Philomath Quad Mill site annexation

Background

On May 21, 2018, the Philomath City Council approved the 33 acre Quad Mill site for a zone change from industrial zoning to R3 (high density residential). The City Council also annexed adjacent property by ordinance. The City Council then further approved 166 homes subdivision application. The public record shows this special City Council meeting to consider these actions did not go through Planning Commission review. No public hearings were held on these land-use actions.

During the Special City Council Meeting (May 21) the city was repeatedly asked to produce the Phase I and Phase II inspection reports initiated by the mill site owners of record in 1989 and a 1990 groundwater assessment in response to a DEQ Warning letter of noncompliance (1989).

In 2000, the city was asked to put the annexation on the ballot. During a public meeting at that time the City agreed to request DEQ inspections of environmental concerns raised in Phase I and Phase 2 but only if the voters approved the annexations. For years citizens have repeatedly requested copies of these environmental assessments. At the May 21 public hearing, citizens requested that the record be held open so the assessments would be available to council and the public. The city denied any request to keep the record open and, once again, they did not produce any environmental assessment documents as requested. Council annexed the parcels adjacent to the mill site by ordinance. (See City 5-21-18 meeting agenda.)

To support the need for the assessments Mr. Lamb submitted a March 26, 2000, Gazette-Times news story "Ghosts in the Ground" by John Butterworth describing some of the numerous environmental concerns with the mill site. Also Mr. Lamb testified 5-21-18 about the complete lack of any environmental impact assessment on land planned for high density residential development. Mr. Lamb was involved in the mill site annexation vote in 2000 and, to put the matter into context, he gave the news article to the Council at that time.

On June 9th, concerned citizens filed a records request with the City asking for the environmental studies. (see the EGR report) The documents the City provided were a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment by IT Corporation (April 12, 2000). The assessment included a cover letter from the owner of record, Tree Source Industries, to then City Manager Randy Kugler. (See attached ). About then a groundwater assessment was conducted for Tree Source Industries Inc. by EGR & Associates (June 30, 2001).

The documents speak for themselves; under Section 2.3.2 of the IT Corporation site assessment concerns are raised about underground storage tank removals and the lack of testing procedures that make the assessment results unreliable. There is also a long list and discussion of conditions and pollution concerning transformers, capacitors and PCBs etc.

In Section 3 "Conclusions and Recommendations", IT Corporation states they have performed a Phase 1 ESA, assessment that, "revealed evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property. IT recommends that a phase 2 investigation of the property be performed to determine the presence and extent of potential contaminants in soil, sediment, surface water and ground water." (emphasis added)

After extensive searching we can find no documentation that the DEQ's April 27, 1989, Warning Letter to the owners describing a Major Class II Violation, received a reply nor that any corrective measures were taken. The Warning Letter states DEQ could fine the owners up to $7500 per day. We are requesting whatever information or documents DEQ has concerning this matter.

OCVA raises questions

If the land is annexed with the environmental concerns specified in the two environmental assessments will the taxpayers of Philomath be responsible for any cleanup costs associated with the site or making the land safe for future generations?

The City staff claims that environmental and other public safety issues cannot be considered in approving or denying any development application because it's not part of the city's applicable criteria. Does that mean that public health and safety issues can't be considered if the intended apartment complexes or subdivisions are constructed on a knowingly contaminated site?

Environmental assessments

• DEQ notice of noncompliance (4-27-1989)
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Quad Mill (2-18-2000)
• Groundwater Quality Assessment for Quad Mill Site (7-30-2001)

For more information

Updated July 11, 2018