Old Hazeldell Quarry v. Lane County

Under OAR 660-023-0180, if, after thoroughly evaluating the economic, social, environmental, energy (ESEE) factors, a local government finds the factors are evenly split for and against allowing a proposed mine, LUBA will uphold the local government’s “highly subjective” decision to approve or deny the application if the findings adequately explain that decision.

Petitioner appealed the County’s denial of their applications for amendments to the County’s comprehensive plan and zone map and for approval of a site plan for an aggregate mine. On appeal, LUBA sustained the first subassignment of Petitioner’s third assignment of error which challenged the sufficiency of the evidence that any conflicts from the mine on the inventoried “Big Game Range” resource land could not be minimized to an insignificant level. LUBA did not reach the second subassignment of error. Petitioner then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed LUBA’s decision under the first subassignment of error. The Court of Appeals found that letters from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) that the County relied on to conclude that the impacts from the mine on the Big Game Range could not be minimized to an insignificant level were evidence that a reasonable person would rely on to support the County’s decision. Thus, an ESEE analysis was required. Old Hazeldell Quarry, LLC v. Lane County, 323 Or. App. 120 (2022).

On remand, LUBA addressed the second subassignment of Petitioner’s third assignment of error: that the County’s decision that economic, social, environmental, energy (ESEE) analysis warranted denial, rather than approval, was not supported by substantial evidence.

If conflicts between a proposed mine and a Goal 5 inventoried resource cannot be minimized to an insignificant level, then under OAR 660-023-0180(5)(d), an ESEE analysis is required to evaluate whether the proposed mine should be allowed or denied.

Citing the Court of Appeals decision, LUBA disagreed with Petitioner’s claim that the ODFW letters were inadequate to support the County’s decision after the ESEE analysis. LUBA also disagreed that the County did not adequately evaluate the economic benefits, because the “findings adequately consider[ed] the issue and explain[ed] why the likelihood of job creation did not require a different ESEE conclusion.” Lastly, LUBA concluded that the County’s “extensive” discussion of the evidence and arguments for and against the various ESEE factors and the ultimate conclusion that the “unique Big Game resource” tipped the balance toward not allowing the mine was “more than adequate” to explain the County’s decision.

Affirmed.