CC Minutes - 12/12/06 Joint Elected Officials

Home Browse Search

Delta said they were going to take the same extraction that was buffered from residences by a half mile of their own lands. He said if they move the operation the half-mile there would be no impacts they couldn’t minimize. He said despite the pit, there are many impacts they had not minimized. He thought the elected officials should pay attention to what was missing. He said to comply with statewide planning Goal 5 and the Goal 5 Rule that is the legal criteria for the application, nearly all proposed plan amendments will contain two reports, one is an ESEE report detailing the nature and extent of conflicts and allowing the decision making body to make some decision about to allow conflicts, or limit conflicts; and the other is a Traffic Impact Analysis to show how the state Transportation Planning Rule could be complied with. He said the application contains neither of the components. He asserted that because of the missing information, the application should be denied. DuPriest indicated that Delta Sand and Gravel said they would mitigate all possible effects of the new operations so there would be no net increases in impacts and no ESEE analysis is required. He stated that the one-half mile area that is now open and acts as a buffer between the existing pit and excavating activities will be lost. He added that Delta seriously understated the magnitude of existing problems with respect to the nearest residents to the south. He noted under DEQ rules, houses are noise sensitive uses and should be treated that way He said the Delta’s noise reports overstates the ambient noise levels. He added that Delta’s experts report seriously understates the noise to be produced by the new operation and the most recent memo by their expert ESA presents conclusions without providing necessary assumptions, methodology or analysis. He said that Delta’s proposed noise mitigation is insufficient. He stated since Delta has proposed insufficient mitigation and had prepared no ESEE analysis, the application must be denied. DuPriest stated that Delta had not provided any traffic analysis or study, even though three nearby intersections are below ODOT’s standards of 0.8 volume to capacity ratio. He said that number comes from a traffic study that was submitted to the City of Eugene in another matter that is now pending. He distributed a report from Group McKenzie prepared for the McKenzie Willamette Hospital. He showed the River Avenue ramp merging onto Beltline Road, entering Beltline eastbound at Delta Highway southbound off ramp and entering Beltline Road westbound on Division Avenue off ramp are all in excess of what is allowed. He said by definition any traffic that would be added to a failing intersection is significant. He noted if there are significant impacts on a transportation facility, a transportation impact analysis is required and it should address the area for one mile within the entrance to the mining area. He noted the staff report stated that Lane County transportation planning had waived the traffic impact analysis requirement under Lane Code 15.697(1). He commented that even if Lane County could waive its own requirements, Lane County may not waive the requirements of statewide Goal 5, the Goal 5 Rule or the Transportation Planning Rule. He added the Eugene Code specifically requires TIA’s when certain conditions exist, including “For development areas that abut a street in the jurisdiction of Lane County, a TIA review is required if the proposed development will generate or receive traffic by vehicles of heavy weight in their daily operations. Eugene Code 9.8670(4).” He commented that sand and gravel Page 6 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 WD bc/m/06121/T