The quarry fight: Oakridge protesters take the battle to the gates of King Estate Winery

By GEORGE CUSTER/Editor/The Herald  —  On a chilly Saturday, November 30th, Oakridge residents and other concerned citizens took to their fight to the main gate of King Estate Winery. Their intent was to show their disdain for a proposed rock crushing quarry that they believe would have massive negative impacts on the City of Oakridge and surrounding area.

The fate of King’s application now lies in the hands of the Lane County Commissioners.  After receiving a unanimous vote by the County’s Planning Commission to not approve the application, the commissioners elected to allow additional time for the applicant to submit more testimony in their defense.

The current application to place a rock crushing operation is a resubmittal to one that was initially applied for nearly eight years ago. The first application was denied by the commissioners. Ed King and Stonebroke took their case to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals where it was sent back to the county. Having no success there, the applicants attempted to sue the county for recourse. Upon denial of the suit, they have now resubmitted an identical application to an entirely new board of county commissioners.

Mark Heitchue, who had just arrived at the demonstration said “It’s not going to help their [Oakridge’s] quality of living. It’s not going to help the air quality for their kids.

Heitchue went on, “I don’t understand, why do they need a gravel mine so bad in place that’s fairly impactful. It doesn’t make sense. Do we need another gravel mine and do we need it in Oakridge? I’d rather push them and find that answer and push them to do the right thing. I believe that we should put the vote in the people’s hands. I’m not really certain that the commissioners represent that.”

Heitchue is not a resident of Oakridge but enjoys visiting there regularly and has many friends there. He also like to take advantage of all of the outdoor recreation that Oakridge and the surrounding area has to offer.

Sabrina Ratkowski, the Save TV Butte committee’s chairperson, had these comments: “We’re here hoping to raise more awareness to save Oakridge from the Old Hazeldell Quarry [application] from being approved. We want to let people know that the person who owns the quarry land is being a little hypocritical in his thinking. On one hand he owns an organic winery, but then not listening to the folks in Oakridge who understand how devastating a blasting quarry, right on the edge of our town, can be on our economy, to our roadways, to our environment.”

Ratkowski is an underwriter for a mortgage company. She has taken a significant amount of time away from her job to fight what she believes to be a terrible wrong.

“We know that three of the county commissioners have advocated for Ed King and his properties in the past. We are ready if they ignore the planning committee’s unanimous decision saying that they should decline the quarry.” Further, Ratkowski said, “If they ignore those reasonings, then we are ready to appeal. We’ll go to the appeals court; we’ll go to LUBA. We’ll go everywhere we can.” County records indicate that three of the current five commissioners have received campaign funding from King.

She went on to say, “We’re definitely ready to work with them to find some sort of beneficial end result for all

parties involved.”

When asked if her committee had approached the Oregon State Ethics Committee, Ratkowski stated that, “We have a couple of people on our committee who did submit letters to the Ethics Committee. They got responses that pretty much said that there’s nothing to look into.”

Recently, it has been determined that there may be discrepancies in the original contract. It’s been reported toThe Herald that Stonebroke, the LLC Ed King is associated with, was sold the land where the proposed quarry is to be by the City of Oakridge with the understanding that the use would be for timber harvesting under F1 or F2 land use codes. However, County records indicate that Stonebroke had already made application for drilling on the parcel to determine rock content and quality prior to negotiating with the city for the sale, unbeknownst to Oakridge.

A significant concern is the location of an abandoned land fill that lies near the intended processing unit for the gravel. Movement generated from the constant quarry activity could cause seepage from the various toxic materials into Oakridge’s water supply that lies below the landfill.  The Department of Environmental Quality advised testing for hazardous toxins within the landfill. The applicant has stated that there were no reports done and that do not intend to initiate one.

Kristen Tyler, a resident new to Oakridge who, with her husband, have purchased a house in downtown Oakridge had comments of her own, saying, “I’m here to protect Oakridge from money bringing in a quarry that is going to hurt our town, that will destroy part of our tourism and our economic development. I think it’s ridiculous that he promotes his winery that is biodynamic and environmentally friendly but he’s willing to blow up a mountain that is two miles from an elementary school.”

Another resident, Barbara Council Burney, would be directly impacted by the rock crushing operation spoke as well. She said she was at the protest because, “I am here to oppose the quarry. It’s totally unnecessary, and it’s more harmful than positive. I can’t believe that it’s actually on the table. I haven’t met a single person who’s in favor of it. The money to affect a few is really going to hurt a lot more people, the livelihoods and the health and safety of the people of Oakridge.”

Barbara and her husband, Matt, own an artistic metalworking studio that would be within a few hundred yards of the daily blasting operation. Matt has also been a vocal advocate for the commissioners to deny King’s application. he has attended and spoken vehemently at all of the previous county hearings on the subject.

The most recent opportunity for the Response Period Submittals were due November 25, 2024 at 4:00 pm. New evidence was to be provided if that evidence is in response to other evidence provided in the first open record period, but not prior.

Final Rebuttal: Opportunity for applicant only to provide a final response. No new evidence is allowed. Final Rebuttal is due December 2, 2024 at 4:00 pm.

A date has not been announced for the County Commissioners final decision hearing.

SUBMIT A COMMENT