|
unless a greater distance is necessary in order to include the intersection with the nearest
<br />Deleted:
<br />For significant aggregate sites
<br />(addressed below), Section OAR 660-
<br />arterial identified in the local transportation plan.” The record shows that the local roads
<br />023-180(5)(b)(B) requires analysis of
<br />used for direct access to or from the site are River Avenue, Division Avenue (two
<br />“[p]otential conflicts to local roads used
<br />for access and egress to the mining site
<br />entrances), Beaver Street and Beaver-Hunsaker. Exhibits 28, 49. Numerous participants
<br />within one mile of the entrance to the
<br />raised concerns about the impacts of current and continued traffic to and from the site,
<br />mining site unless a greater distance is
<br />necessary in order to include the
<br />using these local roads. See, e.g. Exhibit 3, 7, 14, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 275.
<br />intersection with the nearest arterial
<br />identified in the local transportation
<br />plan.” The applicant’s material indicates
<br />The applicant’s materials do not include a traffic impact assessment relating to the
<br />that the traffic volumes and location of
<br />identified local roads. The applicant asserts that no traffic impact assessment is needed
<br />ingress and egress will not change from
<br />current operations, and identifies the local
<br />because approval of the application would result in the Metro Plan diagram designation
<br />roads to be used for access and egress.
<br />of the subject property being changed from one resource designation (“Agriculture”) to
<br />The applicant did not provide a traffic
<br />study, as the applicant maintains that
<br />another (“Sand and Gravel”). The applicant further asserts that “approval of the
<br />there will be no additional impact over
<br />application will not result in any additional traffic on any local roads and, consequently,
<br />current operations. ¶
<br />The City notes that Lane Code 15.697(1)
<br />will not significantly affect any transportation facility.” Application, 8. Throughout the
<br />requires that a traffic impact analysis may
<br />local proceedings, the applicant has stated that there would be no increase in the number
<br />be required for any plan amendment
<br />proposal, unless waived by the County
<br />of vehicle trips for product delivery or service as a result of the proposed expansion.
<br />Engineer as specified in Lane Code
<br />Application, 8, 14-15. However, the applicant does not provide sufficient data
<br />15.697(2). Lane Code 15.697(2)
<br />provides that the County Engineer may
<br />documenting its current traffic impacts. This was pointed out by the City’s Senior
<br />waive traffic impact analysis
<br />Transportation Analyst. Exhibit 29. The materials offered by the applicant in response
<br />requirements specified in LC 15.697(1)
<br />when, in the case of a plan amendment,
<br />(traffic totals from 1992, extrapolated for 2005) are insufficient. Exhibit 28. There is no
<br />the scale and size of the proposal is
<br />way for the City to determine the frequency of the trips, which roads are being used, the
<br />insignificant, eliminating the need for
<br />detailed traffic analysis of the
<br />timing in comparison to peak hour traffic on the effected roads, etc. Without such
<br />performance of roadway facilities for the
<br />information, the City cannot make any determinations as to road capacity, for example, as
<br />20-year planning horizon. Lane Code
<br />15.697(2)(b) provides that, generally, a
<br />required by OAR 660-023-180(5)(b)(B).
<br />waiver to Traffic Impact Analysis will be
<br />approved when the plan designation that
<br />The applicant’s representatives testified before the Planning Commissions that the results will be entirely a resource
<br />designation or there is adequate
<br />economy and demand controlled what could be sold, that production had been increasing
<br />information for the County Engineer to
<br />by approximately one percent per year, and that traffic on Hunsaker Lane would be the determine that a transportation facility is
<br />not significantly affected as defined in
<br />result of the projects that Delta was involved in. Avon Lee Babbs and George Staples,
<br />Lane County Transportation System Plan
<br />Planning Commission minutes January 17, 2006, pages 6, 7. If levels of use increase in
<br />Policy 20-d. The County Engineer
<br />waived Lane County’s requirement for a
<br />the new excavation area because demand increases, then traffic will increase. This
<br />traffic impact analysis because the
<br />potential increase in traffic was not analyzed by the applicant.
<br />County made the determination that the
<br />above provisions for a waiver were met.¶
<br />The City of Eugene’s Senior
<br />Without more detailed data establishing the site’s current traffic impacts or future
<br />Transportation Analyst opined that a
<br />traffic impact analysis would be helpful
<br />demand for the excavated product, the assertion that the site will continue to have its
<br />to assess the impacts of temporal
<br />current level of impact has little meaning. It provides no way for the City to assess the
<br />extension of operations that would be
<br />permitted by expanding the mining site,
<br />potential conflicts pursuant to OAR 660-023-180(5)(b)(B). The City must be able to
<br />thereby also expanding the amount of
<br />determine whether there are potential conflicts to the specific local roads used for access
<br />aggregate materials to be excavated over
<br />a longer period of time (See Exhibit 29).
<br />and egress to the mining site. The applicant’s submittal fails to provide sufficient
<br />However, the City does not find that this
<br />information to determine whether such potential conflicts exist. Had the City been the
<br />information is necessary to assess the
<br />potential conflicts pursuant to OAR 660-
<br />recipient of the application, the application would not have been deemed complete. To
<br />023-180(5)(b)(B). ¶
<br />the extent that OAR 660-023-180(8) is an approval criterion, the City finds that it is not
<br />The City Council finds that, since
<br />approval of the application would result
<br />met. As discussed below, this inadequacy in the application causes the City find that the
<br />in the Metro Plan diagram designation of
<br />proposal fails to adequately address OAR 660-023-0180(5)(b)(B).
<br />the subject property being changed from
<br />one resource designation (“Agriculture”)
<br />
<br />to another (“Sand and Gravel”) and since
<br />the applicant asserts that approval of the
<br />(d) Proposals to minimize any conflicts with existing uses preliminarily identified by
<br />application will not result in any
<br />additional traffic on any local roads and,
<br />the applicant within a 1,500 foot impact area; and
<br />consequently, will not significantly affect
<br />any transportation facility, the
<br />information provided, taken together, is
<br />an adequate basis for the City to assess
<br />traffic impacts. ¶
<br />
<br />
|