Ordinance No. 20413 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

unless a greater distance is necessary in order to include the intersection with the nearest arterial identified in the local transportation plan." The record shows that the local roads used for direct access to or from the site are River Avenue, Division Avenue (two entrances), Beaver Street and Beaver-Hunsaker. Exhibits 28, 49. Numerous participants raised concerns about the impacts of current and continued traffic to and from the site, using these local roads. See, e.g. Exhibit 3, 7, 14, 16,20,21,22,23, 27, 275. The applicant's materials do not include a traffic impact assessment relating to the identified local roads. The applicant asserts that no traffic impact assessment is needed because approval of the application would result in the Metro Plan diagram designation of the subject property being changed from one resource designation ("Agriculture") to another ("Sand and Gravel"). The applicant further asserts that "approval of the application will not result in any additional traffic on any local roads and, consequently, will not significantly affect any transportation facility." Application, 8. Throughout the local proceedings, the applicant has stated that there would be no increase in the number of vehicle trips for product delivery or service as a result of the proposed expansion. Application, 8, 14-15. However, the applicant does not provide sufficient data documenting its current traffic impacts. This was pointed out by the City's Senior Transportation Analyst. Exhibit 29. The materials offered by the applicant in response (traffic totals from 1992, extrapolated for 2005) are insufficient. Exhibit 28. There is no way for the City to determine the frequency of the trips, which roads are being used, the timing in comparison to peak hour traffic on the effected roads, etc. Without such information, the City cannot make any determinations as to road capacity, for example, as required by OAR 660-023-180(5)(b)(B). The applicant's representatives testified before the Planning Commissions that the economy and demand controlled what could be sold, that production had been increasing by approximately one percent per year, and that traffic on Hunsaker Lane would be the result of the projects that Delta was involved in. Avon Lee Babbs and George Staples, Planning Commission minutes January 17, 2006, pages 6, 7. If levels of use increase in the new excavation area because demand increases, then traffic will increase. This potential increase in traffic was not analyzed by the applicant. Without more detailed data establishing the site's current traffic impacts or future demand for the excavated product, the assertion that the site will continue to have its current level of impact has little meaning. It provides no way for the City to assess the potential conflicts pursuant to OAR 660-023-180(5)(b)(B). The City must be able to determine whether there are potential conflicts to the specific local roads used for access and egress to the mining site. The applicant's submittal fails to provide sufficient information to determine whether such potential conflicts exist. Had the City been the recipient of the application, the application would not have been deemed complete. To the extent that OAR 660-023-180(8) is an approval criterion, the City finds that it is not met. As discussed below, this inadequacy in the application causes the City find that the proposal fails to adequately address OAR 660-023-0 180( 5)(b )(B). (d) Proposals to minimize any conflicts with existing uses preliminarily identified by the applicant within a 1,500 foot impact area; and Exhibit A to Ordinance 20413 - 6