letter
Fish and Wildlife raised three objections:.
The county should maintain the SMR zoning designa-
tion to allow for future changes in circumstances (such
as changes in deer migration routes) which may warrant
the prohibition of surface mining on such sites.
Not adopted because the SMR designation creates un-
necessary uncertainty, and because the Goal 5 process
contemplates that the ESEE analysis will identify and
resolve future conflicts as to each resourca site.
Fish and Wildlife always has the option of requesting
that the county initiate a legislative zone change
proceeding on a designated SM site if circumstances
have changed which may warrant a rezoning.
The policies should not state that SM zoning will
be prohibited in critical and sensitive habitats until
all such areas have been identified.
Not adopted because identification of such habitats
will be undertaken in the ESEE and conflict resolution
process, and the policy simply states the county's
approach once those areas have been identified..
The policies should prohibit SM zoning within the
floodplain or high water mark of all rivers and streams
in the county.
Not adopted because any prohibition on the utilization
of a Goal 5 resource must be determined throught the
ESEE analysis and conflict resolution process.
Based upon consideration of the Goal 5 administrative rules, and
the comments and objections raised by the participants in the
public hearings on the goals and policies, I recommend that the
Board adopt the attached introductory statement and revised goals
and policies. If you have any questions about the goals and
policies or the comments on them, please let me know.
I t9ir
• M �
• -r E S
-1
�■■.. .z
December 12, 1988
MEMORANDUM:
EXHIBIT "C"
Leal Counse-i-"
Administration Bldg. / Send. Oregon 97701 / (5031388-6623
Richard L. Isham, County Legal Counsel
Karen H. Green, Assistant Legal Counsel
Bonnie Cargill, Legal Assistant
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS -
FROM KAREN H. GREEN
Assistant Legal Counsel
SUBJECT: Surface Mining Goals and Policies
FILE NO. 1-834
COPY TO: Craig Smith, Planning Director
Chuck McGraw, Associate Planner
Last week, the Planning Department finally received written
comments from DOGAMI on the surface mining goals and policies.
DOGAMI raised three concerns, two of which I believe already are
adequately addressed in the policies. However, the third concern
requires an additional modification to the policies.
DOGAMI stated that Policy # 20 implies that the county will
assume responsibility for approving mining "reclamation plans,n
as that term is used in the mining statutes. The policy was
intended to state that DOGAMI-approved reclamation plans were
required, as well as a county -approved land use site plan which
also would cover reclamation issues.
Accordingly, Policy # 20 has been modified to clarify that the
county will approve site plans, but not reclamation plans which
must be approved by DOGAMI.
With this final modification, I would recommend that the Board
adopt Ordinance No. 88-040, which amends the comprehensive plan
to adopt the attached surface mining goals and policies.
KHG
I St 1+
(u� r
A AA� A h A. ". l�i J
June 25, 1990
Al -^ 1059
Community Development Department
+^� � ,. . Y. i" 'ki+ L Y aw.hfa� - r. � rz. �4--_'•.w a� '*r, i K ✓ t:?. t.� ......:,:: �_':
Administration Bldg./ 1130 N.W. Harriman/Bend, Oregon 97701
(503) 388-6575
MEMORANDUM:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: KAREN H. GREEN, CDD Director k
SUBJECT: SURFACE MINING GOALS AND POLICIES
COPY TO: BRUCE W. WHITE, Assistant Legal Counsel;;
GEORGE READ, Planning Director
FILE NO. 1-631
Planning Division
Building Safety Division
Environmental Health Division
On December 14, 1988, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 88-040, which amended
the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan surface mining chapter to
add a new introductory statement, goal and policies. These amendments were
adopted after several work sessions and public hearings with both the
Planning Commission and the Board.
As the Board is aware, since December of 1988, the Planning Commission, the
Board and County planning and legal staff have undertaken a lengthy and
comprehensive Goal 5 process to revise the County's mineral and aggregate
resource inventory, to establish zoning designations for inventoried
surface mining sites, and to amend the provisions of the County's zoning
ordinance, Ordinance No. PL -15, concerning the regulation of surface mines
and land uses on adjacent lands.
Now that the County's Goal 5 surface mining process has been nearly
completed, Bruce White, George Read and I have reviewed the previously
adopted goal and policies for consistency with the remainder of the surface
mining "package" on which the Board will conduct its final public hearing
on June 27, 1990. Based upon this review, I have made minor revisions to
the previously adopted surface mining introductory statement, goal and
policies. Most of the revisions are to the text of the introductory state-
ment, and serve to more clearly explain the projected demand for mineral
and aggregate resources based upon current population, and other demographic
projections.
A summary of the other revisions in the text of the policies follows:
Exhibit D
ITk-r
A.
0`11 1 1060
Board of County Commissioners
Page 2
June 25, 1990
1. General Policy 1 has been revised to include a reference to required
compliance with statewide land use planning goals in addition to Goal
5.
2. A new General Policy 3 has been added to state that Goal 5 and its
implementing administrative rules will control if there is a conflict
with the County's policies. This is consistent with a similar
provision in the proposed surface mining zoning ordinance amendments.
3. Policies 3 through 23 have been re -numbered 4 through 24, respective-
ly. (The remainder of this memo will refer to the policies by their
new number.)
4. Policy No. 8 has had minor language revisions for clarification.
5. Policy No. 10 has been revised in two areas. First, paragraph (a) has
been revised to remove the requirement that inventory data be sub-
mitted by a geologist, engineer or similar licensed professional. The
Board made a policy decision early in this process, based upon legal
advice concerning the inventory provisions of the Goal 5 admini-
strative rule, that such a requirement would not be lawful or appro-
priate.
Second, paragraph (b) has had minor language changes to be more
consistent with the Goal 5 administrative rule.
6. Policy 14 also has had minor language changes to make it more consis-
tent with the Goal 5 administrative rules.
7. Policy 17 has been revised to encourage, rather than to require,
utilization of other non-renewable resources before surface mining.
This new language is consistent with Goal 5, the administrative rules
and the provisions of the proposed zoning ordinance amendments for
surface mining.
8. Policies 19 and 20 have been revised to more clearly reflect the
requirement of the Goal 5 administrative rules that any standards and
conditions imposed on a surface mining site or adjacent land uses must
be based upon a site-specific ESEE analysis.
9. Policies 21, 22, 23 and 24 have had minor language changes to clarify
their intent.
If you have any questions concerning these revisions, please let me know.
KHG/prt