My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2007
>
CC Agenda - 01/22/07 Meeting
>
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:25:55 PM
Creation date
1/18/2007 10:10:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/22/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
56
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Delta said they were going to take the same extraction that was buffered from residences <br />by a half mile of their own lands. He said if they move the operation the half-mile there <br />would be no impacts they couldn’t minimize. He said despite the pit, there are many <br />impacts they had not minimized. He thought the elected officials should pay attention to <br />what was missing. He said to comply with statewide planning Goal 5 and the Goal 5 <br />Rule that is the legal criteria for the application, nearly all proposed plan amendments <br />will contain two reports, one is an ESEE report detailing the nature and extent of conflicts <br />and allowing the decision making body to make some decision about to allow conflicts, <br />or limit conflicts; and the other is a Traffic Impact Analysis to show how the state <br />Transportation Planning Rule could be complied with. He said the application contains <br />neither of the components. He asserted that because of the missing information, the <br />application should be denied. <br /> <br /> DuPriest indicated that Delta Sand and Gravel said they would mitigate all possible <br />effects of the new operations so there would be no net increases in impacts and no ESEE <br />analysis is required. He stated that the one-half mile area that is now open and acts as a <br />buffer between the existing pit and excavating activities will be lost. He added that Delta <br />seriously understated the magnitude of existing problems with respect to the nearest <br />residents to the south. He noted under DEQ rules, houses are noise sensitive uses and <br />should be treated that way He said the Delta’s noise reports overstates the ambient noise <br />levels. He added that Delta’s experts report seriously understates the noise to be <br />produced by the new operation and the most recent memo by their expert ESA presents <br />conclusions without providing necessary assumptions, methodology or analysis. He said <br />that Delta’s proposed noise mitigation is insufficient. He stated since Delta has proposed <br />insufficient mitigation and had prepared no ESEE analysis, the application must be <br />denied. <br /> <br /> DuPriest stated that Delta had not provided any traffic analysis or study, even though <br />three nearby intersections are below ODOT’s standards of 0.8 volume to capacity ratio. <br />He said that number comes from a traffic study that was submitted to the City of Eugene <br />in another matter that is now pending. He distributed a report from Group McKenzie <br />prepared for the McKenzie Willamette Hospital. He showed the River Avenue ramp <br />merging onto Beltline Road, entering Beltline eastbound at Delta Highway southbound <br />off ramp and entering Beltline Road westbound on Division Avenue off ramp are all in <br />excess of what is allowed. He said by definition any traffic that would be added to a <br />failing intersection is significant. He noted if there are significant impacts on a <br />transportation facility, a transportation impact analysis is required and it should address <br />the area for one mile within the entrance to the mining area. He noted the staff report <br />stated that Lane County transportation planning had waived the traffic impact analysis <br />requirement under Lane Code 15.697(1). He commented that even if Lane County could <br />waive its own requirements, Lane County may not waive the requirements of statewide <br />Goal 5, the Goal 5 Rule or the Transportation Planning Rule. He added the Eugene Code <br />specifically requires TIA’s when certain conditions exist, including “For development <br />areas that abut a street in the jurisdiction of Lane County, a TIA review is required if the <br />proposed development will generate or receive traffic by vehicles of heavy weight in <br />their daily operations. Eugene Code 9.8670(4).” He commented that sand and gravel <br />Page 6 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 <br />WD bc/m/06121/T <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.