Item B: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

In response to a question. frolll Ms" Nichols regarditlg whether the commission had the authority to change the hours that noise was allowed, Mr. Yeiter said he did not know ,vhat the state stalldard was for lateness of noise but the applicant had agreed to use the City of Eugene noise standards. Mr. Lal1fear added that there \vas a. certain level of noise allowed until 10 pm. and the applicant \vasnot trying to operate until the established tinle limit. Ms. Arkin said the suggested noise standards\\lere hard to enforce. She said 10 pm" \vas late for fanlilies in the area to hear operations going on. She said she \vas saddened that the applicant could not take families and \vorking class people into account She said for the record that 10 pm. \vas -a burden on neighbors and she felt sad for the people ,vhowould have to listen to it. In response to a question fron1Mr" Carroll regarding \vhether excavation of the 10\v peolleability\vater barrier ,vas a construction activity and therefore exempt fronl DEQnoise standards) Ms. Schulz said she did not agree \Vlth t11at conclusion. Mr.. Carroll said the issue had been raised by the opposition that excavation for the 10,'" permeability barrier should be included under DEQ noise standards. He said the applical1t had stated that the excavation was a constnlction activity and therefore had a different noise standard. In response to a question from Ms" Colbatll regarding whether a construction permit would be'issued, M:s.. Schulz said it\\lould be part of Delta's operating plan and 110t a separate permit III response to a question from Mr. Carroll regarding whether the applicant analyzed potential noise from the construction of the low permeability barrier, Ms. Schulz said the appl.icant 11adnot. In response to a question fron1 Ms. (~olbath regarding whether the construction of the barrier would be included in the time linTits established in noise ordinances, Ms.. Schulz said yes if the activity ,vas included in the plan to allo\v mining. Mr. Belcher said the equipn1ent for constructing tile 10\'/ permeability barrier \vould not bebelo,,, ground level like the mining equipment. He added that the construction \\'ould also be closer to residential areas. Mr. Lav.lless said he agreed that there \vas a noise conflict issue. He said 11e was in favpr of considering aHo,ved hours of operation. He said if the mitigation measures proposed met DEQ standards then he sa\v no reason not to support the idea that.the conflict could be Ininitnized. Ms.. Arkin said the applicant failed to address the DEQ regulations for noise because they left out analysis of Impulse noise, blasting noise, and tonal noise. She stressed that the applicant had not really addressed compliance ,vith DEQ standards. .Mr.. Becker said noise was a major issue for residents. He said the 10 pm. allo\\'anc.e seemed.extrenle to hin1 and added that 7 am operation on a Saturday also felt unreasonable to him. He suggested that the allo\vable hours of operation should be re-exall11ned. Mr" Carmichael said it appeared that staff and commissioner comnlents indicated tllat there was a noise. issue. He stated for the record his hope that the elected bodies \vouldtake a close look at the noise issue. MINUTES-Lane County Planning Comn1ission July 25, 2006 Page 14