The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20152508.tiff EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET Case USR15-0027 - WELD LV, LLC , AND GERRARD INVESTMENTS, LLC , C/O MARTIN MARIETTA Exhibit Submitted By Description A. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation B. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes dated 7/21 /2015) C. Planning Services PowerPoint Presentation ii D. Dr. Cara Brown Letter of Opposition (7/16/15) E. Scott Tarbell Letter of Opposition (7/23/15) F. Debbie Dinkel Letters of Support (7/23/15) G . Robert Emmerich Letter of Opposition (7/16/15) H . Don Casey Letter of Opposition (6/17/15) I . Brenda Tru:illo Letter of Support (7/24/15) J . Kayli Hevner Letter of Opposition (7/16/15) K. Ron Grob Letter of Opposition (7/20/15) L. Eric Wingerson Letter of Opposition (7/29/15) M . Dr. Emily Anderson Elder Letter of Opposition ;7/21 /15) N . Janet Larson Letter of Opposition (7/16/15) O. Bill and Leslie Exner Letter of Opposition (7/30/15) P. Lisa Piraino Letter of Opposition (7/30/15) Q. John Moser Letter of Support (7/30/15) R. Dave Kisker Letter (8/1 /15) S . Rodney Smith Letter of Opposition (8/1 /15) T. Renee Hein Letter of Opposition (8/1 /15) U . Laurie Forsyth Letter of Opposition :8/1 /15) V. Patrick Ferguson Letter of Opposition (8/1 /15) 2015-2508 BOCC EXHIBITS CON'T - WELD LV, LLC, AND GERRARD INVESTMENTS, LLC , 0/O MARTIN MARIETTA - USR15-0027 W. Shirley Hoskinson Letter of Opposition (7/31 /15) X. Rene' Wingerson Letter of Opposition (7/28/15) Y. Karl Scott Letter of Opposition (8/5/15) Z. Dave Kisker Neighborhood Opposition Report (8/6/15; AA. Dennis and Barbara Moe Letter of Opposition (8/6/15) AB. John Cooney Letter of Opposition (7/29/15) AC. Pat and Sharon Carr Letter of Opposition (7/29/15) Gabriel and Pamela AD. Ramon Letter of Opposition (8/7/15) AE. David Kisker Air Emmissions Report (8/10/15) AF. Janet Ross Letter of Opposition (7/22/15) AG . James Warner Letter of Support (8/6/15) AH . Ryan Warner Letter of Support (8/7/15) AL Mark Mowbray Letter of Support (7/30/15) AJ . Dennis Phillips Letter of Support (7/20/15) AK. Jed Foost Letter of Support (8/10/15) AL. Thomas Olson Letter of Support (7/17/15) AM . Kohlman Scribner Letter of Support (7/17/15) AN . Wendy Close Letter of Support (7/17/15) AO. Ramiro M . Letter of Support 7/17/15 PP ( ) AP. Dalton Riba Letter of Support (7/17/15) AQ. Derek Garcia Letter of Support 7/17/15 PP ( ) AR. Ian Serby Letter of Support (7/17/15) AS. Jacob Admas Letter of Support (7/17/15) AT. James Henderson Letter of Support ;7/17/15) AU . Dan Moran Letter of Support (7/17/15) AV. Rogelio Melendez Letter of Support (7/17/15) 2015-2508 BOCC EXHIBITS CON'T - WELD LV, LLC , AND GERRARD INVESTMENTS , LLC , 0/O MARTIN MARIETTA - USR15-0027 AW. Robert Freeman Letter of Support (7/10/15) AX. Tracy McGinnis Letter of Support (7/10/15) AY. James Propp Letter of Support (8/10/15) AZ. Patricia Freeman Letter of Support (8/10/15) BA. Michele Rager Letter of Support (7/10/15) BB. Violet Croatt Letter of Support (7/12/15) BC . William King Letter of Support (7/12/15) BD. Richard Croatt Letter of Support (7/12/15; BE. Tawnya King Letter of Support (7/11 /15) BF. Dolores Martin Letter of Support (7/17/15) BG . Brian Martin Letter of Support (7/17/15) BH . Anthony Corrse Letter of Support (7/10/15) BI . Mel and Deb Everhart Letter of Support (7/21 /15) Doug Dennison, Bill BJ . Barrett Corporation Letter of Support (8/10/15) Eric Bertoch , Secure BK. Energy Services Letter of Support (7/20/15; BL. Dave Kisker Letter re Presentation (8/10/15) BM . Dave Kisker List of Representation (8/10/15) BN . Dan and Rene Main Letter of Opposition (7/25/15) BO. Vicki Betton Letter of Opposition (8/11 /15) BP. Courtney Swanson Letter of Opposition (8/11 /15) BQ . Dale Horn Letter of Opposition (8/11 /15) BR. Matt Walker Letter of Opposition (8/11 /15) BS. Bill Jerke Letter of Support (8/11 /15) BT. Pam Flora, Tetra Tech PowerPoint Presentation (8/11 /15) BU . Michael Chrisman PowerPoint Presentation (8/11 /15) BV. Jesse and Kiki Martinez Letter of Opposition (8/11 /15) 2015-2508 BOCC EXHIBITS CON'T - WELD LV, LLC, AND GERRARD INVESTMENTS, LLC, 0/O MARTIN MARIETTA - USR15-0027 BW. Gary Rath Email and Pictures - Opposition (8/12/15) BX. Gary Rath Video (Stored @CTB; — Opposition (8/12/15) BY. Rafael Garcia Letter of Opposition (8/12/15) Lori and Dale Horn Family BZ. Trust Letter of Opposition (8/12/15: pp CA. Josh Moe Letter of Opposition (8/12/15) CB. Applicant PowerPoint Slides (8/12/15 duplicate of Exhibit BT; CC. Dave Kisker CLR-34 Presentation (8/12/15 duplicate of Exhibit Z) CD. Ben Poppel Letter (email 8/12/15) CE . F. Robert Lamb Letter (8/12/15) CF. Dave Kisker CD (8/12/15) CG . Mel Bickling PowerPoint Slides (8/12/15; CH . John Wallace Visualizations of Martin Marietta Plans (8/12/15) Cl . Barbara Moe Letter (8/12/15; CJ . Silencia Cox Pictures (8/12/15) CK. Chris Friede Packet (8/12/15) CL. Applicant Red Lined Draft Resolution (8/12/15) CM . Applicant Letter of Michael Smith (8/12/15; CN . Applicant Letter of Eugene Coppola (8/12/15) CO. Applicant Noise Response by Paul Burge (8/12/15) CP. Alan Horn Letter of Opposition (8/14/15; Linda Novak & Howard CQ. Newell Letter of Opposition (8/14/15) CR . Staff Correspondence Email (8/20/15) Staff/Applicant CS . Correspondence Email (9/1 /15) CT. CU . CV. 2015-2508 ;it. - f. j 1 Y . ... - - -$4 ; if r i, 1 = di.;. 1' t l', • Public hearings concerning this property will be heard before the ' ' is. County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners . Both hearings will be held at: , , r WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1150 " O " Street • Greeley , CO 80631 - Planning Commission Hearing will be held on fi Ui ai , 20 15; at: 9:00ctifil Board of County Commissioner Hearing will be held on • puno3-1- I1, ol• t� . 20 , at. `1 , � Applicant: Weld LV Lid a- lrY"Qlr laf)titiftlemb lit . 610 illo.r4in (Ylartt, of.. Request: ;3, An amendment to a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special .• ;q' M, - Review (USR- i L34) `or any Use permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory -r r, , •� �• t . • r Use, or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone , r, i ; d 41 ' .2 lc( i0.:�?.." ',, r. ,'fir • • I Districts (construction business with two shop buildings, office buildings, and outdoor storage) provided that the property is not a lot in an approved • or recorded subdivision plat or lots parts of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions to include a Mineral _? , ' ,. .. ' Resource Development Facility including asphalt & concrete batch plants 4. , *. pv ,� s' (materials processing) and transloading in the A (Agricultural) Zone -, • flistrirt "_a 7yip —, isks n r-. . 1 r.,..,• •-s Case Number: (SI I5-00 a ? Acres:131 ya k. •:►% }• . •'w. r hk I Sri' FOR FURTHER . . #. :' � : INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT I-tantx A u myt- AT THE WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF - V _ , PLANNING SERVICES, AT 970-353-6100• ext. 35 4241 .For Additional Information visit www.weldcountyplanningcases.org ATTENTH)IV•Proposed Conditions related to this Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit request including, but not limited to, the number ofollawable employers, hours nfoperation,screening, and number of allowable vehicles and vehlclr trips are subject to change or removal at both the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissionen hearings. EXHIBIT • \.", 01 z I J 1 1. f • ' Y • •i,,l J • 3i t • aY•. • • L Ihr: • Y • -- 1. / y v.•ilifix. • • 1. r r. R- ° y iti_______ 1 . • x;,,,l r + ' 4• -'J• •t!_--T-_ -'"" _1 p-.'wY N�bM tlm{f t:�lfi Ma :y1.-. _.71 Catty varrant C.-n-abskart an-4 ,. 1 .r ', _ . . r,�,, tia.-t-1 earn far+Tt,Iern► .'.r. a ' s `i► WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING t -s t 150 -`O•• Street • Greeley, CO 80631 - . 1 - . 1 ra^.�:G-'trmL.1042!.Tt. .t.' _ ilk ! t+..c.-'.��P ti•4Atl}}•Jnns.rw�WSUt,tll3: • , •4 ti r. a. .. -•+- • wrc,«i awl }I S u. 4...Tw lit. sA4Y, -`� i"s`1 e.4..\- \` „ eCtr WtSet.tetr-- t 1.11,140 �:•}•Io 3 - w •~c•- .:V � - w«�wv. �,�..r.••a..•.......;�..� 1 1 y,.- • • i, • " '- 1 .'- a tom,.. --•, M) s y ' � i, - ". ! U51fl cc?7 1319.7 r • , •t.- nF r P - b ` :. y j1 L' S{- �s3L`p r.::�Yt1,- 2• NJ.r-.�',.0 .A'''''' - � ♦ t 1{. , t... • 3.'Thi• - : //r rlf .1L, ,��+ •qj"�!J' • .rt.•iYet�i iLWYliT•._ : t.. i '-,,.r , ., ,,,w,_... _ _i� _ - f :� _ • - _ • l- • 1. t` 1 a J7• S ' . .� ii .- �7 • (- ' ' ••iy�• ,tt w L ". 't .. _b .C•. 4 - ♦ �. y7� •Nj` `r • t '`repii Y r r tC •• - tai\ ..�• M J --Nyi • ' 'T'•...-,. ."44 A• 1 A 'e .� 1� • 1 r, . t'er• • . l•:::•t •.. •• .f , t. . .. v. .. -.. ..... .•.. k - .. ant.. �. f .�, �: : . � ' 4 ' -r - L . .. q j �• \ �►. ..• it _ . 140 R^• View looking east (from CR 13 ) t st ç .Tç .t ; t S -: V' fF _- •-it.1 i ,r _ Tr~ .r ;"al I • : �•. t- . . •Yc m . l - ,f •f li ` ••" • T /t • pee•T•�� . -L. ` \a �- Y : J 1 . f, -1 .. _ �.�J L' • . tj .. ti :•T1 k • ,.jj•.-„..-.1- .}; �(� • --. . ! �t f,•. .1 • •.1!1 {.� r r` a �r ^ • 7 I • ' S 10 • • 1 V r • • • y��j�r�y�' 'j- _ - �.. .516 „a. .. to C.F. ...'--- li , , .. 1^,-°$$ ' • • ;dits L.:- • :III? • •• ' r 18 77 r�J •- 1 t P. ." •r ti-4. / iet''' ` l � 'Y \ -f { illity • ? Y , ••k " --44. ‘ 1%1/4. it, . -.2 a••• art: j•. •a.f '4•�w� ~�r V A- ~ 'fir'' ~ 4 5, •� 1 / t f � r -• as . 1 -S ;� - # "• TLS' _', `1. • ID. i (t �{�_ lr,,• - ! _ 1 .r a 5� _70:4. Y . ♦Y. ... • •• e View looking northeast (from CR 13 ) • • • . 7 ,.(.1:1 41.4 l'h• 4. t i-..1 -14(I?it ,i err f 4:., .0 7 .- ---- •1 [ l Iiyhil a f, I I _ _ r - _ Y-II• i • • + •' .. ...?• , • O! • • • ' • , - . r .- � } •.y • View looking north along CR 13 • . .► . r � fy. 7 • r y • • View looking northwest (from CR 13 ) View looking west (from CR 13 ) 1 • 1 1 . _': • r - � , 4 . . 1, a • - --• atef -t�`-M'�Iy‘` r: - .... •Oaf- aat ;Y - - ....cos...- J.1:'lM��.Ca�.. . . �• '" .• 1n n�srl-- .. u. aa .�_ ...-.rr+�i...��.a .�- - . . co., y 1'tYiMrrl :,,,,w..64—.. ..111. � - -11`t _ - . _ • • ---- - t • .- •-�- .. . r. . A4 r3:. . . ,•jq J. , - • . ir. ;��:.S •3 ‘`.gee.� View looking southwest (from CR 13 ) 17 C : tl� r . • • h • , r ~ - ° ++MM --tom �._ • r, .we vomit - --Vie • anritillAt ' ','•. - �. � - • View looking south along CR 13 Gerrard Construction Office and Shop • 4 + .11 _ • ! 4 "rasp•INDw • = •• • • •- - View looking southeast (from CR 13 ) ••• i r .. '• • e,• sal� • •,• , ogle AIR Existing residence on the property .•-• ,, • pi \ , ". te • .4, .0: • • .4 1 ir ^. : i : . . .Jb •. a, j` • III 16 a pie. - :"..ICP: IA WI • waive - . •• - • - --• • . • . .. _ • it 4' clot l-'wn. • • • • • in • . fik ‘. • ' 4•., 4-,•-4 It if Iv- .711 a .w • •'. ,4*jar ' • -Cr - ''js . ea At, : View looking north (from CR 56 ) * .. •l..., ` „ k • s. a 0.lit *Sr ' 7,.. _ 4.- ..: k. % ,..e:4.4%.4 kel:Iit 4.,)i 6.. .' ‘ • • c A. a • ,( • Jt • I N -•till ;.� 4. *6'. . �' I. w I 41.. ......: .• X .� ` lilleiCH . IA46 • .. • 404 Igiklmait 4 iffisClireitH 0 air 1. Ir nee • N. V- • . r . . ....• eJS -...tvRy e`!' ; f•. ! 1Ci47'1 4.f ..,4- . � : View looking northeast (from CR 56 ) a I • J - imiiiii. .. r.., ..- - r ''� `,nRyy�r� n. .y • a • • • ( .. - s-_ •r • • rte: ••1 T4i e•. -l��r.et. I / I ' . tit• a... -� .I -• f• +. • _ - • -ail A r • 1 L.j O ei . .. i,� a • . r• - ir_ . :.._ . .st a f - • View looking east along CR 56 • I — illitillialallsh4 -re 4.1 Urifr a w - aor - • • ' - . - ` - . fr { t ' s ♦ J Kam:-!4 ... - . Lt: "As •• • lit+ • . . * + °te# 4 '•n i J �'i 1 it .40 ••( ' . '�� ' •, �Y .^,f li , 1 ' ,1 � 4114.0,2 - r 1 i,-.: _ r i,- - - • 1 •••!:-. ; �/ ' r ' ` ►'.fails. -;;.� • ` L IL .ii View looking southeast (from CR 56 ) - _ 'ice - . }i 15 r,1f. . _ .. ‘C••;• +5 �_•.i_ _ -.. . - _ ♦f . r ,, r. 'CT.-we' r . rya t`0r: • - - ,�•-fw_ { . TS4'. vs- ~l.I.ar y ,i. J . ~ >�I ` ` r •Y. '1-I rJ _ r- •• • c • ' . ir tr. , . _ . '7A ' . l' ..a�i.t .t . .,;r te 1.75..., At .. -.. .A.$C aXThiTy. .- ._.- .1..• �_.' -'r^ .yl..,.q .3 y - :..+t.• ..a•4,...,,• `-.• t. -'r' _ ._•..,s„� ..,-r.. Yr,+.,s1uµ i' �ls•Ad.T}C.'�•. '_a.. ,,•- `.. - +'•t.►d::"+•'.`KL'4.`..c.�G,�� .Fi ,rt•�y..i_ ice_.• _ .� `-r•__ rS" ,4f,• 4..♦rr �.,l. O` A•e` ••-• •.1 - . ...- - -., . lir t 4 :• j Y _ •.r: M1 �. I..._. _,V .4- a"r ."!-1' .s.1.*./ " , •<< • �ti 1. ^ •�7 a.: 1 a• .. `• • J"- • A.�en...N:a... -ss.:r. :y•� !.au- '' #► .•i♦ Siir• •�. ��, Jet - _+.^.��k.ATM s'L r • �F y� . S .^rte ^Y .r. ..- r` '- r . s • y. ,` :T4 'Y �a��. • • • ¢,' r{r •r., 16; • {11. ti ••141.►I i - • ,♦ �-rs-• ., • _ -..: i • `. Y S'��i�.•e7� 3`R.Is.y�v h' _.+_ 'mod. ~: ►.n.. l .•, -- Ca, i•0 • kip....;h - d. 4f.,.i — '4 _ .tic #. e. —'{` N - v-ers•y�„`• i I - -Try. '.Z. �" ♦'. •r Yf " : "3 ` ,T-w - .j•�i 1 .i�, a •+tl�?. •1..+,��.4. .,, t -_► l«f/Y ,ql , . ' '3 ':f`,11• {t.. � f / � 1.'.v. ♦ v �'. ..) .b •'` 'yT • I y , 5'" ' '� .R 1•�ll� • . _ 7470,-,- ��w � �� '`•', � "(J `c-.. r M t•.:.. . t• . IA •. �ya.s' ♦ '1 �' '>: .a • �r d, •r�''•'< a ,. 1 . ` •d f t: Er . wi x i•— 'et"lY ✓'( 'trin2 � j^(•._ _ r .J w Z• � ,\ ..•,fS{/'J . ,Ogr K .� , 1, �1� � ' k' +Y� 1L ,/ `•I rR� . E1it �.1 yti. i.,. cB, .�'1' :`r�lf r.t xd%.: '1i. .�� J w:d' -' r •.' •- �I�!` •� '~T �; � 1" 7J •� f. �1.,t1, rt{. 1 �M. .r�tifij�•��/, t..'. _y. f , Y 1 ^i! _ 'jq ,.perJw.„� .! �._ Jr. .. j � if3� �• _ � .�� y< ♦\ , , . l1 • tq. tl _ ` "�. 'Fi " 7 • ;. •T' "�`. r �h-,�.' • < • ,, ',VS .. 7 • � .. .f�1t . v ,.•_♦A i sr ihr.`a." 'J . - •i.. ? t ”Ik •. : is 7 ,.*._ 4. . j. „ klr 117 }' 'J�� 4 'IC h. a .• •• "4• `It , s Al .` i`Jh 1i. t '.• 1.6.4 i. .L1 ` yj .. • "ink ?- • +�f:. ! ( - ."' " • _f f y 1t �1., • .(•��r r .1' �• 6. f • • . 6.191 Itt . . ♦ 1 . ;. tl •� •r '� T.�• � Py.V _✓cr • y. •'J.'. Zfa i ♦. ElL b-6, 1 JLs�. 7 4 y �;,.• r 1�i+}' _a � � r. T' w'- � �1 Ar v ,r- '''.. .f •' } /f ..• IL f,��., • ._ t:..a r• IlIy,H ! * ',I • - , '.. .foc ., *At ....II • r frt � rr aR J/�� raYQ /.< . �; •_ ' ,• r♦ Nf , V I- ` lx. _.� - _ - • _ - '!]'� _ %d/ ■i/l■'l J l��i /.. )' 1 f J_r• I _ �. .�,YJ7� ..� a r •CY (. t .N f q ']arP..�L c G. V�. .IC��^ ��ir��--- •�I� �.r�Y, •�'!a�� i. �c� y J :�iG� _ � fir► , Y� _ �Y .. n . •.. ., , ' .\ . ` ` l�•' �• -• �-.y .� iSirc�.J 14,16 S • .. y e,,r Ki) `• . ,.7..y �^;•_• #�" •.f`: .- .. .`. 4 �` . � r, 'Ali,_'� _O•- - - �y _L � T at- .v ��'1�V rJ . •, :•Jr• ••' '..i .r A •/ .`•, •t't�r /. �•��..• 2 S`R �' :` °i ;f«r -. R e - s •.,♦, , i& ` 1, ++!! 1275 r te'^ N• �`' ' -` r T V rt ea'_ I -a- iI sJ�44,4 i • a, , p • .. , .7�1 ��14; yq , ♦ `� " } -, gyp/ '... f 115•66.� rf 'P ;S�/ X11 tI' "ail ..",; iicio.0‘_%,ii; I i :. `j 1�� :al�� . �• ' \�•� • �`�" y, :' v tom.. t4 9,1k, ./„/ tf / / e! I t..•� . J . .+A !'4 Ay", i'4,-.• ✓ - 'r . l.A- q �... '1�• .�T1 X11$ • • lr +• � h 'I. _ ..:4J��+>ti � � av" . f . l•1 1'r. _ -'Y� i'. .i' !a ( �,_ Yso i. _ ] � t ..."'ttiiii tlt��{ M�• V11 • �• J • +, ♦ /� '1r • t:• r it - /'11;\ j 7q•a. ` 1 y + •} • �' 1- - • - ..�•..' i..Lt'�. i� • 1L r 1• 7 Jr/� '{�♦ ♦ rr � i i i !� 11�, 40-1'!"� .a '4. � s . . • .tia^,p','�}�? '� 4. - .. 19 1 •.,�` 4 . '. View looking south (from CR 56 ) �'•�� y �K r K 1. . L (� i • rr L r . �Al 7� 'it y t^j . JS ' �1 lc f '•r4 ��'' Yet. '� •/ .. 1 1 �'M / t �E I tla"`Y �. Al t 4J • ♦' / 1�� ~! � 1 amour • • • , L illireptikit 1 . . • J I �•_ ; • ',,- .J -_.4' r-.. Y _o va r-- • -Nr►��"•�•wvsait.° • 4 p o � 'r�. ��...v+ "'�" ct ,- - -Li T r X ' ,moo.. -�'� .it stay-. ♦ �� r T . : 1 , � •� 4 . •t(�1. ♦, , _ �•I ." .. � '• r'�,�T�+ tf .I L ( ..•. • Y•.•••- 'Cif a.Y kh 4N •4 Y • �y`i •� T.+ 't'." •- yl,y ,•, ! • i"a. _Vj j' wy•ivl �' ••?'-.0:4,,� •'t •1 nay r. �� ( + ••t'•. • t . .` �., ••✓ �-j' y '[' f . � , . • i;y44 -•l• ! y •-�Jf� , •1!t . e \`.r `1 • �? 1 ell '�!Ma '�`N7, t '• .,.• ! T' « '• V ,i. . !•. 3 1�..•' _, ,' +'` Oa, ';.i '. 4•7r.� 2`� . - - ! . Sri T. '•3 r _MJ1?. 4 �L� . t y ♦ �• 1►-l-47. Rtl� .� y S'._. � .; ..'1 ,O ti I' . 1-tA. 4_• 4 • ' .� It• Vii. 44 iy _ 6 ♦ �• i y. • eii •' �:. . • .� r' • t\• 4Y'. 1 �•y •✓t. ;cm,. �1 • i .Lt' 1' tit . , 1`` �' , •;. -�J .r'- a .• • -,.• a. Z. .7'• �.'.�• qr -,41„c ire _ r• . ' •� �' I" �. r •V• Q_,t 7 41 r w L _ •r ._ ; ~ .� - ,,':;„11•01,-- Jr.-it- S - _,. _r • .�_ l .. ,•t� '. , • {.11 '1 1,. \.. .- . ' ,.� -ec. mow.., rte. * ' 1Y ,,",w.J•... .y' / i •' �I •. '1'. 1 ii• ' s_ 4--$ �`.tri tt M�i'Ai!.• •—• _ .,i- t • C -1• ." - ` t _ft. .). ^.' l, I y�• 11 f 4 w� b �-.. it %tic . 'q'". ,za-�sY ' ji I. y ��111 •.. 1'. • , /W. r • • ♦ Ya �t r• , t ' '..l �1Y S> '.,,j i }r, 1 . 1. I . , a‘ i , - • I • 'illth . �. t� •�•�, '' " .......„.„0 r r ry , •' ' er , + • y I - t. a I.` fir.{,.� •M,_ tlk t • _i. " •' • `1r ,, • ,t.c • a. �7 r al ` ~.� '{ . if " �. View looking southwest (from CR 56 ) ....ACT l • y isiatrisais illiS I Y 4 - . _ - -.._ _�- l..�, - - � it i.e6i M. y • - - ... r, _ • aF, - --- • 1 j. ` "0 1 - s . . ti ti -/ .' ; �.� se* I -. •l ♦ -r r View looking west along CR 56 a . ... ...AL e"-e. t` 16 ft t .J I • • • .Iiiiii View looking northwest (from CR 56 ) Case it USR 15-0027 For Public Record July 16, 2015 To: Weld County Commissioners c/o Diana Aungst, AICP, CFM Planner II Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, CO 80631 RECEIVED RE: Planning Application USR 15-0027: Martin Marrietta Materials JUL 17 2015 Highway 34 Development Weld County Commissioners: WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Please DENY the application for special use. As I move into my new dream home in Coyote Ridge Lane this week, I am very saddened that my investment is now at risk of being significantly diminished by a big corporation bringing in a massive asphalt plant. I bought the property 4 years ago because I loved the pastoral views with close proximity to everything. We just put tremendous time, energy and most of our life earnings into building this amazing home only to have it compromised by the county changing agricultural use land into heavy industrial. The Highway 34 corridor has become a beautiful residential and light commercial area for our county. I expected that over time the area would grow up with more homes and businesses like were coming in but I never expected an asphalt plant would ever be considered. My greatest fear when I bought the property was that as my kids start driving (and my daughter is taking drivers education this summer) that they would get hurt pulling out onto Hwy 34 from CR 15. We had told her that while in high school, for her safety, she would need to drive around to the light at CR 17 on her way to Resurrection Christian. Now my fear for her is even greater with all the MM trucks. I thought I was moving my kids to the country to enjoy the land, play in the dirt and get some chickens, not live close to a health hazard. My husband and I are small town family physicians who love working and serving the town of Johnstown. We fear for the health of our community with this plant so close to so many neighborhoods such as Thompson River Ranch, Thompson Crossing and especially Indian Head Estates. We care for patients in all these communities and will be watching for signs and symptoms of the toxins an asphalt plant is know to produce. Some of our patients are even MM employees. I know you have received letters of support but have you investigated how many of them are MM employees or relatives of employees? How many are true independent citizens? As our entrusted government officials, please, please, please protect us by denying this application. With treme sincerity ara Brown — Mother a d new homeowner 27121 Coyote Ridge Lane Johnstown, CO 80534 EXHIBIT Dr. Cara Brown, MD Family Physicians of Johnstown 257 Johnstown Center Dr. #110 ' ' i5 Johnstown, CO 80534 Tisa Juanicorena From: Scott Tarbell < starbell777@gmail.com > Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 8:12 PM To: Tisa Juanicorena PIECE' c Subject: Fwd: Indianhead Subdivision/ Martin Marrietta v v JUL 2 3 2015 co�L° OUNT Forwarded message MMI SIONER From: Scott Tarbell <starbell777@gmail.com <mailto:starbe11777@gmail.com> > S Date: Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:06 PM Subject: Indianhead Subdivision/ Martin Marrietta To: daungst@co.weld .co.us <mailto:daungst@co.weld .co.us> Dear Sirs, I am writing to express my grave concern and discontent regarding the asphalt plant that is being proposed on the southeast corner of Hwy34 and CR13 . As a longterm homeowner in the Indianhead subdivision I believe that something such as the proposed asphalt plant would do many negative things to the surrounding area . 1. It would create a great increase in traffic issues on both Hwy34 and CR13, which would be detrimental in many ways. 2. It would create; air pollution, noise pollution, and other environmental issues. 3. It will decrease the value of the homes that have been here and long previously established. 4. It will be an absolute eyesore, from both the subdivision and from the passing traffic on Hwy34, which in turn poorly represents our area for the reason people are in and come to Colorado. Affecting our everyday life, tourism, and longterm wellbeing. Martin Marietta would be the one single benefactor at the expense of an incredible amount of surrounding permanent residents and visitors to this area. This is not an industrial area, this is a place of high profile from Loveland to Greeley that thousands of people drive by every single day. It represents the beauty of Colorado and why this state is great. I HIGHLY OPPOSE the mere thought of bringing the asphalt plant to this area. Please do not let something such as this happen, as we are not talking about something that can be undone if is found a bad idea later. We are talking about something that would be carved in stone and affect and be at the expense of an incredible amount of people, while there is only one single potentially positive recipient., which by the way is a massive corporation that has no true interest or love for this area. Thankyou for your consideration. Sincerely, Scott Tarbell EXHIBIT 8 C= I at5- co. 1 Tisa Juanicorena From: Diana Aungst Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 10:14 AM To: Tisa Juanicorena Subject: FW: MMHighway34.com Support Form RECEIVED Diana Aungst, AICP, CFM JUL 2 4 2015 Planner II WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue - Greeley, Colorado 80631 970-353-6100 ext. 3524 Fax: (970) 304-6498 daungst@weldgov.com <mailto: ldodge@co.weld .co.us> www.weldgov.com <https://www.facebook.com/WeldCountyGovernment> <https://twitter.com/weldgov> <https://www.youtube.com/user/WeldCountyCO> Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited . From : MMHighway34.com Support Form [mailto:MMHighway34. Info@martinmarietta.com] Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 10:07 AM To : ddinkel@burgenertrucking.com Subject: MMHighway34.com Support Form EXHIBIT Debbie Dinkel a�trODa-"7 1 2400 Cheviot Dr Ft Collins, CO 80526 07/23/15 RECEIVED Weld County Commissioners JUL 2 4 2015 c/o Diana Aungst ( USR15-0027) Weld County Planning WELD COUNTY HERS 1555 N . 17th Avenue COMMISSIO Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Weld County Commissioners: I am writing to express my full support for the approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project (USR15-0027). I understand that some in the community have voiced concerns over the project. I, however, am one who will benefit from this project through our regions's ability to repave my streets, build new retail centers and increase economic growth through housing and business development. The project site is located between two active railroads and very close to major highways, which makes it well suited for this type of project. Our region will benefit from the project as the cost to construct vital infrastructure required to support the continued economic growth may be completed at a reasonable cost as compared to importing materials. Additionally, the project will allow needed natural resources to be imported by train to the site, providing a local source and reducing the amount of trucks bringing this material from ever increasing distances. I urge you to approve Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project and look forward to your response ! Sincerely, Debbie Dinkel 2 a Tisa Juanicorena From: Diana Aungst Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 10:38 AM To: Tisa Juanicorena Subject: FW: Project Hwy 34 Non-Resident Support Letter Attachments: MM HWY 34 PROJECT SUPPORT LETTER.pdf Importance: High REC E"V ED JUL 24 015 ELD CovNTRS OMM,SSI Diana Aungst, AICP, CFM C Planner II Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N . 17th Avenue - Greeley, Colorado 80631 970-353-6100 ext. 3524 Fax: (970) 304-6498 daungst@weldgov.com <mailto: ldodge@co.weld.co.us> www.weldgov.com <https://www.facebook.com/WeldCountyGovernment> <https://twitter.com/weldgov> <https://www.youtube.com/user/WeldCountyC0> Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication . Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited . From : Debbie Dinkel [mailto:ddinkel@burgenertrucking.comi Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 10:35 AM To: Diana Aungst 1 RECEIVED Subject: Project Hwy 34 Non-Resident Support Letter Importance: High JUL 2 4 2015 WELD COUNTY ERS COMMISSION Good Day Diana — Please see the attached signed letter expressing my support for the Highway 34 Project. I am in support of this project as both a resident of Northern Colorado and also an employee of Transpro Burgener pp Trucking for the last 13 years. I understand that there may be areas where others do not agree but I am in full support of the project and I believe that the bigger picture is the growth of our community on so many levels. Please do not hesitate to contact me in this regards. Thank you for a great website and information regarding this project. Have a Great Day ! Debbie Dinkel Fleet Coordinator Burgener Trucking Inc / Transpro,p 970-482-4888 Ext. 300 2 RECEIVED RFCFVED CASE #USR 15-0027 For Public record JUL 2 4 2015 JUL 23 2015 July 16, 2015 WELD coUNERS Weld CGREELEYnOFiPleC tment con�nniss�o To: Weld County Commissioners C/o Diana Aungst, AICP, CFM Planner 11 Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17`x' Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Planning Application USR 15-0027: Martin Marietta Materials Highway 34 Development Dear Ms. Aungst: I am completely opposed to this application and would like to respectfully request that this USR permit application be denied. The construction of this Martin Marietta Project is on a site which is entirely incompatible with the surrounding area. Having lived near the proposed site for the last 25 years, it can be stated truthfully that this proposed 130 acre site for Martin Marietta's operations is currently zoned agricultural and residential. Martin Marietta is proposing heavy industrial plant operations on this site which would operate non-stop 24 hours per day every day of the year. The implications of allowing heavy industrial operations as proposed in this application are large increases in noise pollution, air pollution, heavy traffic congestion on the US 34 corridor, and emitted light pollution. The current residents in the affected site area would bear the brunt of these pollutions. All of these effects of the requested changed zoning are incompatible with the current zoning and in my opinion do not offset the small benefits (between 50 and 100 jobs) offered by Martin Marietta if their plans for this site development are allowed to go forward. As an engineer, the earthen berms offered by Martin Marietta to reduce the noise emitted from the proposed site will do nothing to mitigate the noise from the low frequency sounds (wavelengths greater than 20 feet) from this site, as these frequencies will diffract through the berms that Martin Marietta has proposed, these sounds being the most annoying and harmful frequencies to humans. The carcinogenic nature of the emitted volatile aromatic hydrocarbons and particulates from this site has also not been addressed adequately by Martin Marietta in my opinion, and I have great concerns about the health of anyone who lives downwind in an area affected by pollution from this site. This site proposal by Martin Marietta does not belong in this location . Please deny this USR permit application. Respectfully, 004.1 - EXHIBIT C-44tel,t,-464 Lcati. 13 Robert Emmerich (spectrumengr@aol.com 970 669-1084) 6915 Algonquin Drive, Johnstown, CO 80534 the t.6- O0 4C5 0 z. rarg, • \--\ rrurP :?•inah irk Lr 1191HX3 ept-,00 )1.. MrCr -4•441-O elenar-1.# cs--1•14'"a•)„.„ (-4 ---/s 1)-vvinsro Co-rvervw nr77r-0 awrrilae<r\A-, •=7 63-4P g rngl- S yip Vevt-rera n s y v Se Q, 551 tfelplaccs , pi. er. --nli!rerilen fisla I °Part) -%War \A-‘ eirk7 7 /Per k7;12 .7 271 -9-enfir nft s wry -a S"776 tom--y- ki w %ir nr z,v ,ss-n vly'i i! .7. / `264 � elf c't -a, r sstwin/ f 3 •S i.. > 1A-to J ATevt, O en-t° dria/rrater 77/1° regal & <7? err n 771O7 it efr )4441 711;-1 .?Pinihtc- r 5b3NO1� A1NOO Q13M c',., � . •°iSS/ G c� �v�,, �-� .!rte> �� 5toz a z �nr 30Idd0 A313389 3 m3038 10729 orneryivawpedaa 2uiuueid eld AI�N1uno3 platsQ 41/5 S1OZ 2Z IT nuornb 101, t ' N ss5 CBAID311 4,6,c4w nest I rip ner(y, enAtimnd WJ2 COP G frl PiAl 44400 4"ner0 irrn 5jn2 Lzoo - S1 'SP inv Tisa Juanicorena From: Jennifer Fuller Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 8:33 AM To: CTB Cc: Commissioners RECEIVED " Subject: FW: concerning Martin Marietta JUL 2 4 2015 Clerks, please add this letter to the case file. Thank you. WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS From: Brenda Trujillo [mailto: brenjd4@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:56 PM To: Jennifer Fuller Subject: concerning Martin Marietta Please forward to the BOCC. Dear Board, Please consider approving the permit Martin Marietta is requesting west of Greeley on HWY 34 in Weld County. They have been on north 35th avenue for over 30 years and are running out of resources on that land. This would relieve the truck traffic in the city EXHIBIT limits and take it outside the city where it would be more beneficial for this type of company. Most importantly, it would bring more jobs to this area. Lastly, this is where everyone in Weld county gets their asphalt and aggregate if this isn't approved for them people would then have to travel to Cheyenne, Wy for these materials which would drive the prices sky high. 1 Respectfully submitted, Brenda Trujillo weld county resident 2 TO: Weld County Commissioners RECrj ,jz0 un I ®c/o Diana A gst, AICP, CFM Planner I Weld County Department of Planning Services RECEF'1 ED JUL 23 2015 1555 N. 17th Avenue Weld County Planning pe Greeley, Colorado 80631 JUL 2 y 2015 GREELEY OFFICE rtment July 16, 2015 WELD CORNERS COMMISSION RE: Planning Application USR 15-0027 Martin Marietta Materials Highway 34 Development Dear Weld County Commissioners, Please do not approve allowing a heavy industrial plant on prime farmland ! My family ancestors worked the fields, farmed and started businesses in Weld County since before Colorado even became a state. Growing up I was proud of the importance that Weld County held as one of the most prime food producing counties in the nation. I was a member of the Ag department at Greeley West, obtained an Agricultural Business degree from CSU, and married a farmer and rancher. We hope to continue the farming traditions of both of our families with our two sons. Good farm land is extremely valuable now and well into the future. The development of an asphalt and aggregate crushing plant would be taking acres of prime agricultural land permanently out of production and the toxic fumes and dust coming from the heavy industrial activities may cause all the surrounding farms to suffer from decreased production. The dust settling on the crops may cause plant shading, reducing photosynthesis, and could draw subsoil moisture from dust accumulation on topsoil . The air pollutants not only impact the residences — it will also harm local farm animals and wildlife. The costs of locating the plant at the proposed location will be borne by the farmers while a massive corporation benefits. Farmers will not be the only ones who pay the price of an improperly located facility. Everyone who drives on Highway 34 will pay a price by increased fuel costs and lost production time due to traffic congestion. I'm certain that those currently living in the area will also suffer from decreased property value and desirability due to traffic, noise, air and light pollution, as most people would not choose to settle next to such a facility. When I bring my sons home to visit family the view into Weld County from I-25 is farmland scattered with farm houses and rural community developments. As the gateway to Weld County, I find this very appropriate. It would be a shame for you , the current County Commissioners, to forever ruin the entrance to Weld County by allowing it to be dammed with berms, silos, piles of concrete, asphalt, trains, trucks and other less-than- desirable uses. I sincerely hope that you will honor the legacy that farming has held in Weld County and assist those wishing to provide aggregate products to the region in finding a more suitable location. Sincerely, EXHIBIT 014,A 7V2- Kayli' Hevner Cheyenne Wells, Colorado 80810 EXHIBIT RON GROB rimmoirr `e. lS - co 071COMPANY ISO July 20, 2015 �oo CERTIFIED I D RECEIVED RFCFVFD Weld County Commissioners JUL 2 5 2015 JUL 24 2015 c/o Diana Aungst, AICP, CFM Planner II Weld County Department of Planning SerWEID COUNTY Weld County Planning Department 1555 N. 17th Avenue COMMISSIONERS GREELEY OFFICE Greeley, Colorado 80631 RE: Planning Application USR 15-0027: Martin Marietta Materials Highway 34 Development To Whom It May Concern: In addition to having the same concerns expressed in "The Kelim Neighborhood" petition signed by many of us who live or work in Kelim, Larimer County, I wish to mostly address the specific concerns that we have at Ron Grob Company, 8466 E. Highway 34, located at the northwest of Kelim, on the south side of the Highway 34 frontage road. Ron Grob Company has been at this location for almost 40 years. As a practical matter, the only access we have now to Highway 34 is at the west end of the frontage road. Most of our employees and virtually all of our vendors and customers depend on that access, since many of them use I-25 . Until about 4 years ago, we had a separate entrance and exit onto 34 either direction from just west of our facility that allowed a much better vantage point to view traffic from both directions on 34. Due to increased traffic on 34, Colorado DOT decided to limit the number of access points between Loveland and Greeley, and they removed that access. Now we must either make a sharp right turn onto Larimer County Road 3 (LCR3) to await a chance to enter 34, or we can turn left and drive south about a quarter of a mile on the gravel county road, which often has a pronounced washboard finish, or mud. Then, we drive westbound on Ronald Reagan Blvd., stopping twice, and then proceed through a traffic circle to get back to 34, where we have a long wait for the left turn signal. Since the visibility to the west at the intersection of LCR3 and 34 is greatly limited due to the rise where the railroad crosses 34, I have seen a lot of people taking big chances to get to the median, where they must wait to enter 34 westbound. At noon and in the evening, that is difficult and dangerous due to the very high traffic density now. Semis often make the sharp right turn from the frontage road to enter 34 westbound. They don't have enough viewing MAIL: DELIVERIES: PHONE: (970) 667-5320 WEB: WWW.RONGROB.COM P. 0. Box 1 4 17 8466 EAST U.S. 34 TOLL FREE: (866) 667-5320 LOVELAND. CO 80539-I 4 17 JOHNSTOWN. CO 80534 FAX: (970) 667-5322 E-MAIL: SALES@RONGROB.COM CNC SWISS SCREW MACHINING CNC TURNING THREAD ROLLING LEAD SCREWS THREAD ROLLED RODS CNC VERTICAL MILL MACHINING CENTERLESS GRINDING CYLINDRICAL GRINDING HONING r distance or time to accelerate to enter the westbound traffic on 34 safely, since there is no acceleration lane. They do it anyway. Now, every time a train crosses 34 either west or east of here, traffic north of Ron Grob Company is stopped for lengthy periods, both east and west. Emergency vehicles are also stopped, for as long as it takes for the train to pass and the traffic to move, sometimes, with the slow moving trains carrying the large Vestas windmill blades, that can be several minutes. As you probably know, a very large amount of development is forthcoming in the near future along Ronald Reagan Blvd. in the 2534 development. North of 34, and north of Ron Grob Company, I understand that another large commercial and residential development will commence construction soon. I believe that the existing traffic hazards along this route of 34 need to be remedied before further development is permitted in this corridor of 34. In my opinion, the train tracks need to be on overpasses built at Highway 34, both east and west of Ron Grob Company, and over both County Line Road and LCR3 . At both ends of our frontage road, access to 34 is very poor now via both County Line Road and LCR3 . Proceeding westbound on our portion of the frontage road is really our only alternative. Craning your neck 180 degrees (we are not owls), or trying to see eastbound 34 traffic through a rearview mirror at County Line Road while on the frontage road is completely unsafe, but I observe people doing it. If the Martin Marietta Materials application is accepted, all of the above problems will be greatly compounded. It may seem that since we are a small company, our access and health concerns don't matter much, but they matter greatly to our employees, customers, and vendors. They also matter to all of the inhabitants of K_elim, a community that dates back to the 1800's. If the Martin Marietta Materials application is accepted, I predict that property values in the entire area will be severely adversely affected. The health and well-being of all of the people living and working in this area will also be adversely affected. Sincerely, "gee, Ron Grob, President Ron Grob Company RECEIVED Board of County Commissioners Attn : Tisa JUL 2 9 2015 PO BOX 758 Cp ELF COUNTY MMissiONERs Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Weld County Commissioners, I would like to thank you for your service. I am glad that we have people with the understanding and history to study these situations and come to a fair decision . I am writing to request that you DENY USR 15-0027. I live at 27601 Hopi Trail, Loveland , CO 80534. We in the neighborhood of this factory and distribution center are opposed to this project for many reasons. However, one of the major one's is the fact that it will create a huge traffic problem on highway 34 and is likely to create multiple safety issues for those that travel that expressway on a daily basis . We hope that you will suggest MMM select a more suitable location i.e. one that is industrially zoned . It might also be a consideration for them to locate adjacent to 1-25 in an industrial zone, and build their own access on and off of the interstate with appropriate acceleration and deceleration lanes. I am sorry this is such a headache for your commission to have to work through. I hope that you will deny this USR. Respectfully yours, Eric Wingerson EXHIBIT G \cA Emily Anderson Elder qty Medical Doctor 1� �N� S 525 14th Street Windsor, CO 80550 RFCVFD F 144O-a- ss\° 970.372.8381 -hemi1y27@yahoo.com GO•\ JUL 27 2015 • Weld County Planning Department GREELEY OFFICE July 21 , 2015 SENT VIA US MAIL AND EMAIL TO: daungst@weldgov.com Weld County Commissioners c/o Diana Aungst, AICP, CFM Planner I Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Planning Application 1: SR 15-0027: Martin Marietta Materials Highway 34 Development Dear Ms. Aungst: This letter is my formal objection to the proposed Martin Marietta Materials (MMM) development south of Highway 34 and east of WCR 13 in Weld County (the "Proposed Development"). I strongly oppose the Proposed Development due to the negative impacts it will have on the individuals who live, work and travel through this area. As a member of the Northern Colorado community, I frequently travel along the Highway 34 corridor, one that is already congested. The Proposed Development would bring yet more traffic to this area when there are no sufficient funds for road widening or safety. Secondly, while the Proposed Development may aid the rapid growth of Northern Colorado, it does not support Weld County's overall vision: a vision of providing a peaceful and safe home for growing families as well as agriculture. Thirdly and most importantly in my mind are the unknown health risks associated with the Proposed Development. While current studies show minimal health risks associated with asphalt plant emissions, the true effect of chronic low level exposure to hazardous pollutants is actually unknown and could potentially be carcinogenic. In the short term, the pollutants (even at low levels) can irritate the upper respiratory tract especially for those residents already suffering from asthma, allergies, chronic obstruction pulmonary disease, etc. As a current Family Medicine Physician in Windsor, I already see a variety of health problems related to Northern Colorado's growing pollution. An asphalt plant may be needed in Northern Colorado for future infrastructure but not at the cost of our residents' health, especially when Weld County houses other potential rural plant sites. EXHIBIT Y )41 L C2 cv 1 My parents currently reside in the Indian Head Estates subdivision adjacent to the Proposed Development Site. They both strive to maintain a healthy lifestyle by growing their own produce, walking outside daily, and getting adequate sleep without noise or disruptions. This seems to be the theme for many of the Indian Head Estates residents as I often see them doing the same. However, allowing this Proposed Development could counteract their healthy lifestyle. I encourage the members of the Commission to walk in my parents' and these residents' shoes for a moment: would you want to work your entire life to maintain health to potentially have it negated by someone else's proposed business development? We can't prove the Proposed Development would cause this impediment, but we also can't verify that it won't. Would you want to gamble your health with those odds? I would sincerely appreciate if you could please acknowledge, by return email, that you have received this letter and that it has been incorporated into the Public Record and the respective packets for the Board of County Commissioners. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, - AtAiiit 62 Ap 4 br . -(dis/\ Emily R. Anderson Elder, M. D. Janet Larson 27575 Hopi Trail Johnstown, CO 80534 Diana Aungst RFCFIVFI)Weld CountyDe artment of Services p Planning 1555 N. 17th Avenue JUL 2 r� 2015 Greely, CO 80631 RECEIVED Weld County Planning g Department July 16, 2015 JUL 2 9 29,15 GREELEY OFFICE WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Dear Ms. Aungst, I am writing in reference to the land west of Indianhead and IHW and the concerns I have with the industrial development and rezoning proposal by Martin Marietta. We own a house that borders that property and are very concerned about the development that is currently being considered. There have been many concerns brought to the table and discussed in the various meetings with Martin Marietta, my concerns emulate all of these matters. At the last meeting I attended, a representative from Marin Marietta continuously asked us, "what do we want to see" as they kept showing us the so called development they are proposing. The one response I wanted to voice was, "how about we put our house up for sale, you buy it and you tell us what you would want to see in your back yard?" We have spent a great deal of money landscaping and developing our back yard that has an outstanding view of the mountains, amazing sunsets, a beautiful hay field and lake that just makes you want to sit outside and enjoy the tranquility that we are surrounded by. There are many areas available that are zoned specifically for Industrial purposes that can and should be used for those roles, the area in debate is zoned for Agricultural and should be preserved as such. Industrial pollution takes on many faces and all are a huge concern for all the residents and our families in this community. It has been proven that Industrial developments have contaminated many sources of drinking water, releases unwanted toxins into the air, reduces the quality of soil, creates unnecessary noise pollution, and unwanted light pollution that will occur due to prominent excess illumination of this area. In addition to the environmental issues, I am concerned that this development will increase the already heavy traffic on highway 34 and increase accident potential due to the continuous trains crossing this highway. Emergency vehicles will not be able to respond effectively to calls in the area if they are stopped in traffic due to trains crossing day and night. In closing, I hope that your office and the commissioners will take all the concerns submitted under serious consideration, understand the importance of the affects it will have on this community, and veto the proposal submitted by Martin Marietta. Thank you in advance for your time and considerations. EXHIBIT Janet Larson Janet Larson 27575 Hopi Trail /�� Johnstown, CO 80534 (307)460-8774 1 Tisa Juanicorena From: Gann Exner, Leslie < Leslie.GannExner@bannerhealth.com > Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 8:52 AM To: Tisa Juanicorena Subject: Letter from 2 Greeley residents opposing MMM construction Case # COZ15-0001 RECEIVED For Public Record JUL 3 0 2015 WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Mr and Mrs William Exner 5101 West B Street Greeley, CO 80634 July 31, 2015 Weld County Commissioners c/o Diana Aungst, AICP CFM Planner II Weld County Department of Planning Services EXHIBIT 1555 N. 17th Ave. 1 0 lAct(Z IS-OUa.7 Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Planning Application COZ15-0001, Weld34 LLC Rezoning Request Weld County Commissioners: Both my husband and I are strongly opposed to the rezoning of the parcels of the intersection of US-34 and WCR 13. We do not want Martin Marietta to build an asphalt plant in this location. Our reasoning is: 1 US- 34 already is overburdened with traffic and it is the last non-industrial entry way to our community. As a result of these and other reasons, we ask that you deny this application. Respectfully submitted, Bill and Leslie Exner 2 Case # USR15-0027 For Public Record July 30, 2015 Lisa Piraino RECEIVED 27660 Hopi Trail RiEULC3E0I 2015 Loveland , CO 80534 WELD COU ERS 970-300- 1000 COMM!ss!#t NT Y lisap@Ipbroadband . net Board of County Commissioners c/o Tisa Juanicorena 1555 N 17th Ave . EXHIBIT Greeley, CO 80631 - tjuanicorena@weldgov. com s 4> -tX=a Weld County Commissioners, RE : Planning Application USR 15-0027 : Martin Marietta Materials Highway 34 Development Requesting Denial of the USR Permit Application We moved to Indianhead Estates nine years ago . We did our due diligence at the time in researching potential development in the surrounding areas. We are not so naive as to believe it would always remain farm land but we felt confident that were it developed in the future it would be a usage compatible to this upscale neighborhood . I was one of the many neighbors who attended the Planning Commission meeting on July 21; I arrived at Sam and stayed until the end at 10pm ! I listened to MMM insist this was the best site for their operation , but I strongly disagree . There is an ideal site for such a huge operation as they propose, it is the Great Western Industrial Park in Windsor. ALREADY ZONED INDUSTRIAL, there is rail access. MMM stated that they would have to change railways from United Pacific to Great Western if they used this site. So what ? It is done all the time ! There is already highway access for their trucks, Hwy 257 to US Hwy 34. They would not need to add a stop light, acceleration lanes, etc. Speaking of stop lights and acceleration lanes, at the Planning Commission meeting MMM insisted that a stop light at WCR13 and acceleration lanes onto Hwy 34 would solve the traffic problems created by hundreds of trucks each day. These are not just normal trucks, these are trucks HEAVILY LOADED with aggregate, cement and asphalt ! Have you ever followed a heavily loaded truck as it accelerates from a stop ? I would guess maybe 2 or 3 trucks could travel through the 45 second light they referred to . And what about people from the Kelim frontage road trying to get in line on WCR13 ? As I stated earlier, I sat through 13 hours of the MMM proposal at the Planning Commission meeting. The planners made the absolute right decision to deny the applicant based on input from the planning staff. As was stated at the meeting, there are way too many unknowns for a project of this magnitude to be approved . I ask that you deny this application . Respectfully submitted, Lisa Piraino Tisa Juanicorena From: Diana Aungst Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2015 7:27 AM To: Tisa Juanicorena RECEIVED Subject: FW: Martin Marietta AUG 0 3 2015 Email for you WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Diana Aungst, AICP, CFM Planner II Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N . 17th Avenue - Greeley, Colorado 80631 970-353-6100 ext. 3524 Fax: (970) 304-6498 daungst@weldgov.com www.weldgov.com Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited . Original Message From : Tom Parko Jr. Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 3:32 PM To: Diana Aungst <daungst@co.weld.co.us> Subject: FW: Martin Marietta FYI. Tom Parko, M.A. Director of Planning Services Weld County Dept. of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO. 80631 EXHIBIT Office: 970-353-6100, ext 3572 1 Mobile: 970-302-5333 adi CO 71 Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return 1 e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. Original Message From : johnmoser@comcast.net [mailto:johnmoser@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 3 :26 PM To: Tom Parko Jr. Cc: billjerke Subject: Martin Marietta Tom, I would like to enter my comments on the upcoming meeting to be held on approval or denial of the permit application for Martin Marietta . How are we going to have the asphalt, concrete, rock at an affordable price for our county construction projects (RD. 49, roads and bridges) with out this plant. The demand will be enormous over the next decade as we upgrade our highways and bridges and that is not even counting I-25. This plant needs to be on the railroad and there are very few places where that can happen any more. The cost of constructing new rail to a remote location would make this project not feasible. My only connection with Martin Marietta is that we buy rock from them for our landscape business and I have no axe to grind or financial interest with anyone on this but it is a plant that we need as a county. This is a regional facility and although we do not hear much from other counties ( Boulder and Larimer) this will benefit them as well but as usual they are willing to let Weld County take the heat and then enjoy the benefits, of lower cost and greater choices. Thanks John Moser 970-539-0999 2 Tisa Juanicorena From: Diana Aungst Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2015 6:34 AM To: dave.kisker@gmail.com RECEIVED Cc: Tisa Juanicorena; Kristine Ranslem; Michelle Martin Subject: COZ15-0001 AUG 0 3 2015 WELD COUNTY Dave: COMMISSIONERS I received a phone call from the COZ applicant stating that he wants to postpone the hearings on this change of zone. Therefore, we will meet on 8/18/15 at 9 am and introduce the item and then have the applicant make their request for continuance. Should be about 60 days out. Feel free to contact me with any questions. Regards, Diana Aungst, AICP, CFM Planner II Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N . 17th Avenue - Greeley, Colorado 80631 970-353-6100 ext. 3524 Fax: (970) 304-6498 daungst@weldgov.com www.weldgov.com Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. Original Message From : Dave Kisker [mailto:dave.kisker@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 7:28 AM EXHIBIT To: Tisa Juanicorena <tjuanicorena@co.weld.co.us> Cc: Diana Aungst <daungst@co.weld.co.us> eeeR Forwarded letters Subject: � ette s thee-1 Tisa, I have just forwarded a few emails to you from the CLR-34 website. Because of delays in getting things more clearly defined, we occasionally received these, even though we try to get folks to communicate directly with the County. I hope that this doesn't cause too much inconvenience for you, and we are working to try to get this 1 squared away as soon as possible. Thanks, Dave Kisker President, CLR-34 Neighborhoods Assn. Dave Kisker My philosophy toward retail : " Be easy to do business with. If you make it difficult for me to give you money, I won't.. ." 2 Tisa Juanicorena From: rods34@aol.com Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 2:26 PM To: Tisa Juanicorena RECEIVED Subject: MMM USR 15-0027 AUG 0 3 2015 To the Board of County Commissioners WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Please deny Martin Marietta USR 15-0027 , because it is in no way shape or form compatible with the surrounding agriculture and residential use it has now. There are many other sites this plant can be located at. But this one will be the most profitable for MMM . It's all about the $$$. Safety would be dramatically reduced on US 34 and at the intersection of US 34 and CR 13. Again Please Deny USR 15-0027 ! ! Respectfully Submitted Rodney Smith 27701 Hopi trail Indianhead Estates EXHIBIT 1 ` dal <, - 1 Tisa Juanicorena From: CLR-34 Na < clr34na@gmail.com > Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 7:25 AM To: Tisa Juanicorena Subject: Fwd: Contact Form RECEIVED AUG 0 3 2015 Forwarded message From : <reneehein@msn.com <mailto:reneehein@msn.com> > WELD COUNTY Date: Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 6:58 PM COMMISSIONERS Subject: Contact Form To: clr34na@gmail.com <mailto:clr34na@gmail.com> Form details below. First Name: Renee Last Name: Hein Email : reneehein@msn.com <mailto:reneehein@msn.com> Telephone: 9704816929 <tel:9704816929> Zip Code: 80538 Comments: I VOTE NO ! I do NOT want an asphalt plant anywhere near my home. EXHIBIT LA.`, 1 €- (:)07-1 1 Tisa Juanicorena From: CLR-34 Na < clr34na@gmail.com > Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 7:24 AM To: Tisa Juanicorena RECEIVED Subject: Fwd: Contact Form AUG 0 3 2015 WELD COUNTY Forwarded message COMMISSIONERS From: <laurie.forsyth@earthlink.net <mailto:laurie.forsyth@earthlink.net> > Date: Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:25 PM Subject: Contact Form To: clr34na@gmail.com <mailto:clr34na@gmail.com> Form details below. First Name: Laurie Last Name: Forsyth Email : laurie.forsyth@earthlink.net <mailto:laurie.forsyth@earthlink.net> Telephone: Zip Code: 80534 Comments: please stop the asphalt plant. It is my understanding that it will create a health hazard for nearby neighbors and considerable traffic on 125 which is already seriously congested. EXHIBIT UL5215- tca Tisa Juanicorena From: CLR-34 Na < clr34na@gmail.com > Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 7:23 AM To: Tisa Juanicorena Subject: Fwd: Contact Form RECEIVED AUG 0 3 2015 Forwarded message WEED COUNTY From : <pfferg77@hotmail.com <mailto:pfferg77@hotmail.com> > COMMISSIONERS Date: Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 9:45 AM Subject: Contact Form To: clr34na@gmail.com <mailto:clr34na@gmail.com> Form details below. First Name: Patrick Last Name: Ferguson Email: pfferg77@hotmail.com <mailto:pfferg77@hotmail.com> Telephone: Zip Code: 80534 Comments: I respectively request that you deny allowing the building of the Martin Marietta plant at US 34 and county line 13. This plant will adversely affect the health of your citizens and also lower property values in our area . This will also alter the reason we moved to Weld county. Please have the concerns of the people above the profits of corporations. We love it here and would like to stay for a long time. Thank you EXHIBIT U t4 c fl 1 Tisa Juanicorena From: rods34@aol.com Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 12:43 PM To: Tisa Juanicorena RECEIVED Subject: MMM USR-0027 AUG 03 2015 BOCC WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Weld County Commission RE: Planning Application USR 15-0027: Martin Marietta Materials 34 Development Please reject Martin Marietta Materials Highway 34 Development because it is compatible with surrounding agriculture and residential use. Noise of trucks and trains 24/7/365. Odor, view, dust and lights will be in the air. The traffic on Highway 34, 402 & 13 will be very slow, if not at a stand still. MMM can go to one of their other sites. Respectfully submitted, Shirley A. Hoskinson 27701 Hopi Trail Johnstown, CO 80534 EXHIBIT 1 , - - 1 July 28, 2015 RECEIVED Board of County Commissioners Attn : Tisa Juanicorena AUG 05 2015 PO BOX 758 Greeley, CO 80632 WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RE: Martin Marietta Materials USR15-0027 Dear Tisa, I am a homeowner in the Indian Head Estates and I live at 27601 Hopi Trail, Loveland Colorado 80534. My husband and I were not aware of the proposed site when we purchased our home In May 2015. We moved here from Reno, Nevada and the day we were moving in a neighbor introduced herself and informed my husband of the devastating news. I am asking the Weld County Commissioners to please DENY Martin Marietta Materials USR15-0027! We would really love to enjoy our new home without the intrusiveness of this proposed plant. Thank you ! Sincerely, . 74//tr Rene' Wingers'on EXHIBIT Tisa Juanicorena From: kscott1325@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 5:30 PM To: Tisa Juanicorena Subject: Fw: USR 15 -0027 RECEIVED AUG 06 2015 Sent from Windows Mail COMMISSIONERS COUNTY From : kscott1325@gmail.com <mailto:kscott1325@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 5:26 PM To: juanicorina@weldgov.com <mailto:juanicorina@weldgov.com> Cc: Karl Scott <mailto:kscott1325@gmail.com> Case # USR 15-0027 For Public Record Dated August 5, 2015 Weld County Commissioners C/O Tina Juanicorena EXHIBIT 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 uS • t9 -Do 970-353-6100 ext. 3524: Fax 970-304-6498 tjuanicorena@weldgov.com <mailto:tjuanicorena@weldgov.com> Weld County Commissioners: RE: Planning Application USR 15-0027: Martian Marietta Materials Highway 34 Development I request your DENIAL of the application which would put this industrial plant 300 feet from my bedroom window having direct effects of: 1 . NOISE, Train whistles, screeching wheels from all cars and engines, rock unloading/piling/reloading, increased traffic 24/7, plant operation vs my ability to get a proper night's sleep for compliance with CFR regulations for CDL Drivers, my livelihood is at serious risk and stake. I would have to move or start a new career at the age of almost 63. 2 . Vibration 3. Airborne Contaminants and Dust Health Risks 1 4. Complete lack of compatibility to existing use of land now 5. Not in vision of future area growth plans or use by, City of Greeley, City of Johnstown or City of Windsor 6. Highway 34 (The Gateway to Rocky Mountain National Park {theprime tourist g Y tou st attraction in the area} and local main east/west arterial traffic highway) will be even a greater nightmare. I have trouble getting on either direction now at CR 15 and see that the dangers will be greatly increased. 7. Fumes and odor from the asphalt plant, transportation vehicles, and the supply of oils/tars/fuel for heating the raw materials Please do not start a Commerce City like area here. There are e e e a e zoned industrial sites along the railroad that are better suited for this application. Your denial for the USR 15-0027 is needed . • Thank you, Karl E. Scott 27640 Hopi Trail Loveland, Colorado 80534 Kscott1325@gmail.com <mailto:Kscott1325@gmail.com> 303-359-9430 Sent from Windows Mail 2 Tisa Juanicorena From: Dave Kisker < dave.kisker@gmail.com > Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 9:39 AM To: Tisa Juanicorena Subject: Neighborhoods Opposition report RECEIVED Attachments: Full report with cover letter.pdf AUG 46 2015 Tisa, We are submitting this document to be included as an exhibit in the case WELD COUNTY file for USR15-0027 (Martin Marietta). COMMISSIONERS Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks, Dave Kisker Dave Kisker My philosophy toward retail : " Be easy to do business with. If you make it difficult for me to give you money, I won't..." EXHIBIT IL � s-cam 1 6681 Apache Road Johnstown, CO 80534 August 7, 2015 Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Re: Neighborhood Opposition report Case USR15-0027, Martin Marietta Commissioners: NOTE : Please excuse the need to re-submit this document. I inadvertently used an early draft of the traffic analysis. Because this is such a critical part of this case, it was necessary to revise and include. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience. D. K. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Attached to this letter is a report prepared by the Neighborhoods surrounding the proposed Martin Marietta Highway 34 project site. It covers a range of topics that we feel are relevant to the review of the application . Although we may cover some of this material at the BOCC hearing on 8/12/15, it should generally be considered to be supplemental, but critical, nonetheless. We also wish to apologize for the late submission. We've been striving to complete the effort and get it submitted previously, but due to some of the new information that was presented at the Planning Commission hearing, it required more time. We do understand the additional burden that this will place on the Commissioners as they strive to review the entire case. However, as we know you understand, in an application of this magnitude and complexity, it's important to consider a wide range of issues. Respectfully submitted, David W. Kisker On behalf of the CLR-34 Neighborhoods Assn . CLR-34 Neighborhoods Assn. Neighborhoods Opposition Report USR15=0027 CLR-34 Team 8/5/2015 Table of Contents I . Introduction 1 II . Compatibility 5 III . Assessment of the MMM Traffic Impact Study 25 IV. Farm and Water 54 V. Real Estate 69 VI . Addendum A : Emissions Comment 75 VII . Addendum B : Health Impacts of Particulates 85 CLR-34 Neighborhoods Assn. I • Introduction USR-15-0027 Dave Kisker 8/5/2015 Introduction The following report has been prepared by the members of CLR-34 Neighborhoods Assn . on behalf of the residents and businesses surrounding the proposed Martin Marietta Materials Highway 34 Project ( USR15-0027) . Although there are numerous issues that could be addressed in such a report, we have focused on the most important, especially Compatibility, Traffic impacts and Land and Water impacts. Other topics, such as the Health impacts and the issues related to Noise have been thoroughly covered in our presentation that was given at the Planning Commission meeting on July 21, 2015 . Our assessment of the Air Emissions report that was prepared by Stewart Environmental and included with the USR Application was supplied to the County on June 18th, and is not reproduced here. However, Stewart submitted a response to that analysis at the Planning Commission meeting that we feel misrepresented the factual situation in several respects. Because we do not intend to address this extensively at the BOCC meeting, we have added our response as an addendum to this report. Finally, as a point of reference, we have included 2 figures from the EPA's AP-42 publication, which show schematics of a typical asphalt drum mix plant and a typical concrete batch plant. At the Planning Commission hearing, it was apparent that there was some misunderstanding of certain elements, such as the role of the asphalt plant "baghouse" ( No, it's NOT a vacuum cleaner that sucks up all fugitive dust from the aggregate piles. It applies ONLY to the emissions from the aggregate dryer and drum mix processes) and the proposed carbon filters (which will be applied to the asphalt cement tanks, but not the other sources of odor—the truck load-out and the silo filling) . Hopefully, this will help to clarify some of that uncertainty. 2 Source : EPA Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 , Section 11 . 1 , Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, Final Report Sources of Odors and Emissions from HMA Drum Mix Plant r 1/- PRIMARY O (64,( ' ,�(i COLLECTOR ' Baghouse ,,,-..(63 r qP) I i. LOADER J rir - i I EXHAUST TO (SCC 3-05-002-04) =' ATMOSPHERE RAP- Recycled _ ,.,;6 - � l s halt Pavement , `� _ P ~ �/ - EXHAUST it-Te a) , `+ • FAN RAP BIN & CONVEYOR • SECONDARY ; : : '• ,, =;;y:.;�, COLLECTOR :_,-. t FINE AGGREGATE COURSE AGGREGATE :: NN. SECONDARY FINES R STORAGE PILE STORAGE PILE HMA + F , RETURN LINE (SCC ) (SCC 3-05-002-03) STORAGE '' r (SCC 3-05-002-13) 1.1 OD N r i� �yC?f�) OD O el •D TRUCK t i i r� +� LOAD-OUT OLD) CONVEYOR + • + (SCC 3-05-002-14) ISHOS t Cy r........ .- \� . i 1`l D1 ' DRYER � s _ `,----/r...,.� kli (Pi) — BURNER � ° '' � ' � H �� i-`-{ : COUNTER-FLOW CONVEYOR SCALPING COLD AGGREGATE BINS �1�111 '�' 4, DRUM MIXER SCREEN (SCC 3-05-002-04) ` (SCC 3-05-002-05, -55, -57, FEEDERS -58, -60, -61 , -63) ...4) V LEGEND A 1 ''� , Emission Points ODOR , Q Ducted Emissions�' Sources Process Fugitive Emissions ASPHALT CEMENT HEATER STORAGE (SCC 3-05-002-06, -07, -08, 09) OD Open Dust Emissions (SCC 3-05-002-12) Figure 2-3. General process flow diagram for counter-flow drum mix asphalt plants (source classification codes in parentheses).3 cN O O› Fugitive Emissions from Concrete Batch Plant Source: EPA AP-42 Document, Figure 11 .12-1 BARGE / UNLOADING TO ELEVATED STORAGE SILO IIII RAIL IIII TRANSFER TO ELEVATED STORAGE CEMENT (SCC 3-05-011-07) TRANSFER TO CONVEYOR CEMENT SUPPLEMENT (SCC 3-05-011-17) AGGREGATE (SCC 3-05-011-23) AGGREGATE (SCC 3-05-011-04) SAND (SCC 3-05-011-24) SAND (SCC 3-05-011-0S)'71. ri i PNEUMATIC ` BARGE / Cm FRONT END 1) TRANSFER TRUCK LOADER ELEVATED STORAGE IIII RAIL IIII --. IP. vigrS 7 BINS A ELEVATED C G CEMENT N SAND, O G AND • AGGREGATE U R SUPPLEMENT ir:UClipl -' e-- - BUCKET '73 • SAND S A SILO ELEVATOR Pa DELIVERY TO GROUND STORAGE E T e n AGGREGATE (SCC 3-05-011-21) E SCREW a SAND (SCC 3-05-011-22) CONVEYOR irj C I I CO Pa WEIGH HOPPER LOADING Fr64 < OF SAND & AGGREGATE (SCC 3-05-011-08) lz o0 TRANSIT MIX TRUCK LOADING WATER y c�� `A (SCC 3—05-011-10) MIXER LOADING iiPARTICULATEri (SCC 3-05-011-09) EMISSIONS 1 40 It ( MIXER TRUCK MIXED CENTRAL MIXED 4*?#I PRODUCT PRODUCT42;41 ',� i i N W CLR-34 Neighborhoods Assn. II . Compatibility Analysis USR15-0027 Dave Kisker 8/5/2015 Executive Summary b' The Martin Marietta Materials proposed Highway 34 Project (USR15-0027) fundamental I y f ai Is several of the compati bi I i ty-related aspects of the Weld County Code. V The noise, dust, odors, and other impacts cannot be succsssf ul I y mitigated maki ng it incompatible with the existing and future neighborhood uses. V Those impacts would require behavior changes by the nearby residents, resulting i n thei r loss of the "quiet enjoyment" of their property. V Si nce there are alternative sites avai I abl e that are al ready industrial i n nature, inserting this operation at this I ocati on constitutes poor planning and would certai nl y result in I ost opportunity that might otherwise occur because of expected compatible alternatives, such as additional residential or I i ght commercial /industrial uses. V This proposed operation is i ncompati ble with the visions of the surroundi ng communities, Windsor, Greeley and Johnstown. Although there are currently no appl i cabl e Cooperative Planning Agreements, or Intergovernmental Agreements between the County and these muni ci pal i ti es, there has been considerable groundwork l ai d to begin a systematic planning prod that would, in fact, addrem this entrance to Weld County and Greeley. A decision to approve this project would effectively termi nate that planning activity as wel I as undermi ne the attempts that the surroundi ng communities have made to undertake the process of developing this area by intention instead of by accident. V Based on these and other reasons, this project does not satisfy the compati bi I ity requirements contai fled i n the Weld County Code. 6 Weld County Code Requirements Chapter 23--Compatibility Division 4 Uses by Special Review Sec. 23-2-200. I ntent and applicability. A. U scs by Special Review are USES which have been determined to be more intense or to have a potentially greater impact than the Uses Allowed by Right in a particular zone district. Therefore, Us s by Special Review require additional consideration to ensure that they are established and operated in a manner that is compatible with existing and planned land USES in the NEIGH BORHOOD. The additional consideration or regulation of Uses by Special Review, and the application to a Use by Special Review of Performance, Design and Operations Standards l i sted both herd n and for applicable USES from any zone district, are designed to protect and promote the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the present and future residents of the COUNTY . Definitions NEIGHBORHOOD: When used in this Chapter in reference to a particular LOT, the word NEIGHBORHOOD is intended to dacri be i n a general way the land area which is i n the vicinity of the LOT in question and which will be affected to a greater extent than other land areas in the COUNTY by USES which exist on the LOT or are proposed for it. A NEIGHBORHOOD always includes LOTS which are ADJACENT to the LOT under consideration and, depending upon the land USE in question, may include more remote areas as wel l . USE: Any purpose for which a STRUCTURE or a tract of land may be designed, arranged, intended, maintained or occupied; also any activity, occupation, business or operation which is carried on in or on a STRUCTURE or on a tract of land. SCREENED: Construction and maintenance of fences, earth berms or the USE of LANDSCAPING materials or other materials USED with the approval of the Department of Planning Services to lessen the noise, light, hoot or visual impacts of a USE on surrounding uses. A SCREEN I NG PLAN shall be submitted and approved by the Department of Planning Services. Section I . Overall Compatibility Considerations Martin Marietta Material Statement: In their USR application (USR15-0027) Martin Marietta Materials (M M M ) states that at their January 27, 2015 mooting they " listened" to concerns related to compatibility, and provide a l i st of what they deemed were the most important. They retained paid experts to declare that none of the nearby property owners' concerns were valid and therefore their operation will be " compati bl e" according to some underlined standard. Since the appl i cati on was i ni ti al I y submitted, M M M has added additional documents to the case file in an attempt to support their argument for compatibility. Included are: 1 . Compatibility Examples 2. Real Estate Di mi nui ti on Study 3. ModificationstoApplication 7 CLR-34 R-34 concerns When examined thoroughly, there are several issues with M M M ' s cl ai m of compatibility with the " existing and planned land USES in the NEIGHBORHOOD" . The primary issue is in the deli ni ti on of " compatibility" . Webster' s Dictionary provides this definition: Compatible: able to exist together without trouble or conflict Thus, any incompatibility may di rectly affect the property owners surroundi ng the potential application. The impact of noise, odors, air pollution, traffic, property value losses, and other effects of an industrial activity is I i kel y to cause unacceptable conflicts which would require substantial behavior changes. Essenti al l y, these neighbors would lose the " quiet enjoyment" of their own property. Thus, a reasonable extension of Webster' s defi niti on would be that a compati ble operation would not require behavior changes from the neighbors. Thus, the neighbors would not suffer from offensive odors, showers of dust, any bombardment with industrial noise, any economic losses, nor any other loss of the quiet enjoyment of thei r property. Furthermore, compati bi I i ty can and should be considered on a higher level as wel l . For example, in considering land use compati bi I i ty, the Town of Union, NY observes: " secki ng I and use compati bi I i ty recognizes that conf I i cti ng I and uscs cause economic, physical , and social " drains" on the community where the conflicts occurs. Land use i ncompati bi I i ty can create barri ers to new investment i n the town and vi I I ages and discourage exi sti ng land owners from investing i n their properties, thereby creating a drain on the vitality of the community as a whole." [emphasis added] Town of Union, Technical Background Report, Chapter 6. Although Weld County does not appear to have a si mi I ar statement, the same analysis can be found i n numerous j uri sdi cti ons around the Country, and i s general I y an obvious consideration of sound Land Use Planning. Many jurisdictions take a systematic approach to Land Use Planning, especi al l y with regard to Land Use Compati bi I i ty by developing a Land Use Compati bi I i ty Matrix, such as the one i n Figure 1 , below (also from the Town of Union, NY ). Particularly notable i s the complete i ncompati bi I i ty of Industrial Uscs with both Low Density and Medium Density Residential areas. In the text, further details of this rating are included: " Both I i ght and heavy industrial forms are classified as undesirable neighbors of residential land uses, especial I y single-fami I y development. This rati ng was derived through the recognition that the various characteristics of industrial development are general I y not harmonious with the atmosphere sought i n residential areas. Si mi I arl y, residential land use forms do not benefit industrial development by their proximity." Town of Union, Technical Background Report, Chapter 6. 8 It must be emphasized the i ncompati bi I i ty classification between industrial and residential land uses is not unique to Union, NY . Similar matrices from jurisdictions around the Country draw the same concl usi on—heavy industry and residential USES are not compatible and mitigation is general l y not possible. In the di scussi on below, we will explicitly document many of the fundamental , and therefore, unmitigated i ncompati bi I i ti es between the M M M development and the surrounding USES i n the NEIGHBORHOOD . However, first, we return to the more general compati bi I i ty concern expressed above, regarding the drain on the community. . Figure 1 Land Use Compatibility Matrix 0 s V 7trC v, u \ C M Z Tc ` a Future Land Use Compatibility Matrix di v J cr a a \ y 6r w U : v v td ;;; o C L c; a. �1 L, G C �. a L. ^ V` f T r g o y -, -J t �+ N p 3 tC r L - - -o -o a, _0 6J O_D 't C J i IT! ^ x X x ? u O S Z v 2 2 2 ,� cC rr Low Density Residential Vn✓ Medium Density Residential v ✓ High Density Residential ✓ Professional Office e ✓ ✓ Neighborhood Commercial �t 't ✓ ✓ ✓ Corridor Commercial 0 ✓ ✓ ✓ �r ✓ Mixed Use Residential/Office' �.J ' 4& ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Mixed Use Office/Commercial' e ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Mixed Use Office/Research/Industrial' a 4"r► 4 ✓ ✓ ✓ I Government/Educational/Institutional e �� ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ` ✓ Recreational ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ` 'F e ✓ ✓ 4 • Utilities lip e & ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ " " ✓ Rural Density Residential V ✓ -t e V e ✓ ✓ Lei;er r Compatible a Questionable (Compatible Only If Impacts Can Be Properly Mitigated) Incompatible ' Note: Compatibility of Mixed Use development is dependent on the proposed mixture of uses. Table 1 . Land Use Compatibility Matrix, Town of Union, NY Section I I . Negative I mpact on the Region 9 As al ready mentioned, incompatible Land Uses have a broader impact than that found i n the i mmedi ate neighborhood surroundi ng the i ncompati bl e use. This was cl early arti cul aced i n the referral responses by Wi ndsor, Greel ey and Johnstown: I n their referral letters, Windsor and Greeley note that: " However, the property is located within a sensitive location with various competi ng interests. It i s i mportant to consider - and, ideally, master plan -- this area i n a col I aborati ve manner due to the proxi mity of this site to three muni ci pal i ti es, an establ i shed uni ncorporated neighborhood, large swaths of productive agricultural land, and major regional transportation systems. The proposed use is incompatible with this particular vision [the Windsor-Greeley I GA] that the Town of Windsor and City of Greeley have developed for this area. The proposed batch plant is an intensive industrial use unsuited for the nature of this corridor, and its impacts likely cannot be fully mitigated. Furthermore, approval of this Use by Special Review, as proposed, would likely establish a sprawling and overly-intense land use pattern for future development of the corridor. We urge careful consideration for the proposed uses and its regional i mpact, particularly concerning future I and use patterns for the area and along Highway 34. You are aware of the decades of discussion about preserving the unique identities of the Northern Colorado communities, with community buffers that al low cities and towns to maintain their character and thereby contributing to a lager regional economy. With the proposed scale and location, this proposal may frustrate that vision, or at least contribute to the beginnings of a land use pattern with significant impacts to the gateway into the City of Greeley and Town of Windsor." Si mi I arl y, Johnstown' s Town Counci I made an even stronger statement by passing a Resolution asking the County to deny the application: WHEREAS, the proposed facility would negatively impact the nearby Indianhea.d residential. subdivision by exposing the homes to continuous iuclustnal operations, forcing them to coexist with large, otherwise unplanned, industrial development and. creating potential losses of property value; quiet enjoyment and quality of life; and WHEREAS, on a broader scale, the Town envisions growth along the U .S . Highway 34 corridor to include commercial, residential and mixed use development, consistent and harmonious with the current development; and WHEREAS, the proposed facility is not only inconsistent with the Town' s vision of the growth along the U. S. Highway 34, but has considerable potential to lead to an expanded awl unplanned heavy industrial presence along the U.S . Highway 34 corridor; and Table 2. Excerpt from Johnstown Resolution 2015-07 Opposing USR15-0027 Al l three communi ti es cl early recognize the threat of such extreme i ncompati bi I i ty, not only on the i mmedi ate neighbors, but also on their vision of how the region would be best developed. 10 In thei r attempt at rebuttal to the Wi ndsor, Johnstown and Greeley referrals, M M M csscnti al I y discounts thcsc concerns with several concl usory statements about the supposcd positive economic impacts that can only be achieved at this site, and concl udes that " Each proposed land use in this area must be considered on its own merit." Letter from Pam Hora to Weld County, page 3, dated June 9, 2015. To consider thi s land use i n isolation of its impact, and its potential to " drain the vitality of the community as a whol e" , i s comp) etel y i ncompati bl e with sound Land Use PI anni ng principles! III . Discussion of Specific Incompatibility I ssueswith Neighborhood Uses I n their USR application as well as numerous ensuing communications with the County, MMM M has insisted that they have made numerous attempts to addre the concerns of the Neighborhoods surroundi ng their proposed operations. They repeatedly cl ai m that they will be a " good neighbor" and that this is evidenced by the fact that they have hired experts to " address" the concerns that were expressed at their January 27th Open House at which they first presented their plans for this operation. However, although they HAVE made some adjustments to the r application, they have not, in fact made any significant effort to addre the fundamental i ncompati bi I i ty that this major industrial operation would i mpose on the surrounds ng neighbors, including not only I ndi anhead Estates, but also the local farms, and the approved USR for a weddi ng venue at Rocki n' S Ranch (U SR15-028). Instead, essentially al I of the adj ustments that have been made are either 1 ) pri mari I y for thei r own benefit; 2) items that they are al ready doing at other sites such as the Fort Coll i ns Taft Hill Rant and would have been included at the beginning if their cl ai ms of being a " good neighbor" were valid; or, 3) things that would be requi red by the County or State i n any case. Furthermore, attempts by the neighborhoods to establish enforceable I i mi is on thei r operati ons have bccn completely unsucccssf ul , especially in the areas of emissions, odors, noise and traffic. M M M has been unwilling to be held accountable for ANY of their health, economic or other quality of life impacts III .A List of concerns that M M M addressed based on the January 27th M eeting I n the r application, MM M provides a I i st of neighborhood concerns that they determined to be important, based on the January 27th Open Housc. They then paid experts to evaluate the concerns. Not surprisingly, the conclusion of ALL the paid experts was that there was no rcason for any of the concerns, and that the neighbors should be assured that because M M M is a " good neighbor" they would do mitigations and everything would be compatible. The reality of these supposed steps is quite different, however. I n this section, we exami ne the words and actions of M M M . 11 l %tie: Noise Noise i s undoubted) y one of the maj or sources of i ncompati bi I i ty between industrial activities of the sort that M M M proposes and the abi I i ty of the Neighborhoods to pursue thei r quiet enjoyment of their property without a substantial behavior change. M M M has acknowledged that there will be 2-3 trai ns arri vi ng per week, potenti al l y in the mi ddl e of the night. These will enter the rai I loop at a necessari I y very slow speed (-1 mph) and sl owl y make thei r way to the fi nal position i n preparation for unl oadi ng. The usual procedure wi I I be for the locomotives to conti nue i dl i ng the enti re ti me they are on site, and then there wi I I bean extended unloading time during which additional noise generation wi I I occur. I n addition to the rai I activity, over which M M M acknowledges they have only limited control , the aggregate handling, the concrete batch plant operation, the asphalt pl ant operation, the concrete crushing and recycling, as wel I as the conti nuous truck traffic wi I I also generate considerable noise at residences as close as 200 feet from the M M M property I i ne. Furthermore, M M M socks to be approved for 24/7/365 operation, and to be permitted to onl y moot the Weld County requirements industrial activities (80dB/75dB for day/night operation.) M M M Condusion: [ From their application] "A consultant was hi red to prepare a Sound Analysis Report to anal yze the noise that is anticipated to be generated by the f aci I i ty. The Report demonstrated that the f aci I i ty would operate i n compliance with both Weld County' s and the State' s noise regulations even with no noise mitigation. However, i n an effort to be a good and compatible neighbor, Martin Marietta wi I I be implementing noise mitigation techniques through the i nstal I ati on of landscaped earthen berms on the site so that they operate i n a manner that i s quieter than the al I owed standards. Martin M ari etta wi I I be using white noise back-up alarms, a below-grade hopper, and acousti cal end osures." C L R-34 NA Concerns Although we have reviewed the appl i cant' s " Sound Analysis Report" careful I y, we were not provided sufficient detai I to enable us to reproduce their calculations and analysis. It does appear that significant noise generating equipment (trucks, I oaders, etc. ) were omitted from that analysis. However, to understand the actual i mpact of noise on the surrounding nei ghborhoods, we have attempted to determi ne suff i ci ent detai Is about the proposed operation, including the trai n arrival ti mes and length of activity, the aggregate unl oadi ng, the amount of aggregate handling that wi I I actual I y occur, etc. We have also tri ed to expl ore the possi bi I i ty that M M M would be wi I I i ng to demonstrate their true wi I I i ngness to be a compatible neighbor by limiting their permitted operating hours and mccti ng si mi I ar noise standards to those expected of I ower intensity operations such as Commercial activities. General I y, we have found M M M to be evasive and misleading when such inquiries are made. Example #1 . We have repeatedly asked for clarification of the ti me that wi I I be requi red for the arrival of the trai n, from the time that it enters the rail loop to the ti me that it is in its final position. Since the trai n wi I I be over a mi I e I ong, and have l ocomoti ves on both ends l , and wi I As per David Hagerman, Meeting with CL R-34NA, June 2, 2015 12 be required to slow down to much I cm than 5 miles an hour when it enters the switch to the rail oop, we esti mate that the entire proccss wi I I require at I east 30 mi nutes and possibly as much as an hour. Because the trai ns are I i kel y to arrive at night time, this rail activity will pose an extreme disruption to many of the neighbors. Yet, M M M has not been willing to provide accurate information about this i mpact.2 Example #2. One of the major potential issues with the rai I -based aggregate activity is the noise associated with the aggregate unloadi ng. It is anti ci pated that there may be nearly continuous bangi ng between hopper cars as each car is moved over the dump area, aggregate is dumped and transferred onto the storage pi I e via conveyer. M M M claims that this noise source wi I I be substanti al l y avoided because they will be continuously unloading the rail cars from the bottom into a below grade hopper and that the trai n will not be starting and stopping, but will be conti nuousl y moving forward. However, the numbers don't add up. M r. Hagerman has stated3 that the train will be moving at about 1 mph around the loop, which is 88 feet per mi nute. Since each hopper car is about 60 feet long, this means that it should be abl e to be emptied i n I ess than 1 minute, meaning that the entire trai n wi I I be empti ed i n loss than 2 hours. Yet, on several occasions, Mr. Hagerman has stated that the actual ti me to empty the train is around 8 hours! 4 No explanation has been provided for why this extended unloadi ng time is necessary, but this begs the question of the dai I y not se i mpact that wi II be experienced by the nearby Neighborhoods. I n addition to the other noise generated at the site, the rail activities are cl earl y going to have an extreme impact on the surroundi ng properties. Example #3. I n the USR application, M M M states that there will be 1 -3 trains per wod< arriving at the site. However, recent) y5 M r. Hagerman has started describing the trai n arrival as 2-3 trains per wcck. No explanation of this change has been offered. M r. Hagerman has claimed that the M M M quarry i n Wyoming cannot deliver more than 3 trains per week. Each trai n wi I I deliver approximately 100 to 115 tons of aggregate. Usi ng the stated annual production of the asphalt and concrete plants (450K tons/year, 650K tons6/year, respectively, 90% aggregate) between the asphalt plant and the concrete plant, the application claims that a total of about 1 millmillion tons of product, about 75 trai ns would be needed annually. (Any discussion of raw aggregate distribution has general I y been avoided7) Mr. Hagerman was quoted i n the Bi zWest article on May 29, 2015 as saying that eventual I y, this site woul d be shi ppi ng 2 mi I I i on tons of product each ycar. Since the asphalt plant and concrete plant together only account for about half of that, and would only need about 75 trains per year to supply, it' s clear that 1 ) the other millmillion tons of aggregate is desti ned to be used elsewhere, and 2) the trai ns wi II be arriving at I cast 3 times per week, 12 months a year. The fact that M M M has repeated supprescd these detai Is is very concerni ng, and the i mpact on the neighborhoods is cl ear—the noise generated at this site wi I I be relentl . 2 Requested at the June 2, 2015 meeting of CLR-34NA with Mr. Hagerman and Mr. Sharp. ' June 2, 2015 meeting with CLR-34NA 4 June 2, 2015 meeting with CLR-34NA, June 9, 2015 Public Meeting 5 June 9, 2015 Public meeting 6 Assuming about 2 tons per cubic yard of concrete 7 Direct question to Mr. Sharp at the "landscape charette" meeting on 6/24/15 was not answered. 13 Example M . I n their application and other various prescntati ons8 M M M has emphasized that their various mitigations, acoustical enclosures, berms, etc. will al l ow them to stay well below the appropri ate i ndustri al limits at the property I i ne of this site. They even cl ai m that based on their Sound Analysis Report, they wi I I be approximately within range of the residential limits at the neighboring locations. They further assert that this will make them a " good and compatible neighbor" . However, when we asked them to agree to accept an enforceable residential noise limit as part of their permit Design Standards at their property line, they simply refused. (Note that this would be the case for other USR uses on Agriculturally zoned I and9.) In fact, at this point, they have not indicated ANY wi I I i ngnc to agrcc to any enforceable standard except the industrial level of 80dB during the daytime and 75dB at night. This is cl early not compati bl e with the surrounding Neighborhoods, and would certainly require behavior changes to accommodate, i ncl udi ng avoi di ng outdoor activities both in the daytime and evenings, which are such a large part of our Colorado lifestyle. Condusion: ON the question of NOISE, the MMM Highway 34 Project is dearly incompatible with the existing USES in the NEIGHBORHOOD. Issue: Air Pollution and Dust At the January mccti ng, substantial concerns were raised by the surrounding property owners, regardi ng ai r pol I uti on. While some concern regardi ng hazardous air pol I utants such as benzene, formaldehyde, and other toxic materials have been voiced, an equal l y significant concern regarding compati bi I i ty with the surroundi ng properties is the substantial amount of dust that will be generated at the site. These "fugitive" emissions are difficult to control , and although there are some permitting requirements, those requirements are designed to manage a site such as this one when it is I ocated i n an industrial area. Appropriate requirements for a site adjacent to a residential area would need to be much more stri ngent to avoid the nuisance and health effects inherent i n such emissions. MMM Conclusions "An Air Emissions Assessment" for the Asphalt Rant, Ready Mix Rant, and Asphalt Recycling f aci I i ti es was completed by Stewart Environmental Consultants. This assessment concl uded that the air emissions for the proposed Highway 34 facilities are wel I below the EPA standards and the more restrictive California air quality standards. The assessment concludes that "thi s f aci I i ty wi I I not negatively impact the surroundi ng environment or affect human health as it wi I I most all environmental standards." MMM USR 15-0027 Applciation "As i s requi red by the County, a Dust Mitigation R an has bcon developed for the project and i s i ncl uded i n the appl i cati on." MMM USR15-0027 Application CLR-34NA Concerns We have reviewed the "Air Assessment Emissions" report that was prepared by Stewart Environmental Consultants as part of the MMM USR application. This report was submitted to Weld County. A review of our analysis was also performed by M s. 8 E.g. June 9, 2015 Public Meeting 9 For example, U SR15-0028, was required to moot the residential day/night standard of 55/50 dB 14 Margie K I itch to confirm that the concl usi ons were sound. In summary, the Stewart report falls far short of a suitable and complete analysis of the proposed MM M Highway 34 Project. Key points that were discovered include: V Statements regardi ng the annual production of the asphalt plant were mi sl eadi ng V The annual production of the concrete batch plant was understated10 by as much as 20% V The hourly capacity for the asphalt plant was understated by as much as 25% V Emissions for CO11 were not esti mated properly, resulting i n over 2X higher emissions than reported. V Understatement of pollutant concentrations at the M M M property I i ne by as much as 2X V I naccurate esti mate of particle emission from the concrete batch plant V Suppression of i nformati on about extensive dust generation due to traffic on the site V Suppression of dispersion information about dust from concrete batch plant. V Complete lack of assessment fugitive emissions from aggregate handl i ng12 V No consideration of health impacts of smal I particle dispersion I n addition, the EPA requires that ALL emi ssi ons from ALL sources on the site be included i n order be considered complete. Stewart' s report only dealt with the asphalt plant itself and the concrete batch plant (which was incomplete). Furthermore, since M M M has not submitted thei r permit applications to the CD PH E for either the asphalt plant or the aggregate handl i ng and traffic activities, we cannot be sure even now what their plans actual I y are. This uncertai my arises because the Stewart analysis for the concrete plant was for a lower amount than the requested permit limit i n the A PEN submitted for that f aci I i ty. Despite the inadequacy of the Stewart Environmental report, the concl usi ons of our analysis i ndi cafe that hazardous I evel s of smal I parti cul ate pol I uti on wi I I be showered on the surroundi ng Neighborhoods, even when only the emissions from the asphalt plant and concrete batch plants are considered. CI early then, once the enti re site is evaluated, and the fugitive dust from traffic, aggregate handling, I oadi ng, unloading, etc, i s i ncl uded it wi I I be found that the surrounding resi dents wi I I be requi red to modify their behavi ors, especi al l y in the summer when activity wi I I be at its most extreme. Conclusion: Based on the Air Pollution and Dust that will be generated, the proposed project is incompatible with the existing USES in the NEIGHBORHOOD . 1° Compared to the A PEN application for the concrete batch plant 11 Based on the EPA 's recommended emission factors 12 Up to 2 million tons per yoar 15 l %tie: Health Risks There is considerable information avai I abl e that suggests that the emissions from asphalt plants may impact human health. While M M M does not dispute the hazardous nature of thei r emissions, i n their application, M M M repeatedly asserts that there is no risk to the health of the surroundi ng neighbors because the concentrations of the pollutants are I ow enough that they are considered to be " safe" . This is not exactly a true statement. Although the emission of explicitly hazardous air pol I utants ( HA Ps, i n the parlance of the EPA) from the asphalt plant are expected to be relatively low, a proper assessment of the medical I iterature from institutions such as the National Institutes of Health, the World Health Organization and the American Heart Association leads to the conclusion that the true situation is one of uncertainty rather than of safety. Especially for children and the elderly, there may well be a significant risk to exposure to such compounds as benzene and formaldehyde, even at levels below those set by the EPA and the State of California. M M M Conclusions " Martin Marietta contacted Dr. Scott Phillips, a physi ci an who i s board certified i n medical toxicology and internal medicine to provide information related to the health i mpacts of I i vi ng near an asphalt plant. The f i ndi ngs are that the f aci I i ty wi I I not pose a health risk." M M M USR15-0027 Application CLR-34 R-34 Concerns I n reviewing Dr. Phi I I i ps Q& A document, it' s cl ear that he takes the position that because the emission are so low, according to the Stan/art Environmental report, then there wi I I be no health risk. However, there are two important f I aws i n this conclusion. First, as di scus cd above, the Stewart report was badly flawed and did not correctly esti mate the emi ssi ons from the asphalt plant. While it is correct that most of the HAP emission l evel s are still quite low, even after being corrected to account for the actual production rate for the asphalt plant, the level of formaldehyde emission, i n particular, is nearly triple the level that Stewart reported as a result of those errors. Formaldehyde is considered to be a potential carcinogen. In fact, the corrected level , 27 ccg/m3, about 0.02 ppm, actually exceeds the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH ) Recommended exposure Iimit (REL ) of 0.016 ppm13. Furthermore, the corrected estimate is about 20% of the cei I i ng REL of 0. 1 PPM , which should NEVER be exceeded for more than 15 minutes. I n addition, N I OSH recommends the use of at least a cartridge respirator and sealed goggles when a human is exposed to l evel s higher than the N I OSH REL . Besides formaldehyde emissions from the asphalt plant, the other major source of hazardous emi ssi ons i s the dust emi ssi ons that wi I I come from the M M M f aci I i ty. Although Dr. Phi I I i ps did not addre this issue at all , and in the Steward report, there was not mention of the health hazards of smal I particulate matter14, i n fact, there are numerous reports of the extreme hazards of even modest concentrations of these poll utants. I n our detailed analysis of the Stewartreport (submitted to Weld County on June 18, 2015) we found that Stewart neglected most of the sources of fugitive emissions from this proposed 13 NI OSH Pocket Guide to Chemi cal H a7ards 14 PM 2.5, parti cl es less than 2.5 microns and PM 10, parti cl es I css than 10 microns are particularly hazardous 16 operation, and, incorrectly estimated other sources. However, even using only the PM emissions from the concrete plant and the asphalt plant, we found that the emission of both PM 2.5 and PM 10 would exceed the NAAQS level set by the EPA . Because Stewart did not address most of the fugitive emissions from the site, the situation wi I I be far worse. In Addendum B, we have included an EPA document that discusses the impact of exposure to small particles. Exposure to PM 2.5 causes not only chronic health issues, but can induce acute cardiac and pul monary cri scs. The levelsof emissions of PM 2.5 from thefacility that MMM propoocsWILL cause health hazards to the surrounding population. Based on the i ncreased risk due to these emissions, it is I i kel y that over a 10 year period, several people will die asadirect result of MMM ' s presence. Although it will certainly be difficult to prove, and litigation would be needed to be compensated, the negative health impact of MM M on the NEIGHBORHOODS is clear. Condusion: The M M M facility would have a negative health impact on the nearby residents. The proposed project is incompatible with the existing USES in the NEIGH BORH OOD . ssue: Odor One of the most difficult aspects of life near an asphalt plant is the odor that is experienced by nearby residents 5. The olfactory assault on the neighbors that can occur requires them to close wi ndows and stay i ndoors as there is no other escape. Consultation with the residents that I i ve near the M M M asphalt pl ant on Taft Hill Road i n Ft. Col I i ns i ndi cafe that this i s one of the most offensive aspects of that operation. Investigation of odor complaints at the Taft Hill site yields only limited information—in 2014, there were 14 complaints. However, if there is more than one complaint on a particular day, only the fi rst complaint is counted i n the total . Furthermore, given the seasonaal nature of asphalt production, the plant is expected operate for I = than 180 days per year, which means that the compl ai nt rate is nearly once every two weeks duri ng the pri mary scason! ! Furthermore, because of the prod for evaluation of possible odor violations, it' s I i kel y that eventually the odor reports don't continue because the residents realize that there is no hope of stoppi ng the problem. M M M Conclusions: I n their application, MMM states: " Occasi onal I y, odors from heated materials may emanate from an asphalt plant, but they pose no danger to plant personnel or to the communities in which it operates. Martin Marietta is required to comply with federal , state and 1s http://ohi oci tizen.org/kokosi ng-asphal t-season-bri ngs-noi se-and-eye-wateri ng-odors/ 17 local odor regulations. M casures are taken to reduce odors within the plant design, such as vertical orientation of the I i qui d AC tanks. Addi ti onal I y, Martin M ari etta trai ns and certifies staff to operate and maintain equipment that measures odors. This ensures f ul I compliance with al I rules and regulations. Martin Marietta has never exceeded any existing rules and regulations at a si mi I ar site." In addition, M M M recently has decided to implement charcoal filters at some point i n thei r process to reduce the odor issue. C L R-34 Concerns First, the fact that M M M asserts that the "vertical orientation" of the I i qui d AC tanks is a result of them being a " good neighbor" and I i steni ng to the neighbors odor concerns doesn't pass the smel I test. I n fact, this was a change that was al ready being made at the Taft Hill site, and therefore should have been the starti ng poi nt, if there was any true concern about thei r negative impact on the surroundi ng property owners. Further, M M M has provided no detai I s of the charcoal filters that they propose to use, so there is no way to eval uate thei r effectivencm. However, they will be applied to the AC tanks, so other major sources of odor such as si l o fi Ili ng and truck load-out will be unaffected. Additionally, there is no evidence that the "trained and certified" staff have any responsi bi I i ty to reduce odors. Rather, their presence is focused on demonstrati ng that M M M is in compliance with odor regulations. The problem is, however, that in Colorado, the process for determi ni ng compliance is to take a sample of tainted air, di I ute it by 7X , and then determine whether the odor i s sti I I detectable. Only if it is still apparent will an odor violation be issued. Not surprisingly with this standard, there have been no actual violations at the Taft Hi I I site. But, this does not mean that the odor is not a problem. In some j uri sdi cti ons, the requi red di I uti on is less, as I i ttl e as 2X , which would allow substanti al I y weaker odors to avoid violation. Since M M M makes such strong cl ai ms for thei r odor controls, we have asked them to accept a standard that is tighter than the 7X di I uti on-4X was proposed. However, as is the case with their other " mitigations" they have not been will i ng to be held to an enforceable standard. Condusion: Based on the odor that M M M admits will be generated, the proposed project is incompatible with the existing USES in the NEIGHBORHOOD . slue: Visual Impact The visual impact of the placement of the M M M facility wi I I be extreme for several reasons. First, in the I ndi anhead Estates area, much of the neighborhood would be as much as 100 feet higher than the M M M f aci I i ty. I n addition, some of the structures, such as the concrete and asphalt si l os are as much as 110 feet tal l . The essential problem is that there is no buffer between the proposed M M M facility and the surrounding NEIGHBORHOOD USES. 18 M M M Conclusions` "The rail road and activitieswithin the site will be screened by grassy earthen berms to mitigate visual and sound impacts on surrounding parcels (see USR Map for exact locations). There is a berm that wraps around the outside edge of the rai I road spur on the northeast, east and southeast sides of the parcel . This berm is designed to be 10' tal l er than the rail bed for the rai I spur. When looking at this berm from outside of the property it wi II range from 11 to 24 foot above grade. It is about 11 feet tall on the north end of the site and transitions to be about 24 feet tal I on the south end of the site. . . . I n addition, two more berms are proposed to be constructed on the interior of the rai I spur loop to further shield activities and noise from surrounding properties. These two berms are both approximately 12 feet above grade." "A consultant was hi red to develop a computer generated Visual Analysis Model of the site. The i nteracti ve model i s avai I abl e for us to show any i nterested parties, but for purposes of this application, we have included snapshots from the model from points around the site looking toward the project to give people an idea of what wi I I be seen." Revi si ons to application: " . . . on June 24, 2015, Martin M ari etta held a I andscape design charrette mocti ng and invited neighbors around the site that have di rest views of the faci I i ty to find out their thoughts on what they might I i ke to see in the way of I andscapi ng. Below are the steps that Martin M ari etta wi I I betaking i n response to feedback received at that meeting. V Martin Marietta wi II prepare a landscape plan for the site. Additional trees and shrubs wi II be proposed on the perimeter of the f aci I i ty, where there is adequate space, to help soften views of the f aci I i ty and make the I andscape I ook more aestheti cal I y pleasing. I n addition, Martin Marietta has agreed that they wi II incorporate some variation to the topography of the berms to make them look more natural and less engineered. We are i n the proces, of devel opi ng the I andscape plan and wi I I have that information avai I abl e as part of the USR plat in ti me for the July 21 , 2015 PI anni ng Commission hearing. V At the meeti ng on June 24th, it was explained to the attendees that if scrooni ng views of the f aci I i ty i s what i s desi red, landscaping wi I I be more effective on their I ots rather than on the Highway 34 Development site itself. Therefore, Martin Marietta is open to having a Development Standard associated with the USR plat that indicates that through the Community Group, Martin M ari etta will provide a budget of up to $100,000 that participants in the Community Group1 can then decide how to distribute amongst interested individual landowners to pay for l andscapi ng on their properties. If desi red, Martin M ari etta wi II make a landscape architect avai l abl e to the landowners to help them decide where and what vegetation to plant on their properties to make sure it will most effectively screen views." C L R-34 Concerns After our own careful analysis of the proposed site and the geography of the area, we have concluded that any significant visual mitigation of this faci l i ty would be i mpossi ble. Because of the tal I structures and the elevation change, the only solution to the visual impact would be for M M M to: 1 . Reduce the structure heights by as much as 50% 2. I nstal I mature trees (20 foot or more) in the interior of the site 19 3. Reduce the size of the rail loop so that the site could be surrounded by berm structures that would also be planted with mature trees. 4. Enclose both the asphalt plant and the concrete plant as has been done at other locations Even with these steps, the visual impact would still be extreme, especially at the highest points of I ndianhead Estates and the locations along WCR 56. I n effect, M M M hasfailed to provide a suitable SCREENI NG Plan for this project as required by the Weld County Code. The fact that M M M ' s proposed solution to the visual impact is to plant trees on the properties of the affected neighbors instead of their own site, confirms the complete inadequacy of the berms, as well as M M M ' s unwi I I i ngncss to adjust their f aci I i ty design, or develop a sui tabl e buffer between their operation and the surrounding NEIGHBORHOOD USES. Condusion: Based on the visual impact of the M M M , and the unwillingness of M M M to provide a suitable buffer zone between its operation and the surrounding property owners the proposed project is incompatible with the existing USES in the NEIGHBORHOOD . ssue: Traffic For the residents who live and work along the US-34 corridor, traffic management is becoming a major issue. The uncontrolled intersections at WCR 13 and WCR 15 are becoming more and more difficult to navigate as the months go by because of the surrounding growth. This has been recognized by the communities of Windsor, Greeley and Johnstown, as wel I as Larimer County. Although CDOT has a long term goal for managing the roads of the area, there is no funding avai I abl a Thus, when M M M announced their plans for the site, a maj or concern for residents of the NEIGHBORHOODS was the i mpact of the enormous amount of truck traffic to and from the site. M M M Conclusions "As is required by the County, a traffic study was prepared [ by Eugene Coppola] for the project that identifies the amount of traffic projected to be generated and the road improvements that will be requi red at the site acct to WCR 13 as a result of the project and at the WCR13 and US Highway 34 intersection as a result of the background traffic and project traffic." Traffic I mpact Study: " Operati ng conditions in the area of Martin Marietta' s proposed Highway 34 development are acceptable. . . Site peak hour trips can be easily accommodated by the short term roadway system shown on Figure 12 (stop sign at WCR 13 and US-34)" CL R-34 Concerns As shown in a separate section of this document, the Traffic Impact Study prepared by Coppola is deeply flawed and i s general l y a misrepresentation of the impact of the proposed M MM operation. For example, the represcntati on in the initial Traffic Impact Study that conditions at the US-34/WCR 13 intersection are " acceptable" is remarkable. In fact, in that study, it is acknowledged that without a traffic light, the wait time to make a left turn onto US-34 for a truck leaving the site would be as much as 24 minutes! ! Clearly, the situation is NOT 20 acceptable, and the M M M site traffic would make it a disaster without extensive modifications to the intersection. In addition, in the report, it is stated that the frontage road access to Kelim m is irrelevant and that acn to U S-34 from there would be blocked most of the ti me. Since there are several busi nccs i n Kel i m that currently empl oy more that the enti re M M M site is projected to employ at its peak, the impact of the M M M operation on the region is clearly unacceptable. Despite the concl usi ons of the Traff i c Study, M M M quickly real i zed the absurdity of those claims, and, under the aegis of being a " good neighbor" , agreed to i nstal I a traffic 1 i ght at US-34 andWCR 13. Like so many of their other respon,cs to the community concerns however, this was entirely for their own benefit! Obviously, their operations would have come to a grinding halt without a light. However, the lack of an assessment of the regional impact, not only of the site generated by the M M M site, but even the traffic 1 i ght itself make even this step inadequate. In reality, although the traffic on US-34 will conti nue to increase, the M M M operation would have a severe negative impact on traffic along the US-34 corridor, from 1 -25 to Greeley. Condusion: Based on the traffic that the M M M site will generate, the proposed project is incompatible with the existing USES in the NEIGH BORH OODS surrounding the facility. I n this case, the negative impact would extend for several miles in all directions I ssie: Property Values The negative i mpact of the M M M f aci 1 i ty on the property val ues of the surrounding I andowners is understandably a maj or concern. For many of the neighbors, their home is their pri mary financial asset. In addition, in many cases, the neighbors have resided in their current home for decades. And, although most of the residents will l i kel y want to stay i n their current l ocati on as ong as possible, it' s i nevi tabl e that some wi I I need to I i qui date thei r real estate assets as they have need for long-term care, for example. Thus, a substantial reduction in market val ue would have a scverel y negative impact. M M M Conclusions M M M has been all over the map on the topi c of Property Val ues i n the several months si nce they submitted their application to Weld County. I n the application, they state: " Real estate values are i mpacted by a vari ety of factors and so it is hard to determine the correlated impact that this proposed f aci 1 i ty may have on neighboring residential properties. However, Martin Marietta recognizes this concern and they have proposed a plan that ai ms to mitigate impacts on the adjacent properties in order to minimize negative i mpacts on property val ues (i ncl udi ng berms, open space buffers, acousti cal enclosures, clustering the l ocati on of activities, etc.). " Thus, they admit that there will be a negative impact and claim that it will be mitigated by the berms ( ! ). At their project website, they assert the following: " Property val ues are cl aid y tied to the economic cl i mate of a community and Weld County has one of the strongest economies in the state of Colorado. A benefit of a strong economy is increased building demand, which results in sustained or increased property val ues. This is evidenced by the continued development around 21 the Highway 34 and 1 -25 interchange area. Many factors, i ncl udi ng fear of the unknown and fear of change on undeveloped land could potenti al l y affect rcal estate values. Due to the efforts we are maki ng to design the Highway 34 Development so that we operate as a good neighbor, we do not bet i eve that the project will harm property values." Note the careful wording that they don' t anti ci pate actual " harm" to property val ues because Weld County currently has a hea thy economy. . . Apparently, they are blaming any concern on "fear of the unknown" . . . Fi nal I y, MM M has paid for and submitted a " Real Estate Diminution Study" . Not surprisingly, by caref ul l y choosi ng comparable properties, they concl ude that there is no evidence for any Property Value reduction due to their operations! C L R-34 Concerns As discussed i n more detail i n another section of this report, the idea that there is not goi ng to be a negative i mpact on the value of the surroundi ng properties is absurd on the face of i t! ! The val ue of any home is based on a combi nation of positive and negative factors. Factors I i ke the convenience to amenities, school districts, view corridors, construction quality, etc. add to the property val ue while negative factors such as busy roads, proxi mity to unappeal i ng i ndustri al f aci I i ti es, poor mai ntenance of both the home itself and the surrounding properties etc. have a negative impact on the property value. I n addition, the weight given to the positive and negative factors wi II depend on the speci f i c concerns of the buyer and the wi Ili ngnc of the sel 1 er to take these factors into account. For this rcason, a " cherry picked" population of a small number of transactions such as the one that was submitted by M M M has very little, if any value i n assessing the I i kel y impact of the MMM M site on the surroundi ng homes. Rather, as summarized in Section V , the only way to truly esti mate the impact on property vat ues i s to use a substantial sample of ALL of the transactions i n a region near a "di sameni ty" such as the M M M project, and correlate the value reduction with the di stance from the di sameni ty. As reported, the expected reduction of value for the nearest properties i s as high as 30-40% and the i mpact i s expected to extend as far as several miles! Condusion: Based on the likely negative impact on home values that the M M M site will cause, the proposed project is incompatible with the existing USES in the NEIGHBORHOOD . 22 Compatibility Mitigation Claims by Martin Marietta Ever si nce the January 27th Open House at which they announced thei r project, M M M has been claiming that they are a " good neighbor" that is concerned about their impact and that therefore, they have taken substantial steps to mitigate that impact. Most recently, at the Public M Ceti ng on June 9, 2015, they l i sted the steps that they claim has improved their compati bi I i ty. In addition, they recently submitted a document entitled " Compatibility Examples" . I n reality, this document is si mpl y a set of satellite images of l ocati ons where residences are located near various industrial operations. Actually, however, these photos do nothing to addres compati bi I i ty since they don't address negative impacts such as odor, dust, emissions, traffic, or noise! Below, we summarize the various claims by M M M that they have attempted to be a " good neighbor" , have " listened to concerns" , and have mitigated their impact, as prcscnted at the June 9th meeting. Concern M M M Action Actual I mpact Noise Berms Already included in January. Nearly no impact. Noise suppression equipment Impact unknown. No detai I s offered. Move Rail Loop Likely positive effect at IHE. No effect or negative impact at WCR 56 Air emissions Consultant study. No Problem Emissions, especi al l y dust, will have an large impact. Street Sweeper Positive effect, but likely needed to comply with fugitive dust regulations. Not adequate for small particulate matter. 30% effective. Health effects Consultant study. No Problem Particulate emission, especially PM2.5 will kill people. Odor Vertical Asphalt tanks Not mitigation—already in use in Ft. Collins Odor rangers Not mitigation—only for demonstrating compliance. No enforcement Charcoal filters Potenti al l y positive effect on AC tanks only. Traffic Consultant Study. No Problem Study incomplete. Regional affect will be substanti al . Traffic light Will disrupt US-34 23 Property Value Landscape Charette No impact. No plan was presented. Landscape plan Unknown, planting on neighbors property to solve M M M problem is not acceptable Berms No major impact for most neighbors Consultant study. No problem Invalid results. No impact. Visual Impact Berms No impact for most neighbors Landscaping No impact, or negative impact if on neighbors property Compatibility Committee No impact on compatibility since it will not be able to actual l y FIX anything. In sum, nearly all of the efforts claimed by Marti n Mad etta to be in response to the concerns that the neighbors raised at the January mccti ng wi I I have very little effect on site' s compati bi I i ty with the NEIGHBORHOODS. Furthermore, most of the adjustments in the plan have been primarily or entirely for MMM M ' s own benefit, rather than as a result of any concern for the neighboring landowners. Evidence for this I i es in their continuing unwi I I i ngncm to provide a complete descri pti on and anal ysi s of the ful I range of activities that will be occurring at the site. Summary: For many reasons, the proposed Martin Marietta Materials Highway 34 project is fundamental I y incompatible with both the surrounding NEIGHBORHOODS but also, on a larger scale, the entire region adjacent to the US-34 corridor between WCR 13 and WCR 17. The enormous negative impact would more than offset any potential economic benefit that would result from the use of this site compared to the several alternative sites that are avai I abl e i n Weld county. Referring again to the Town of Union, NY , planning document, we conclude by observing that "Inappropriate land uses should rightfully be viewed as a poor choice or a misuse of the [County's] land surface. Inappropriate land uses represent, by and large, opportunities that have been lost. This means that opportunities or potential for beneficial relationships may not materialize because the full potential was not recognized and/or not established as an attainable goal before development occurred ." 24 CLR-34 Neighborhoods Assn . Assessment of the Traffic Impact Study USR15-0027 Ray Moe 8/5/2015 Traffic Impact Study Technical Review and Comments Traffic Impact Study prepared for the Martin Marietta Materials Highway 34 Site, Prepared by Eugene G . Coppola , P. E . , March 27, 2015 - READY MIXED CONCRETE ri .a :cr's.-. _- ... -- IL till - ,.. iSregi r Tars•' HALT . C J �`,. AGGREGATES vs , . Martin Marietta Materials Traffic Impact Study Technical Review and Comments 26 Technical Review and Comments of the Traffic Impact Study prepared for the Martin Marietta Materials Highway 34 Site, Prepared by Eugene G. Coppola, P.E., March 27, 2015 The following report provides a technical review of the Traffic Impact Study, prepared for the Martin Marietta Materials Highway 34 Site, prepared by Eugene G. Coppola, P.E., March 27, 2015 to determine whether the submitted report adequately addresses the Weld County Traffic Impact Study Requirements. Based on this technical review it has been found that: 1. The Martin Marietta Materials Highway 34 Site Traffic Impact Analysis does not comply with the Weld County Traffic Impact Study Requirements, 2. Fundamental assumptions including trip generation and trip distribution was provided by the applicant and cannot be reproduced or verified, 3. The entire study area is limited to just one segment of CR 13 and the intersection with US 34 and dismisses other haul routes as required by Weld County Traffic Impact Study Requirements, 4. The traffic study did not convert truck trips to Passenger Car Equivalents and only reports one-third of the true impacts, 5. The traffic study incorrectly assumed a signal, intersection improvements, interchange and widening of US 34 from four to six lanes (all of which are unfunded) and requires reanalysis, 6. The proposed MMM project will result in an additional 6,400 daily trips and result in significant traffic impacts, massive queues, failing levels of service, and motoring public travel costs. and 7. The proposed project is in cross purposes with the collaborative planning effort between Weld County, Greeley, Windsor, Johnstown, Loveland and Milliken to improve traffic conditions along the US 34 corridor through less impacting land uses and promoting alternative routes along "0" Street / Crossroads Boulevard and CR 18/CR 54. Weld County Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Requirements The Weld County Engineering and Construction Criteria, April 2012, Chapter 6 - Traffic Criteria, section 6.1 Traffic Impact Study, defines the traffic impact study requirements required for development approval. The Weld County Engineering and Construction Criteria states that the purpose of a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) is to assess the short- and long-term traffic impacts of a proposed development project on the local and regional transportation system and identify mitigation measures for the project to offset those impacts. The guidelines are intended to ensure consistent, proper traffic planning and engineering practices within Weld County. To be deemed complete and adequate, each TIS must address each requirement included in the Weld County Traffic Impact Study Requirements presented in Figure 1. Martin Marietta Materials Traffic Impact Study Technical Review and Comments 27 Figure 1 Weld County Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Requirments Checklist. vQ c , � y� Weld County Public Works Dept. 1111 H Street Traffic Impact Study (TIS) ,Q ,�, P.O. Box 758 Gosh' At- Greeley, CO 80632 Requirements Checklist </c dd9 Phone: (970)304-6496 Fax: (970)304-6497 All new commercial/residential developments will be required to submit a traffic study (stamped and signed by a PE registered in the state of Colorado) as a part of the review process unless waived by the Department of Public Works. L i Site Information Description of Use-Residential, Gravel pit, Oil & Gas Facility, etc. Hours of operation Number of Employees Potential haul routes Vicinity map Site Plan o Existing Site Conditions Roadway network-Summary of Roadway Classification and a description of study area. Analysis of Period-AM, Mid-day, PM, and/or Saturday Existing Traffic Data-traffic counts, level of service, speeds, truck percentages, crash data, etc. n Future Conditions and Impacts :a Trip Generation-Daily Peak Hour trips by site development and ITE Trip Generation Manual o Trip distribution o Short Term background traffic and peak hours (5-years) o Long Term background traffic and peak hours (10-20 years) o Level of Service Analysis- projected LOS w/ site build out, existing traffic, background traffic growth o Level of Service deficiencies-identify existing, short term and long term LOS deficiencies o Signal Warrant Analysis o Auxiliary Turn Lane Warrant Analysis o Sight Distance Analysis- at site entrance or access points o Other Impacts-Identify any impacts to school bus routes, pedestrian/ bicycle access, or public transit n Mitigation CI Describe auxiliary lanes lengths and storage capacity o Corrections for LOS deficiencies o Corrections for any access deficiencies o Signing & Striping o Pavement Maintenance o Intersection Radii for truck turn movements n Figures &Tables - Existing peak hour turn movements volumes (counts conducted within the previous 18 months) - Trip distribution (%) including added project peak hour traffic volumes - Comprehensive plan future year turn movement volumes - Intersection performance existing conditions Project trip generation Intersection level of service o Conclusions & Supporting Analysis Revised Date 5/27/10 Martin Marietta Materials Traffic Impact Study Technical Review and Comments 28 The following traffic impact study adequacy review compares each element of the Martin Marietta Materials Highway 34 Site Traffic Impact Study to the Weld County Traffic Impact Study Requirement. 1. Site Information 1. Description of the Use: Residential, Grand pit, Oil & Gas Facility, etc. : The traffic impact study h identifies four activities, 1) a concrete batch plant, 2) an asphalt batch plant, 3) a rail _cs, ) unloading facility and aggregate wash plant facility, and 4) sand and gravel sale. The description of uses do not present any information to assist in determining trip daily and peak hour trip activity such as number of employees, the daily output in tons of concrete, asphalt or aggregate product which could be converted to truck trips or expected customer base for determining where trips might be going to or from and determining various haul routes. No impacts from the proposed rail operations has been addressed . 2. Hours of Operation: There is no mention of hours of operation in the Traffic Impact Study. This information is required for determining peak hour employee trips. C:1C-) 3. Number of Employees: There is no mention of the number of employees. Knowing the number of employees is important in traffic impact analysis as employees create a high number of peak hour work trips and without that information work trip information is u not available. 4. Potential Haul Routes: The traffic study only evaluates one route, north on CR 13 and then left or right on US 34. The traffic study does not examine any haul routes to markets south of the site, such as south Weld County, Johnstown, or Longmont. 5. Vicinity Map: The traffic impact study does provide a map of the vicinity. However, this map is not readable, nor does it provide context to issues such as the short distance between r{rgithe intersection of CR 13 and the Kelim Frontage Road and the intersection of CR 13 and US 34. 6. Site Plan: The Traffic Impact Study does provide a site plan, however, the site plan is not readable. Martin Marietta Materials Traffic Impact Study Technical Review and Comments 29 2. Existing Site Conditions 1. Roadway Network - Summary of Roadway Classifications and a Description of study area: The traffic study states the proposed development will provide concrete, asphalt and aggregate products to the North Front Range. Depicted in Figure 2 is the local roadway network which will serve MMM . This network includes 1-25, US 34, State Route 257, and County Roads 3, 13, 17, 18 and 52. This network is congesting with I-25 and US 34 at or exceeding capacity, Figure 2 Traffic Impact Study Area 41(fri US34 4111006 J _ - - iCaSkiiN M MLA � N CC CC CC CC V V o N os\ LCR 18 CR 54 CR50 Figure 2 also presentes the entire study as defined by the MMM Traffic Impact Study, which would include CR 13 north of the site to US 34 and the US 34 and CR 13 intersection . No supporting information was provided as to how this limited impact area was determined. The Institute of Transportation Engineers Traffic Impact Study Guidelines states that the determination of the traffic impact study area cannot be arbitrary and must be well documented . One method to determine the study area is based on an initial eximtate of roadways and intersections where the project traffic volumes would impact a roadway or intersection by 2 to 5 percent or greater. Martin Marietta Materials Traffic Impact Study Technical Review and Comments 30 Based on the proposed MMM project that will generate approximately 6,400 daily ( passanger car equivalent) trips compared to existing daily traffic volumes the the roadway network that warrants evaluation would include US 34, CR 3, 13, 18, 17, and 54 as presented in Figure 3. Because of the MMM market area to the south, CR 13, CR 17, CR 54, and LCR 18 including the interchange with 1-25 and SH 402 will be paricularly important to evaluate because of the estimated impactes rural roads impacted by large truck volumes and weight. Figure 3 MMM Traffic Impact Study Area Based On ITE Traffic Impact Study Guidelines US 34 N -CC )CC Ji. n M e-� Ce V U V LCR18 ° CRS4 e• CR 50 The MMM TIS selected study area is arbitrary and does not comply with any resembalance of the Institute of Transportation Engineers 2 to 5 percent imapct analysis study area guideline and has chosen a very limited non defensible impact area that only includes CR 13 from the site north to US 34 and the intersection of US 34 and CR 13 . This TIS study area should be updated to reflect a more appropirate study area that might potentially be impacted by traffic from this development. If it is determined there are no impacts, the analysis and disclosure of non- impacts can be made. If there are impacts on this more appropirate study area, then mitigations shall be provided . It is also critical that the revised traffic impact study also critially evaluate its close neighbors including the community of Kelim . Martin Marietta Materials Traffic Impact Study Technical Review and Comments 31 Kelim has existed since the 1800s. Kelim includes two trucking related business, large equipment sales and leasing, welding, repairs and maintenance businesses. These businesses employ over 75 employees and have been servicing Northern Colorado for many decades. There are also numerous houses within the Kelim area. Kelim needs safe access to US 34 and has legitimate concerns regarding traffic impacts from MMM . There are a number of community concerns regarding the existing transportation system in the Kelim area, that will become potentially disasterous if not properly evaluated and impacts mitigated . Presented in Figure 4, are a summary of Kelim's existing traffic issues. Figure 4 Kelim Existing Traffic Issues L No US 34 CDOT restricts Acceleration Lane - eir Semi-Trucks ` Access to US 34 -� . US 34 Trucks Not - 1 >. Allowed •e y Right-In & Ronald � Right-Out Only 4 Regan �, M Boulevard cc The Kelim Frontage el • J Road and CR 13 is theonly way to/from US 34 _ Dirt Road H 1Ptis 6 �1 1 The traffic study states; "the Kelim frontage road is not considered relevant"; and the intersection with CR 13 and the impacts to Kelim were never discussed . V Kelim frontage connects Weld CR13 and LC Road 3. V County Road 3 does not provide safe access to US 34 (no acceleration or deceleration lane). Furthermore, CDOT has restricted trucks from using the US 34 and LCR 3 intersection . This requires all trucks to go east along the frontage road to CR 13 and US 34. V County Road 3 is not paved and has a railroad crossing that complicates upgrades and use. Therefore, the use of CR 3 as an alternative outlet is not practical unless it was paved . V Johnstown does not allow truck traffic through Ronald Reagan Boulevard from CR 3 and there are roundabouts that are difficult for semi-trailer use. Martin Marietta Materials Traffic Impact Study Technical Review and Comments 32 V County Road 13 connects with WC Rd 54 —With traffic backing up to access Hwy 34 it would flow to CR 54. A light would need installed for safe access along with additional acceleration/deceleration lanes. V CR 54 heading west has blind spots from the terrain and three signals before accessing 1-25. The over riding traffic issue for Kelim is that they only have one way in and out of their community, and that is along the Kelim Frontage Road east to CR 13 and US 23. What has been alarming to the Kelim community is that the traffic study states "the Kelim Frontage Road is not considered relevant" and because of this brash statement, neither the Kelim Frontage Road nor its intersection of CR 13 was ever evaluated . Based on any reasonable standard for conducting a traffic impact study the analysis of impact to Kelim, the Kelim Frontage Road and its intersection is mandatory. 2. Analysis of Period — AM, Mid-day, PM, and/or Saturday: The traffic impact study evaluated 7* only one intersection for an AM and PM condition, but not a Mid-day or Saturday 3 . Existing Traffic Data — traffic counts, level of service, speeds, truck percentages, crash data, �.� etc. The traffic study provides existing AM and PM peak hour intersection turn � movement counts at only the intersection of US 34 and CR 13 . In addition the study \ , presents average daily traffic counts for CR 13 south of US 34 and Average Daily Traffic along US 34 near CR 13. The Traffic Study does not provide additional count information along US 34 as it approaches 1-25 or toward the City of Greeley, CR 13 south of the site or along CR 54 or 56. The selection of an adequate study area is critical in evaluating a projects traffic impact. The selection of CR 3 and the intersection of CR 3 and US 34 is woefully inadequate for a project of this magnitude. The traffic study only evaluated the existing AM and PM peak hour intersection level of service analysis at the intersection of US 34 and CR 3. It did not evaluate operational characteristics along US 34 or other haul routes into or out of the study area . The results of the traffic study's analysis of the one intersection that did have an intersection level of service analysis, US 34 and CR 3 was reported is presented in Figure 5 . The analysis states that the east and west traffic along US 34 is operating at Level of Service A because they have no stop and are not delayed . The report also indicated that the eastbound left turns from US 34 to CR 13 north are operating at good levels of service. In essence, these left turns must be made when an available gap in west bound traffic is presented, and there are sufficient gaps to accommodate the current volume of traffic. The southbound right turn from CR 13 to west on US 34 also is operating at good levels of service. Martin Marietta Materials Traffic Impact Study Technical Review and Comments 33 Figure 5 Existing Traffic Conditions — US 34 & CR 13 Willilirfilli. Existing AM/PM Peak Hour . 14 . Level of Service : • US 34 . m . . _ . No MMM Traffic v. . . -7 : -ny r 7rd:7444F . _, .__ ___ _ ____ ,- _ 1 , . . , ,__ '� t __IKelim _ 1 Average Delay Per Vehicle F/ F Average Delay Per Vehicle )' 214 Seconds (3.5 Minutes) 0. 1,411 Seconds (23. 5 Minutes) t t / ( _ r ' The traffic study states; � . � i "this (level of service) is cc considered normal at stop controlled intersections during - -,j.c cm s --- aii urban peak hour conditions": .__ _I I ik. The traffic study indicated that the north bound left, through and right turns on CR 13 at US 34 and the south bound left and through movements on CR 13 at US 34 have failing level of service, which means that the average delay for each of these vehicles is 50 seconds or greater. Based on the consultants traffic analysis worksheets, Stop Control Intersection LOS the average delay for a vehicle traveling north bound Thresholds (Seconds of Delay) on CR 13 wishing to enter the US 34 intersection is 214 seconds (almost four minutes) in the AM peak hour A 10 Seconds or less and 1,411 seconds (24 minutes) in the PM peak hour. B 10. 1 to 15 Seconds C 15 . 1 to 25 seconds Not only does this analysis indicate that the traffic D 25 . 1 to 34 Seconds condition is extremely concerning, but it is even more E 35 . 1 to 50 Seconds alarming that the traffic consultant said "This (failing levels of service) is considered normal at stop sign F Greater thatn 50 Seconds controlled intersections during urban peak hour times. " This is simply the consultants opinion and not true. First, this is not an urban intersection . US 34 is a state highway with travel speeds in excess of 60 miles per hour. Every day, users take risks traveling north on CR 13 and wanting to turn onto or cross US 34. Any additional traffic will further exasperate the traffic impacts and safety of the community. Martin Marietta Materials Traffic Impact Study Technical Review and Comments 34 3. Future Conditions and Impacts 1. Trip Generation — Daily Peak Hour trips by size development and ITE Trip generation Manual : i The referenced ITE ( Institute of Transportation Engineers) Trip Generation Manual is the industry standard source of trip rates per unit of development (dwelling, square foot, acre, etc.) used throughout the nation for estimating trip generation for a proposed site. If the proposed use is not included in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, the ITE Trip Generation User Guide describes the procedure for collecting traffic counts at a similar facility and applied at the proposed site. If the land use is not included in the ITE Trip Generation Manual and there is no similar project from which counts can be made, a program level trip generation rate can be developed, provided there is adequate information from which the review agency and public can process and result in a similar rate. This proposed land use program approach would explore the various activities, such as number of employees and working hours to determine daily and peak hour employee trips. The concrete, asphalt and aggregate portions of the project are three separate activities that must be defined by projected peak output in tons which can be converted to truck trips based on the truck capacity. Based on tons and truck capacity the number of daily truck trips to support that activity can be determined . Scheduling of these truck delivery and returns provide the peak hour characteristics required in the traffic analysis. The traffic impact study states "Site traffic with all site activities fully functional was determined based on operator estimate". Professionally, this approach is unacceptable without supportive documentation as described above. Without an acceptable program definition of uses and activities, the determination of how many trips (daily and peak hour) or type of trip (auto, small truck, or large truck) will be generated from the proposed MMM development is cannot be substantiated by the review agency or the public. This process is professionally wrong and misleading. Given that this is the only information provided, the results were further reviewed and are determined to be inaccurate and misleading to the true impact of the project. The traffic study states; "one large truck is assumed to (equal) three passenger cars. " Martin Marietta Materials Traffic Impact Study Technical Review and Comments 35 a Passenger Car E uivalents eatlitii - c - I' Fri tf 4 ► 4 1,- 1 3 However, the MMM traffic study only converted trucks to passenger car equivalents when addressing turn lane storage on US 34. Truck trips were never converted to passenger car equivalents in the short term and long term traffic impact analysis. Therefore, only one-third of the truck traffic is accounted for in the traffic analysis. Presented in Table 1 is the actual trip generation from the proposed MMM development (Assuming that what has been provided in the MMM traffic study can be substantiated ) converted to passenger car equivalent trips Table 1 Trip Generation from Traffic Study Converted Truck Trips to Passenger Car Equivalents Morning Peak Hour Afternoon Peak Hour Daily In Out In Out Short Term Trucks 40 78 40 20 986 Passanger Car Equivalent 120 234 120 60 2958 Cars 67 67 134 Total 107 78 40 87 1, 120 Passanger Car Equivalent 227 312 150 147 3; 092 Long Term Trucks 75 152 55 30 2,074 Passanger Car Equivalent 225 I-56 165 90 6222' Cars 93 93 186 Total 169 153 55 123 2, 260 Passanger Car Equivalent 318 /155 165 183 6,408 Martin Marietta Materials Traffic Impact Study Technical Review and Comments 36 The analysis and claims of no impact has been based on the assumption that there will be 1, 120 short term daily trips and 2,260 long term trips. These large semi-trucks hauling concrete, asphalt and aggregate will not be zipping around like the family sedan . They accelerate slower, take up more space. ITE or any other traffic impact study guidelines would demand that these semi-trucks be converted to passenger car equivalents when evaluating intersection and roadway level of service, queue back up and turn lane storage requirements. Presented in Table 1, using the applicant provided trip generation data, the actual short term daily traffic is not 1,120 but is 3,092, and the long term daily traffic is not the 2,260 as reported, but 6,408 daily trips. This fundamental flaw in the traffic study is significant and demands and update to reflect the correct trip generation and traffic analysis. As a comparison it would take 640 single family dwelling units at ten trips per dwelling unit (based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual) to equal 6,400 daily passenger car vehicle trips. At four single family dwelling units per acre, it would take 1,600 acres of land or 2.5 square miles of residential trips (as presented in Figure 6) to equal the number of trips that will produced by the MMM facility. Without question, if a developer proposed a 640 single family home development, they would be require to conduct a traffic study that is much larger than what MMM has provided. The current residence and businesses believe that it would be only fair to ask for a similar traffic impact study of MMM . Figure 6 MMM and Single Family Trip Generation Comparison r - 'fig US 34 41, A S. .11 640 Dwelling r N -" Units at four single , ., CC M family M dwelling N Vunits per •, acre = 2.5 square LCR 18 CR 54 miles y 2 Lin CC CC �, _t V 1 Mile yew CR50 Martin Marietta Materials Traffic Impact Study Technical Review and Comments 37 2. Trip Distribution: The determination of trip distribution is one of the most critical steps in conducting a traffic impact study. It is an estimate or guess based on the information available, such as employee residence locations, market analysis for the various `---___Y products provided . Traffic consultants can easily be criticized for distributing traffic down corridors or through intersections that would not be impacted with project traffic and require mitigation. Providing adequate support for how the trip distribution was developed is important to not raise these legitimate concerns. The traffic study says "Directional traffic demands are estimated by Martin Marietta". Just like the traffic consultant accepted, without supportive information, the trip generation provided by MMM, the consultant also accept the applicant's assumption for trip distribution. Without some technical analysis and reasoning explained in the traffic impact study to substantiate these claims, the trip distribution assumptions cannot be professionally supported. This adds another layer of mistrust and false findings. When examining the proposed trip distribution as contained in the traffic impact study, the idea that 55 percent of the work trips go west and 45 percent go east might make sense given the employees will come from the general population of the North Front Range. The assumption that 75% of the truck traffic goes west and 25% east might be reasonable. However, it is impossible to confirm given we 1) the market area for the asphalt, cement and aggregate operation is never presented and 2) we do not know the number of tons and trucks for each of the activities. Figure 7 MMM Directional Traffic Demands 7. I 4. ;;� 67% uS 3,4 33% li 9 l�n K two4 95 g 1. 4,1r--:_,..1%, ; -: la; * . ( <I t ) m ce _- The traffic study states; \-' "Directional traffic demands are ,) 5% estimated by Martin Marietta". a Raleigh, North Carolina trs," -" CR 54 -n LCR 18 ' Martin Marietta Materials Traffic Impact Study Technical Review and Comments 38 One does have a knee jerk reaction to the claim that 95 to 100% of all traffic will leave the site and travel north to US 34 and only 0 to 5 percent trips to the south, given MMM stated that their asphalt, concrete and aggregate markets would include Longmont to the south, which would include the rapidly growing area of the Weld County Mixed Use Development area, Johnstown, Berthoud, Dacona, and Firestone. It should further be noted that since there would be only 0 to 5 percent of the traffic going south, the traffic study deemed this traffic as being insignificant and was never analyzed. The Traffic Impact Study assumes that the trips to the south will be via US 34. This does not make sense given the US 34 corridor approaching 1-25 is becoming one of the most congested areas in the region. Based on the regional planning efforts within the area, it has been determined that because of the US 34 congestion, employee and truck traffic would divert to the more logical routes of CR 54/CR18 SR 402 to get the 1-25 or the employee and truck traffic might simply continue south along CR 13 . Based on the Weld County 2035 Transportation Plan, the City of Greeley 2035 Master Transportation Plan, and the North Front Range Metropolitan Organization Long Range Transportation Plan, increased congestion along the US 34 without any funding available to widen from four to six lanes will result in significant increased diversion of traffic to alternative corridors, specifically "O" Street/Crossroads and CR 54/CR18 SR 402. This study does not reflect future congestion and the reality that traffic from this site will divert and head south . It is understandable from the applicants and consultants perspective, if traffic is assigned to the south, the project might require additional mitigation and roadway maintenance that this project should surly require. Not assigning traffic down this corridor assures the applicant that they do not need to provide mitigation . Background and Project Traffic Analysis, Impacts and Mitigation Sequencing 3. Short Term background traffic and peak hours (5-years) : The traffic study projected short term background traffic and estimated short term project traffic at one intersection, US 34 -C;, and CR 13. This analysis was based on the trip generation and trip distribution assumptions provided by MMM . This analysis does not reflect a non-biased professional approach to trip generation and trip distribution. This analysis, which examines only one intersection, also does not cover an adequate project study area warranted by this project. The existing, short term and long term peak hour traffic forecasts results at the intersection of US 34 and CR 13 is presented in Table 2 . This table also presents what the peak hour turn movements should be if the semi-truck trips were converted to passenger car equivelants Martin Marietta Materials Traffic Impact Study Technical Review and Comments 39 Table 2 Short and Long Term Forecast Traffic Volumes US34nr CR13 in t r EBR NBL NBT NBR WBL Year - - AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Existing 7 7 11 .5 1 6 10 6 20 12 Short Term Background .5 5 10 5 N 5 10 5 20 15 Short Term Total with MMM 71 35 69 56 N 5 29 41 61 25 Short Terrm To:al with MMM PCE 131 9S "187 36 37 113 143 L5 MMM Traffic Impacts Compared 2520% 1800% 1770% 1620% N N 570% 2160% 615% 250% to Short Term Base Long Term Background 10 10 20 10 N 10 15 10 35 20 To:al Long Term Total with MMM 117 51 134 83 N 10 53 60 96 34 Long Term Total with MMM PCE 229 133 362 12 / 129 76 13L 62 MMM Traffic Impacts Compared 2190% 1230% 1710% 1170% N N 760% 660% 283% 210% to Short Term Base The traffic study states, "Site (MMM ) traffic on CR 13 is minor. This is a false statement and demands a traffic study update to properly forecast the traffic once truck trips are converted to passenger car equivalents. Any time you see 20 background trips increase to 362 trips (a 1,710 percent increase) and claim MMM traffic is minor is misleading and disguising the true impacts of the project. 4. Long Term background traffic and peak hours (10-20 years): The traffic study projected long -,, term background traffic and estimated long term project traffic at one intersection, - US 34 and CR 13 . This analysis was based on the trip generation and trip distribution - assumptions provided by MMM . This analysis does not reflect a non-biased professional approach to trip generation and trip distribution . This analysis, which examines only one intersection, also does not cover an adequate project study area warranted by this project. The Long Term project traffic has not converted forecast project truck and semi-truck traffic to passenger car equivalents. 5. Level of Service Analysis — projected LOS w/site build out, existing traffic, background traffic Martin Mari aterials Traffic Impact Study Technical Review and Comments 40 growth: A level of service analysis was conducted at only one intersection, US 34 and CR 13, and does not cover a larger study area as warranted. The objective of the traffic impact analysis is to see what the conditions might be in the short term and the long term, compared to the short term and long term with the project. The short term and long term no project would include any planned and funded improvements. If impacts are identified with the addition of project traffic compared to the short term and long term traffic and funded improvements, then the impacts must be mitigated . The sequencing of when a project results in a significant impact and additional improvements are needed in the MMM traffic analysis is 180 degree opposite traffic impact study standards. This concern is presented in Figure 8. Figure 8 Evaluation and Mitigation Sequencing Evaluation and Mitigation Sequencing as Presented in Traffic Impact Study Short Term No Project OK: No additional Add Short OK: No additional {I'S Assumes signal and improvements Term MMM improvements lane improvements) required Traffic required Long Term No Project OK: No additional Add Long OK: No additional (TIS assumes six lane US - improvements Term MMM eg, improvements 34 and interchange) required Traffic required Evaluation and Mitigation Sequencing as Required in Traffic Impact Study Guidelines OK: No additional Add Short Not OK: Need Signal Short Term No Project improvements I+ Term MMM & Intersection (Existing Roadway) required Traffic Improvements OK: No additional Add Long Not OK: Need 6 Long Term No Project improvements Term MMM Lane US 34 & (Existing Roadway) required Traffic Interchange at CR 13 As presented in Figure 9, the consultant's traffic study has assumes that in the short term, the intersection of US 34 and CR 13 will be signalized and a northbound right turn lane would be provided for the base short term no project condition . The MMM traffic study indicates with the assumed improvements, baseline short term traffic would operate acceptably. When adding project traffic, the intersection would continue to operate acceptably. Martin Marietta Materials Traffic Impact Study Technical Review and Comments 41 In the long term, the traffic study assumes that US 34 will be widened to six lanes and that there will be a signal or possibly an interchange. Again, baseline long term traffic will operate acceptably with the improvement, and with the addition of project traffic, it too, will operate acceptably. Figure 9 Traffic Study Assumed Geometry and Traffic Control k x- iy � J *� or ~ , or intXhange . ro U.S. 34 - - U.S. 34 III * } -. '� ( -► 1T ( * Acceleration Lane y * Acceleration Lane Short Term Long Term The traffic study assumes an The traffic study assumes a third through additional north bound right lane in each direction along US 34, a signal turn lane and a signal . and possibly an interchange No signal or separate Because of the lack of federal funding, US northbound right turn lane is 34 remains designated as a four lane committed . expressway in the 2035 Long Range �, Transportation Plans of Weld County, City of Greeley and the �\ North Front Range MPO. There is 'N___61,% no funded signal or interchange. The fact is, none of the improvements are either funded or committed or even included in any of the current long range transportation plans for CDOT, Weld County, Greeley, Windsor, Johnstown, and Loveland . If there is no funding for widening 1-25 from four to six lanes in the long term 2035 horizon, how could anyone assume that a six lane US 34 should be assume. If the traffic study requires a signal or widening of US 34 from 4 to 6 lanes, this is a mitigation for the MMM development Short Term: The Short Term analysis evaluated the intersection of US 34 and CR 13 under two conditions, stop control and signal control . Under the stop control alternative, movements to or from CR 13 were identified as failing with "F" Level of service. As previously mentioned the Consultant's traffic analysis found that the average delay for an exiting traffic traveling north bound on CR 13, wishing to turn left to travel westbound at the US 34 intersection experiences a 214 seconds (almost four minutes) during the AM peak hour. When adding the short term Martin Marietta Materials Traffic Impact Study Technical Review and Comments 42 background growth and project traffic, the resultant average delay per vehicle wishing to make this same left turn will increase to 1,547 seconds (25.8 minutes). This Short Term with Project Traffic delay results in a 723 percent increase in delay when compared to the existing condition. A short term level of service analysis was conducted assuming a signal . Based on this analysis the northbound traffic along CR 13 at US 34 was measured as LOS D. In spite of the fact that the project will increase already unacceptable delay by 723 percent, no mitigation was proposed to signalize the intersection . Long Term: The Long Term analysis did not include a stop control level of service. There were a number of lane improvements assumed, but the report was silent as to who is responsible to make those improvements. The most critical long term concern is that the analysis assumed US 34 would be widened from 4 to 6 lanes. Regardless as to how important widening of US from 4 to 6 lanes is, there is no state, regional or local funding to complete these improvements by the 2035 Long Term traffic impact study horizon year. Funding for even more critical improvements, such as widening 1-25 from four to six lanes down to Longmont has been estimated to be 2060 or greater without some form of toll lanes. That is why the Weld County 2035 Transportation Plan does not include widening of US 34 from four to six lanes. That is also why both the City of Greeley 2035 Transportation Master Plan and the North Front Range MPO Long Range Transportation Plan do not include US 34 widening from four to six lanes. That is why this study should examine the long term with US 34 as a four lane facility and not a six lane facility, unless MMM is proposing to make it a six lane arterial highway. What is extremely worrisome, is that the traffic study has alluded to the fact that even with a six lane US 34, the intersection of US 34 and CR 13 would ultimately require a grade separated future interchange. Is this a MMM mitigation . 6. Level of Service deficiencies — identify existing, short term and long term LOS deficient: Based / 5, on serious concerns raised regarding trip generation, trip distribution, the project ( / study area, alternative haul routes, passenger car equivalents and inappropriate assumptions that US 34 will be improved from four to six lanes by 2035, comments regarding the Level of Service deficiencies cannot be completed until a proper unbiased traffic impact study report update is prepared . Another issues regarding the MMM TIS is that there is no definition of impact. The ITE Traffic Impact Study Guidelines Definition of Impact states that Any project traffic which results in a roadway or intersection to go from an acceptable level of service to unacceptable level of service, or when project traffic adds a 2 % increase in traffic on facilities which are already unacceptable. These impacts must be mitigated . Some communities might identify the threshold of significant impact as different threshold with some as small as 1%. Martin Marietta Materials Traffic Impact Study Technical Review and Comments 43 As presented previously, the consultant's traffic impact study never uses the term significant. However, on Friday, May 29, 2015, Pam Hora, representing MMM, sent an e-mail to Diana Aunst and Janet Lundquist at Weld County stating, "We discovered a typo on page 18 of the traffic study and have Had Gene issue the attached correction. Please be sure to make note of it for the record as the change is significant (1,000 fewer vehicles is significant)" It should be noted that this correction was based on truck trips and not semi-truck trips converted to passenger car equivalents. The actual impact is 6,088 MMM PCE trips on top of the long term 1, 150 background trips, which is significant. US 34 Correct Daily Forecast m 1, 150 Long Term Background Traffic -' in in 4 + 6, 088 MMM PCE Traffic cc V M M 7, 238 Total Daily Trips with Project et M 6, 088 Project trips = 6 X Significant Impacts to US 34 US 34 is the major roadway serving the entire study area. The traffic study never examined the impact this project has on US 34. As presented in Table 2, the traffic impact study never converted semi-truck trips to passenger car equivalents. Based on the applicants trip generation, trip distribution and conversion of semi-trucks to passenger car equivalents, the impact to US 34 in both the short term and long term will be significant. In the long term with US 34 average daily traffic forecasting exceeding 60,000, the existing 4 lane expressway with a capacity of 42,000 to 48,000, daily severe congestion will be typical . Adding six percent increase in traffic to an already congested facility is significant and must be mitigated for approval . Martin Marietta Materials Traffic Impact Study Technical Review and Comments 44 Table 3 Project Daily Impacts on US 34 US 34 US 34 West of CR 13 East of CR 13 Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes 40,000 40,000 Projected Short Term Background Daily Traffic Volumes 42,000 42,000 Short Term Project Daily Traffic from Traffic Study 780 310 Total Short Term Background Traffic + Project Traffic from Traffic Study 42,780 42,310 Project Daily Traffic Adjusted to Passanger Cars Equivalents 1,963 969 Total Short Term Traffic + Project Traffic Pasenger Car Equiva lants 43,968 42,310 Short Term Percent Project Traffic Impacts —► 4.9% 2.4% Projected Long Term Background Daily Traffic Volumes 66;88800 66,800 Long Term Project Daily Traffic from Traffic Study 1,600 604 Total Long Term Background Traffic + Project Traffic from Traffic Study 68,400 67,40= Project Daily Traffic Adjusted to Passanger Cars Eciuivalants 4,079 2,009 Total Long Term Traffic + Project Traffic Pasenger Car Equivalants 70,879 68,809 Long Term Percent Project Traffic Impacts —0 6. 1% 3 .0% These are significant impacts to US 34 which is currently - experiencing congestion CR 13 Turn Lane Pocket Length Requirements The traffic study did a queue analysis which was based on 25 feet for all vehicles including trucks instead of first converting semi-trucks to passenger car equivalents. Therefore their analysis was wrong and under reports the true impacts of the project. However, based on the traffic studies level of service analysis, the analysis outputs include the back of Queue (Q), vehicles per lane for the 85th percentile. In essence, this analysis predicts how long the maximum queue might be for 85 out of 100 signal cycles occurring during the peak hours. Therefore 15 percent of all signal cycles during the peak hour will experience queues longer than this measurement. Each car is equivalent to 25 feet, so a queue of 4 vehicles would be 100 feet. The analysis is very revealing as to the true impacts of the project within the immediate study area including Kelim . In essence, the queue from existing, short term and long term background local traffic is insignificant. Like today, a vehicle would arrive with maybe one car in from of them . There is no blockage of the Kelim Frontage Road . Based on the traffic study's estimate the everyday peak hour queue would back out past the Kelim Frontage Road and block the only entry to and from the existing community of Kelim . As previously mentioned, the traffic study states that the Kelim frontage road is not considered relevant. Martin Marietta Materials Traffic Impact Study Technical Review and Comments 45 When converting to passenger car equivalents, the backup extends to the Great Western Railroad. Given you cannot just simply add a lane, but need a transition lane, that transition lane would back out past the Great Western Railroad . It should be noted that the Great Western Railroad would never allow widening of CR 13 over their Rail Road right of way. Figure 10 CR 13 North Bound Left Turn Queue Impacts _o 34 • ---.. . *Vika .\.. M0.1 '� r • - - I . L c _. _ Keilim Frontag - � -�- a Road 4 A Background Traffic — No MMM M M M Traffic i. Long Term North Bound Left Turn - 4 MMM Traffic — PCE Adjustment Lane Queue Impacts ' ( 85 Percentile ) ' ad ya►� - ' ' Left Turn Transition Lane - cr se5� , - - - M CR-13 can not be widened across ea,'ti. a- the Great Western Railroad G< ril ••� A . ct a V Warning: Queue analysis based on • ' 6 Lane US 34. With a 4 lane US 34 queues will be significantly longer iitthan illustrated . 7. Signal Warrant Analysis: Although the Weld County Traffic Impact Study Guidelines clearly states "A Signal Warrant Analysis is required", The TIS was not compliant. The signal warrant analysis however is relatively easy to generate. Signal Warrant analysis \ Y : ' is are based on Chapter 4C: Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The Peak Hour Signal Warrant Work Sheet from the Manual including the existing daily traffic volumes along US 34 and CR 13 are presented in Figure 11. The worksheet is a simple graph where you compare the volumes of the major street on the bottom ( US 34) and the minor street on the bottom (CR 13) . Martin Marietta Materials Traffic Impact Study Technical Review and Comments 46 Figure 11 Existing Peak Hour Signal Warrant Analsysis Work Sheet Peak Hour Signal Warrant Analysis 600 - -- _ > 500 472 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES Q 400 F- LU p fin 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE eL H. a 300 (0a 1 LANE & 1 LANE � w 2 W200 - _ w 100 i = 4 I 02O I I 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 3, 500 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES- Existing VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) US34 & CR13 US34 There are approximately 20 existing peak hour trips arriving northound on CR 13 at US 34 in the peak, with approximately 3,500 along US 34. If where these two volumes cross the line, a signal is warranted . The line of interest is the black line for 2 or more lanes in each direction for the major ( US 34) and 1 lane in each direction on the minor (SR 13) Clearly, the volume along US 35 is high, but the CR minor street is well below the threshold for 2 or more lanes in each direction . Therfore a signal is currently not warranted . The Signal Warrant Chart bottom's at 100 minor street peak hour volumes to warrant a signal because even with high through volumes there needs to be suffiencint number of vehicles to install a signal to assist the CR 13 traffic access to the major road, while recognizing all through traveling vehicles on the major roadway (US 34) will all be delayed . Based on the threshold, Figure 12 was created . As presented in this analysis, existing, short term background and long term background traffic does not warrant a signal . The need for the signal is clearly being driven by MMM traffic, with 35 peak hour non-project peak hour trips increasing to 500. Martin Marietta Materials Traffic Impact Study Technical Review and Comments 47 Figure 12 Signal Warrant Analysis Signal Warrant Analysis 500 E 400 O 300 cu 200 ° 100 Ir Existing Existing Short Short Long Long AM PM Term Term Term Term AM PM AM PM ■ Background ■ MMM In spite of the fact that a signal might be warranted, it is incumbent to see if the cost is too much . This is not the cost of the signal . The signal is clearly needed by MMM and no one else. It is assumed that the full cost of the Signal is directly the responsibility of MMM . The true cost is the operating cost and the cost to the motoring public. Signals require a minimum of $10,000 per year, year in and year out, plus regular maintenance costs. The motoring public will be paying a significant cost in time, every time they travel on US 34 past CR 13. Remember, there is no vehicle delay traveling along US 34 without a signal at CR 13 . As presented in Figure 13. Based on the traffic study level of service analysis, peak hour vehicles traveling along US 34 will experience on average 28 seconds of delay in the short term and 50.6 seconds of delay during the long term ( remember 50 seconds is the threshold from LOS E to F) . Martin Marietta Materials Traffic Impact Study Technical Review and Comments 48 This is a major change, from no delay for everyone without the signal and a failing LOS F, 50+ seconds of delay with the signal . Figure 13 Travel Time Cost of Signal Peak Hour Vehicle Delay in Hours - US 34 Traffic 0 60 9- O 50 Un '5 40 O 30 L 20 o 10 = 0 Existing Short Term Short Term Long Term Long Term (No Signal) (No Project & (With Project (No Project & (With Project No Signal) & With Signal ) No Signal) & With Signal ) There is a personal cost of this time. Based on 50 hours per peak hour time's two peak hours, times x 250 work days in the year times a minim wage of $10.00 an hour, this signal will cost motoring public $250 thousand dollars per year. When considering the extent of the peak lasting for more than one hour and additional delay during other hours of the day, the approval of this signal will cost the motoring public $1,000,000 per year based on minimum wage. It should further be noted that the vehicle delay along US 34 with a signal at CR 13 in the long term will be significantly higher, because the delay per vehicle in seconds presented above is based on a six lane US 34. 8. Auxiliary Turn Lane Warrant Analysis: Based on serious concerns raised regarding trip generation, trip distribution, the project study area, alternative haul routes, passenger t\-11), car equivalents and inappropriate assumptions that US 34 will be improved from four to six lanes by 2035, comments regarding the Level of Service deficiencies cannot be completed until a proper unbiased traffic impact study report is prepared . Needs updating with revised traffic study. It was also noted that the Vehicle Storage Requirement chart on page 24 had a footnote that states the 235 feet of US 34 east bound right turn lane storage could be reduced to 185 feet with two right turn lanes. This would require the applicant to build a second southbound through lane on CR 13 south of US 34 to accommodate the two right turn lanes from US 34. Martin Marietta Materials Traffic Impact Study Technical Review and Comments 49 9. Sight Distance Analysis - at site entrance or access points: A sight distance analysis was not included in the traffic impact study as required by Weld County. 10. Other Impacts - Identify any impacts to school bus routes, pedestrian/bicycle access or public 7— N transit: The one key transportation issues that was not addressed in the traffic study, is the railroad impacts to traffic within the study area . This area currently is impacted `-_____? with railroad traffic. This impact will significantly increase in the future with the project because of increased road closures due to increased train traffic and deliveries to the site. This impact would be on top of an already fragile area. The impact of trains should be included in an updated traffic impact study. Figure 13 Train Impacts on Roadways -It :- -14,4 I r M =_--'‘hW • ♦ 4 ' �y.�{�� d :.f Train Impacts on - - - - �- . . Roadway Network - ' .N were not evaluated . • k / % _' Vi N S T ,� I \ ` ,, k 4 locomotives and 117 \ ti 5 ` 1. train carsatx52feet • = 6,300 feet r _ S. S - \ _ ` • ` - Mitigation 1. Describe auxiliary lanes lengths and storage capacity: See comment 8 above. r 1 * ---) Martin Mari --Materials Traffic Impact Study Technical Review and Comments 50 2. Corrections for LOS deficiencies: See comments 1 through 5 above. 3 . Corrections for any access deficiencies: No comment 4. Signing and Striping: No signing or striping discussed in the traffic impact study. 5. Pavement Maintenance: The traffic study did not address project truck traffic impacts to the roadways in the area or what additional maintenance and rehabilitation costs might N result with the project. Probably of greater concern is the impact to the roadway itself. When designing road structures, heavy trucks have a greater impact than a much higher number of automobiles. CR 13 was never designed to accommodate large volumes of heavy trucks. This development would significantly increase the cost of maintenance of the impacted roadways and accelerate costly reconstruction and rehabilitation of the roadway. I would think Weld County and the City of Greeley would like to know this impact as roadway maintenance is a very serious issue in both jurisdictions. 6. Intersection Radii for truck turn movements: No intersection radii information was provided in !� the traffic impact report as required by the Weld County Traffic Impact Study requirements. Figures and Tables: See comments above. 1. Existing peak hour turn movements volumes (Counts conducted within the previous 18 months) 2. Trip Disruption (%) including added projected peak hour traffic volumes 3. Comprehensive plan future year turn movement volumes 4. Intersection performance existing conditions 5. Project trip generation 6. Intersection level of service Closing Comments - Compatibility The proposed MMM development is in in direct conflict with recent collaboration between Weld County, Greeley, Loveland, Windsor, Johnstown, Milliken, and Evans, who have all cooperated in the Martin Marietta Materials Traffic Impact Study Technical Review and Comments 51 development of a regional plan to provide parallel routes to US 34 to avoid pending disaster given limited federal transportation dollars. Approving the proposed MMM with 6,400 daily trips impacting US 34 does not make sense and will require Weld County, Greeley, Loveland, Windsor, Johnstown, Milliken, and Evans to scramble to try to determine what do we do now ! Figure 14 Regional Plan to Provide Parallel Insfrastructure to Mitigate Impacts to US 34 _ __ ;Open S•ac `_ �., _ _ 1 WCounty, G L Wi J t i Weld Greeley, Loveland, Windsor, Johnstown, A . , �._ Milliken, and Evans have all cooperated in the �. . ` r - - -; - development of a regionalplan toprovideparallel p g r II routes to US 34 to avoid pending disaster given - � ii limited federal transportation dollars °' :- - ,� Cross Roads ' -c. _ / - „i r C 1/4./ �a Cam@ , _ — - " I ; _ I Wigii - • a .. f i7 a _ ` - �, US 34 " � �. . �- : 'lK;elln t �1 "- Illi c kr.cnThr. , r eiN x.71 • i' _ ! r !� >li �'tv• 111 _ . - - -- - _;T- - a 1 LCR 18 NCR S411, A rovin the ro osed MMM with 6,400 dailM Approving g proposed daily s ___ tir -j; _ trips impacting US 34 does not make sense and -/I , ft will require Weld County, Greeley, Loveland, .t. : Aw V Windsor, Johnstown, Milliken, and Evans to =�-- - - - scramble to try to determine what do we do now ! r Conclusions & Supporting Analysis The conclusions stated in the Traffic Impact Study are based on the incomplete traffic impact analysis performed for the Marin Marietta Materials Highway 34 Site. The following are serious flaws that need to be included in an update to disclose the true impacts of this proposed development. V The Martin Marietta Materials Highway 34 Site Traffic Impact Analysis does not comply with the Weld County Traffic Impact Study Requirements, Martin Marietta Materials Traffic Impact Study Technical Review and Comments 52 V Fundamental assumptions including trip generation and trip distribution was provided by the applicant and cannot be reproduced or verified, V The entire study area is limited to just one segment of CR 13 and the intersection with US 34 and dismisses other haul routes as required by Weld County Traffic Impact Study Requirements, V The traffic study did not convert truck trips to Passenger Car Equivalents and only reports one- third of the true impacts, V The traffic study incorrectly assumed a signal, intersection improvements, interchange and widening of US 34 from four to six lanes (all of which are unfunded) and requires reanalysis, and V The proposed MMM project will result in an additional 6,400 daily trips and result in significant traffic impacts, massive queues, failing levels of service, and motoring public travel costs. and V The proposed project is in cross purposes with the collaborative planning effort between Weld County, Greeley, Windsor, Johnstown, Loveland and Milliken to improve traffic conditions along the US 34 corridor through less impacting land uses and promoting alternative routes along "O" Street / Crossroads Boulevard and CR 18/CR 54. Martin Marietta Materials Traffic Impact Study Technical Review and Comments 53 CLR-34 Neighborhoods Assn. IV . Farm and Water , Quality Impacts USR 15-0027 John Cummings and Mel Bidding 8/5/2015 54 Martin Marietta's USR15-0027 I mpacts on Farming and Water Quality Executive Summary The Martin Marietta U SR15-0027 proposed development does not fulfill the intent, goals, and policies sot forth in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan Sections 22-2-10and 22-2-20. The proposed project will negatively impact farming operations, crop production, and irrigation, and is incompatible with existing agriculture. Due to the nature and scale of the proposed operations, the impacts on water and air quality cannot be mitigated. Moreover, Martin Marietta has not demonstrated due di I i gence i n finding more suitable locations that would not require sacrificing prime farmland and putting nearby agricultural operations at risk. Therefore, the Weld County Commissioners should not approve Marti n Marietta' s permit request for the proposed site. Martin Marietta' s proposal development is i ncompati bl e with agriculture i n the Weld County community because: VI t would remove prime farmland The land for the proposed development, along with surroundi ng agriculture lands, is designated " Prime Farmland" under the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act 1981 , 1 -25 Environmental Impact Statement, and Weld County Comprehensive R an. VI t would violate Weld County's "right to farm statement, " whi ch says that agricultural users of the land should not be expected to change their long-established agricultural practices to accommodate the i ntrusi ons of industrial users into a rural area. M M M ' s proposed Highway 34 proj ect will force changes to agriculture practi ces by i ncreasi ng pol l utants, contami nants, fugitive dust, and traffic, reducing water quality, and impeding crop production and quality. Because of l ocal wi nd patterns, it is nearly i mpossi bl e to mitigate the effects of fugitive dust. VI t would not meet the intent of agricultural land use regulations section 22-2-10. Marti n Marietta' s proposed project does not respect the agricultural heritage of the area, nor does it support the high-quality rural character that Weld County wishes to maintain. The proposed industrial project, with its asphalt plant, concrete plant, asphalt recycling, concrete recycling, aggregate unloading, aggregate transport, aggregate crushing, and truck and train diesel movements, will destroy the traditional rural landscape and rural character i n the area. VI t would not meet Weld County's section 22-2-20 agriculture goals and policies Marti n Marietta' s proposed project will have substantial negative i mpacts on farm operations and agri - tai nment and agri -tourism al ready establ i shed i n the area. For example, Motherlove ove manufactures herbal products specifically for pregnant and breastf eedi ng women and hosts a variety of educational events, i ncl udi ng semi nars on the i mportance of organics, teaching children to garden, and the identification of local edible and medicinal plants. Because they are maki ng products for pregnant and nursi ng women and thei r babies, M otherl ove puts each herb they use through a strict quality assurance prod. The proposed industrial operati ons may contami nate their soi I and herb crops and render their supply of many of their products' mai n i ngredi ents unusabl a M oreover, perceptions created by the nearby i ndustri al operati ons may make usi ng herbs from the nearby organic farm untenable. 55 I ntroduction Weld County is one of the most productive agricultural counties in the United States, typi cal l y ranking in the top ten counties in total market value of agricultural products sold, over $1 .2 billion in 2014. People move to rural Weld County because of its open views, spaciousness, wildlife, lack of noise and congestion, and the rural atmosphere and way of life. The farming community hel ps to preserve these qualities and Weld County states that " 1 and use policies should support a high-quality rural character which respects the agricultural heritage and traditional agricultural land uscs of the County." Farming on the proposed Martin Marietta USR15-0027 site and the surrounding area dates back to the 1860' s. The farm ground has been farmed by multiple generations of farmers of which several families are still active within the community: Croissants, M cDonough, Hanki ns, Caul ki ns, Franks, and Schwal ms. The farm ground for the proposed development and surroundi ng agriculture lands is considered " Pri me Farmland" under the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 , 1 -25 Environmental Impact Statement and Weld County Comprehensive Plan. It is very productive ground that has been planted i n a variety of crops including alfalfa, corn, sugar beets, beans or wheat. The ground was farmed from 1935- 1981 by Cal Amen and Kenny M i scr; 1982-2012 by Jim Croissant; and from 2013-present by Lar Voss. The ground is irrigated from the Reorganized Farmers Ditch Company (RFDC or Farmers) which was established in 1861 and has various decreed water rights from the Big Thompson River. Weld County has a " Right to Farm Statement." I n general it states that agricultural users of the land should not be expected to change their long-established agricultural practices to accommodate the i ntrusi ons of residential , commercial or i ndustri al users into a rural area. Such intrusions by thco users especi al I y Martin M ari etta will create an environment that will impact agriculture practices by increased pol l utants, contaminants, fugitive dust, traffic and have an negative impact on water quality. Farmland Preservation Why Preserve Farmland? There are many important masons to preserve farmland i n Weld County: 1 . Farmland i s a finite natural resource because areas with " Prime Agricultural Soils" are limited. 2. Agriculture is an important part of Weld County economy-with a substantial market value; it provi des jobs (not just on farms, but also i n food processing and related busi nom); and it attracts agro-tourism for its scenic character. 3. Growl ng food 1 ocal 1 y hel ps to meet sustai nable development goals. 4. Faci I i tates Community Supported Agriculture. 5. Farmland offers many environmental benefits, reduces pollution, protects water quality and preserves wildlife habitat for countless birds: raptors, waterfowl and other species. 6. Farmland is the basis for development policy and orderly development. 56 tFl►ig_I-u _�i=, 7 Etter Map T-62 -- .--::;::--- ill! a _ _ Way 1 I.-- t- I 1t _ l ?..* IF INDIANIMA i ;�l .r— 'SUBDIVISICO t - �_ f. :- R. :,,L . ...,.-::::.,:..77,77. • f� - _ ` ifs S R_ •• '-R b - •l.�.•} _J, . . . _ ...... .._.. ., • .. . . . .. . • __,:--r• , . . . . 1 I . . • I _ . •., t -Rt � • L.. % . . . . . _ , . . .. . N. :� ~� '1 J __ _ _, , .„__. - -- i I (% 7- * - ,- I ~=_- n • • . . Figure 1 . Martin Marietta Proposed Site is considered Prime Farmland (Weld County 2015). Prime Farmland: Land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and of l socd crops and is also available for the uses It has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce economically sustained high yields of crops when troated and managed according to acceptable farming methods, including water management. In general, prime farmlands have an adequate and dependable water supply from precipitation or irrigation, a favorable temperature and growing season, acceptable acidity or alkalinity, acceptable salt and sodium content, and few or no rocks They are permeable to water and air. Prime farmlands are not excessively erodible or saturated with water for a long period of time, and they either do not flood frequently or are protected from flooding -SSM , USDA Handbook No. 18, October 1993 57 Weld County Section 22-2-10 Agriculture Weld County' s land use policies support a high-quality rural character that respects the agricultural heritage and traditional agricultural land uses of the County. Rural character in the County is enhanced by uocs that provide rural l i festyl es, rural -based economies and opportunities to both live and work in rural areas. The natural landscape and vegetation predominate over the built environment. Agricultural land uocs and development provide the visual landscapes traditionally found in rural areas and communities. The proposed Martin Marietta Highway 34 Development plan does not meet the intent of Section 22-2- 10-Agri culture for a private landowner to convert their agriculture lands to other " appropri ate land use" . The mission of Martin M ari etta is dedicated to supply the resources for roads, sidewalks and foundations. The largest proportion of aggregate is used to manufacture concrete and cement (46%); roads is the second largest category (26%); while 20% of aggregates is used in other construction uscs & fills and another 2% is used for railway ballast. Less than 1 % isused in agriculture ( Bureau of Economic Analysis, U .S. Department of Commerce 2003). Martin Marietta' s mission is i n direct conflict with agriculture producers. The Martin Marietta Highway 34 Development is an irresponsible attempt to circumvent the agriculture goals and policies of Weld County. It is a non-compati bl e devel opment for the surrounding community and does not support a high-quality rural character that Weld County wishes to maintain. The enormity of this industrial project with its asphalt plant, concrete plant, asphalt recycling, concrete recycl i ng, aggregate unl oadi ng, aggregate transport, aggregate crushi ng, truck and trai n diesel movements does not support Section 22-2- 10. It will impact farming operations, crop production, and irrigation and ground water quality and the quality of life of residents surrounding this development due to traffic, noise, odor, safety, emissions, and pollutants and contaminants. Weld County Section 22-2-20 Agriculture Goals and Policies Goal 1 . Respect and encourage the continuation of agricultural land US3S and agricultural operations for purposes, which enhance the economic health and sustai nabi l ity of agriculture. The Martin Marietta Development does not respect or encourage the continuation of agriculture and uses or agriculture operations. The majority of the pri me farmland on the site wi II be converted to pavement, gravel and rai l . It will never be abl e to be converted back to prime farmland due to the pollution of the site. As cited in Martin Marietta Application Goal 2. Continue the commitment to viable agriculture in Weld County through mitigated protection of established (and potentially expanding) agricultural uses from other proposed new uses that would hinder the 58 operations of the agricultural enterprises Weld County considers water the I i f el i ne for the agricultural community. It is unrealistic to assume that ditches and reservoirs may simply be moved "out of the way" of development. The ditches that deliver water to adjacent farms actual I y border and pass through the proposed site (Figure 3). Those ditches must be mai ntai ned in order to service adjacent farms and not have an adverse effect on crop production. One of the primary concerns of the surroundi ng residents is the nature and extent of emissions from these operations, i ncl udi ng the hazardous air pol I utants ( HA Ps) and the " criteria pol I utants" as designated by the EPA , which includes substantial amount of fugitive dust generated both by the plant procms and the site traffic. The i mpacts of these contami nants and pol I utants, especi al l y fugitive dust, on water quality and crop production; and the envi ronment as a whole cannot be mitigated sufficiently under the current USR application. The fol I owi ng are j ust a few of the chemi cal s emitted from a hot mix asphalt pl ant: benzene, formaldehyde, ethyl benzene, pol ycycl i c aromatic hydrocarbons, hexane, toluene, xyl ene, si I i ca and particle matter 2.5-10 which all can have harmful effects on human health and agriculture crops (Table 1 ) . What we do not know for sure is the effects of long-term exposure to these chemicals and whether they wi II accumulate i n i ndi vi duals I i vi ng near this f aci I i ty, i n the soi Is or in the plants. Apart from the number of different chemical emissions coming from the site, the plant proposes to emit 56,000 pounds of fugitive dust from this site a year based solely on thrcc emissions sources. The dust represents all sizes from PM 2.5 to PM 10. If the other sources are taken into consideration the amount wi I I be significantly higher. Again, these smal I particle sizes are very harmful to both human health and agriculture. Dusts effects on vegetation may be connected with the decrease in light avai I abl e for photosynthesis, an increase i n I eaf temperature due to changed surface opti cal properties, and interference with the diffusion of gases into and out of I eaves. It has been shown by several rcsoorchers that dust particle of PM 2.5 and PM 10 will harm plant growth, yields and in some cases kill pl ants. A 70% decrease i n yield of several field crops has boon documented where fugitive dust is common. Also, the movement of contami nants/pol I utants off site wi I I affect soi quality and will be taken up by pl ants/crops that are used for human and animal food. In addition, dust-related respi ratory al l ergi es and death in cattle and hors have i ncreased where there is a problem with fugitive dust (NDSU SU Extension Service 2015 and Veterinarian Ceylon Fei ri ng). The environment around the proposal site commonly has daily-sustained wi nds rangi ng from 5 to 36 mph with gusts up to 61 mph record during last 12 months (Figure 2). Mitigation of fugitive dust from the site will be next to impossible. Dust generation will start with the arrival of the 117-car trai n with uncovered aggregate cars, unloadi ng trai n cars, conveyor belts taki ng the aggregate to pi I es and moving aggregate from pi I es to washing or crushing f aci I i ty. I n addition, the movements of vehicles and trucks I oadi ng and unloadi ng wi II contribute to this problem. There is no way that Martin Marietta can prevent the fugitive dust from escaping their faci I i ty. 59 The magnitude of the amount of water used to supprcm dust is a waste of that valuable resource. Martin M ari etta has stated i n two open house meeti ngs "we are not al lowed to have dust leave our site." That is why an operation of this magnitude should not be al lowed to locate near residential areas. Wind Directions Over the Entire Year at the Loveland/Fort Collins Airport 22% 15% 12% 10% 9% rC 6% ;n: • NE SE IN Figure 2. The f recti on of time spent with the wi nd blowing from the vari ous di recti ons over the entire year. Values do not sum to 100% because the wi nd di recti on is undefined when the wi nd speed is zero. 2. Policy 2.2. Allow commercial and industrial uses, which are directly related to or dependent upon agriculture, to locate within agricultural areaswhen the impact to surrounding properties is minimal or mitigated and where adequate services and infrastructure are currently available or reasonably obtainable. Alternate sites that would have minimal impacts on agriculture, the community and local resident are within 6-10 miles of the proposed M M site and all are zoned " I ndustrial ." The Martin Marietta Development does not meet the goal of conti nued commitment to viable agriculture i n Weld County. Martin M ari etta busi ncm depends on road construction. Thei r annual reports indicate that they are not dependent upon agriculture. The impact of this development wi I l be enormous due to traffic, noise, odor, safety, emi ssi ons, and pol I utants and contami nants. Marti n Marietta should be encouraged to move their proposal operation i nto an al ready industrial zoned areas, such as the f of I owi ng areas: 1 . Bernhardt Farms l ndustrial Property. The property is 1 ocated on the East side of Milli ken in Section 13 and is already zoned Industrial 1 -2. The parcel is approxi matel y 446 acres and has direct access to the Union Pacific Rai l road and Highway 60. It is within 8 miles of 1 -25 and 5 miles of Highway 34. 60 2. Wetco Rail Site. The property is located in between Milliken and Evans and is zoned industrial . The parcel is approximately 170 acres and has direct acco s to Union Pacific Railroad. It is approximately miles east of Milliken. 3. Great Western Industrial Park at Windsor. This site is industrial zoned and has good acct to highways 257 and 34 and 1 -25. Union Pacific Railroad can hand off the trai n to Great Western at L aSal I e. 1\\_ - -�� has Ft Collins Great Western 0Eaton Industrial Park w 267 ' Windsor t i Greeley L veland elim34 t = = ;Yohnsta uP L.a Salle M kerti . « cj rttOPEx i • X DERNII_ T PROPER .-- Figure 3. Alternate zoned industrial sites that Martin Marietta should be encouraged to use. 3. A. Policy 2.3. Encourage development of agriculture and agriculturally related business and industries in underdeveloped areaswhere existing resources can support a higher level of economic activity. Agricultural business and industries include those related to ranching, farming, greenhouse industries, landscape production and agri-tainment or agri-tourism uses The Martin Marietta Development does not support this policy. In fact, it would have detrimental effect on the surrounding community especially the Rockin S Ranch, and adjacent site providing an indoor/outdoor venue for wedding ceremonies and receptions, conferences, mceti ngs and farm to table di nners. The Rocki n S Ranch respects the rural character of the land and and is promoting a form of "Agri busi nom" that will help to preserve the historic and 61 environmental value of the I and. It i s designed to capture the essence of the agriculture community, the views of the snow-capped Rocky Mountains and serenity of a lakefront environment. These qual i ti es wi I I make thi s venue an i deal I ocati on for weddi ngs consi deri ng a western, farm or natural theme. A setting of this type will help to i mpross on our future generations the importance of prc scrvi ng these open spaces. As cited in Martin Marietta Application Goal 7. County land use regulations should protect the individual property owner's right to request a land use change. 1 . Policy 7.1 . County land use regulations should support commercial and industrial uses that are directly related to, or dependent upon, agriculture, to locate within the agricultural areas when the impact to surrounding properties is minimal , or can be mitigated, and where adequate services are currently available or reasonably obtainable. The County should protect the individual landowner right to request a land use change. However, the Martin Marietta Development does not moot the goal and policy of continued commitment to viable agriculture i n Weld County and is not di rectly related to or dependent upon agriculture for it busi nc� and or growth. Less than 1 % of the operation would be in service to agriculture. In addition, Martin Marietta cited under this goal and policy that the land being removed from agriculture has been kept in pasture grass and is not a significant generator of food product for people or animals. This statement, I i ke a number of statements made by Martin Marietta, is false and reflects thei r disrespectful view of agriculture, the rural character and their choice to manipulate the available i nformati on. Farmi ng on the proposed site and the surroundi ng area dates back to the 1860' s. The farm ground has boon famed by multiple generations of farmers of which several f ami I i es are still active within the community: Croissants, McDonough, Hankins, Caul ki ns, Franks, and Schwal ms. The farm ground for the proposed development and surrounding agriculture lands is considered " Pri me Farmland" under the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act 1981 , 1 -25 Environmental Impact Statement and Weld County Comprehensive Ran. Water Quality: Reorganized Farmers Ditch Company and Surrounding Farmers Concerns RFDC and surrounding farmers respects land owner rights, however, as an agriculture ditch company it does not see that this proposed development which reflects Weld County " industrial zoning" is compati ble with surrounding agriculture uses and would not meet Weld County policy and goal for agriculture benefit. Reorganized Farmers Ditch Company (RFDC or Farmers) was established in 1861 and has various decreed water rights from the Big Thompson River (Figure 3). The ditch serves conventional and organic farmers in Larimer and Weld counties. RFDC has maintained the quality of their water by limiting storm water runoff into the ditch from residential , commercial and industrial developments. The RFDC main ditch (concrete) is located on the north side of the 62 Martin Marietta " Highway 34 Development" site. It has a 70 ft easement. Four lateral ditches that originate from the main ditch would be impacted by the proposed development (see map) and the associate farms/agriculture ground that those l ateral s serve. Lateral #1 : delivers water along eastsi de of Weld County Road 13 and paral l el s the west edge of the proposed development and takes water to farm ground south of the proposed development. Lateral #2: del i vers water along the north edge of the proposed development to farm ground at the development site, del i vers water to farm ground on the south side of the proposed development or empties into Lateral #1 . Lateral #3: delivers water along the eastsi de of the proposed development to farm ground on the south side of the development. Lateral #4: delivers water to Koenig Reservoir for farm ground south of the proposed development. REORGANIZED FARM ERS DITCH COMPANY 05/11 /2015 Red lines depict main ditch and laterals er MA1i11N MAR1L1 J A NiAFEKIALS IHUI1IkAY 34 DI I LOPMENT WELD COUNTY ROAD 13 A SPI IALT PLANT. BATCI:I PLANT AND TRANSLOADING AGGREGATE V].A TRUCK AND RAIL ; [NDIANHEAD SUB D[VISION Il5'NwY 34 300 PLUS RESIDENTS, a ' ' ' -_F .1 1. - 11"1"0101.' - ' 4,4- t _ RFDC MAIN O DITCH i C Ilk -=, _ -: i I . . ., - ,04 1 LAT ri2 .7 -1L-. ..._ ti* - NE VW, - M - k r' MART N NaRI ITA 0 SITE I . to L A r 1'_' 1. I ACRES A `, • , IM . Ill T w r-- 10 ,i: a Y re.c ., ki - NJ- ' :A.-.4 . 7• ' _ ' 1 i h l Figure 3. Farmers Reorganized Ditch Company ditch and laterals at the Martin Marietta site. The fol I owi ng are RFDC concerns pertaining to the Martin Marietta Materials Highway 34 Development: 63 1 . The Final Drainage Report does not address ground water or farm irrigation water that takes place from April to November. General l y, the water table in the site area is within 4-6 f cot of the ground surface. During i rri gati on season the water table can be closer to the ground surface and i n some cases, water that moves through underground drai ns comes to the surfaces. The amount of i rri gati on water used on farms directly adjacent to the site is over 1 ,400 acre-f cot of water during the growing season. The concern i s that proposed activities conducted onsite wi I I generate highly contaminated runoff, i .e. oils, grease, sediment, salts, emission particles, si l i ca and other products. Most of these will be i n excess of those typically found i n storm water. The water quality could be compromised by aerial emissions or contami nants that leach i nto the ground, contami nati ng ground water. This may require some type of geotexti I e barrier be pl aced on the operating surface of the facility to prevent this issue. 2. Water Quality Issue: Historically, runoff and ground water movement from the site drai ned south of the site and into Koenig Reservoir, which is used for irrigation and recreational uses such as f i shi ng and hunting, and into two i rri gati on ditches south of WCR 56. This water i s used to i rri gate crops and field water livestock. Underground drains in the site wi II still move water to the reservoi r, however, by channeling the runoff in Basin Area 3 (channel on the cost edge of the rail spur) more runoff will be directed to a non-historical Point of Analysis ( POA ) which will i ncrease volume and flow rate into farm i rri gati on ditches south of the proposed development and water quality wi II be impacted when contaminants and pol I utants leach into the soi I . I n addition, the ground water on this site i s general I y 2-4 f cot below the surface, however during i rri gati on season it can come to the surface. Martin Marietta plans to bring i n fill to increase the depth between the ground water and mi se the elevation of the site according to a comment on a referral . By doi ng this, the soil type changes which then affect the dynamics of the storm water drainage plan. 3. Water Quality I ssue: The detention pond may require a larger detention pond and the i nstal I ati on of a rel ease-value. It wi I I be equi pped with a water quality devi ce to control sediment but it should also be equi pped with a release control value that will prevent water release for up to throe (3) days (72 hours) f of I owi ng a storm event until an onsi to anal ysi s of the water qual ity can be performed to determine if contami nants/pol I utants from the proposed development are reduced or eliminated. Thus the current design of the pond is not large enough to retain water for this period from Basin Area' s 1 and 2. M otherlove Herbal Company Organic Farm Concerns M other) ove has been a strong, community-oriented, and rapidly growi ng company on the Front Range for nearly throe decades. The Marti n Marietta project would very negatively impact thei r business, employees and thousands of customers. M otherl ove is a I ocal manufacturer of herbal products speci f i cal I y for pregnant and brcastfeedi ng women. In their 26 years of existence, sourci ng organic i ngredi ents has been a maj or focus of their operation. In order to ensure a steady supply chain of certified organic herbs, they began the operation of a certi f i ed organic farm i n 2012 only a few hundred yards from the proposed Martin M ari etta development site. 64 Owner Si I enci a Cox has many concerns related to the contamination of their crops due to the close proxi mity of this envi ronmental I y hazardous pl ant. Toxic chemi cal s, dust and pol I utants are al l potential sources of contami nation of both water and soi I . 1': / - ist al li . +. apgt---1- ; ', i' 'I!, :k -.4 -..: tikirt - 4 4. ^ ` :4 - ,y t•_ .MC.'I . . - . T M:- • i t ',- e, yr./ ..;. r * 4; ° 1!0-j • 4 tin • it - ' ' ‘ 4.14. 4.414211L I 11 ..t a A d___ 4 .44: met ' qv& , • • i• frn74,:s. . :, ....L 'tr.! , C.: ..., i it 1 . i *J. ' sts . t 4, Figure 4. M other) ove Certified Organic Farm I ocated i n close proximity to the proposed Marti n Marietta site. I n addition to farming organic herbs and agriculture crops, M otherlove also hosts a variety of educational events at their farm, i ncl udi ng seminars on the importance of organi cs, teaching chi I dren to garden, and the identification of local edible and medicinal plants. M otherl ove' s quality standards are extremely high due to the fact that they are maki ng products for pregnant and nursing women, and their babies. Each herb that they use goes through a strict qualification proccss that not only mcosures possible herbicide or pesticide exposure, but also bacteria and heavy metal contents such as arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury (See Tables 1 and 2 for Asphalt and Concrete plant emissions) . M other) ove is deeply concerned that this asphalt plant along with the other f aci I i ti es and functions located on site may contaminate thei r soi I and herb crops, and potential I y render their supply of many of their products' mai n i ngredi ents unusable. Two examples of the impacts of Asphalt Plants on organic agriculture and viticulture (grape cultivation) are i n Oregon and Colorado. I n Oregon, state government passed an amendment which states that " an asphalt batch plant shal l not be al I owed within two miles of existing vineyards" The basis for the amendment was that even at a si gni f i cant distance, products of asphalt emissions caused sti ppl i ng on the grape pl ants, which damaged or ki I led leaves, grapes or 65 plants Because of the economic value of the Oregon wine industry, this was determined to be i ncompati bl e with vineyards. I n Colorado, Garfield County Commissioners prevented an Asphalt Plant from 1 ocati ng near an Organic Farm based on non-compatibility. The farm would have been located just cast and downwind from the proposed plant site. Plant emissions, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter, could affect the organic certification for its produce and livestock. Commissioners cited that the adjacent asphalt plant might hurt the farm' s ability to sell its products and contended that i n this case, it was an adverse effect. Condusion Agriculture is an important part of Weld County economy-with a substantial market value ($1 .2 billion); it provides jobs (not just on farms, but also in food proccsi ng and related business); and it attracts agro-tourism for its scenic character. Farming on the proposed Martin Marietta Highway 34 Development-USR15-0027 site and the surrounding area dates back to the 1860' s. The farm ground for the proposed development and surrounding agriculture lands is considered " Prime Farmland" under the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act 1981 , 1 -25 Environmental Impact Statement and Weld County Comprehensive Al an. The Martin Marietta development i s incompatible with agriculture i n the Weld County community because: V It removes prime farmland. bit violates Weld County' s " right to farm statement" . bit does not moot the intent of agricultural land use regulations section 22-2- 10. bit does not moot Weld County' s section 22-2-20 agriculture goals and policies. vThe Martin Marietta development is incompatible with our existing and future thes i n the neighborhood. bThe enormity of thi s devel opment and the various acti vi ti es conducted on the site wi I I generate significant contaminants, pol l utants, chemicals, fugitive dust etc. That will impact water quality and crop production and quality. bThe perception of Martin Marietta' s development wi II impact agri -tai nment and agri -tourism al ready establ i shed i n the area, farmers operations, and the M otherlove organic farm operation. 66 Table 1 . Emission from Hot Mix Asphalt Plants that could have potential impact on human health and agriculture crops. Source: EPA AP-42 Chapter 11 lahl_' 1 I . I -:o. J:NILSSIO' FA( FOR ORGANIC' P1)1.L_1 TAN] 1 :\]l S'...;111:),..::::; FROM IW1 NI :`till.' HOT N]LX A`.]'] IAi.•I J'l_AN Is ' J'' :I luta:it Erni:Ns:kir, L_rui %%ionY 1'ar:c+ti 1 X.-: R> Nanic II• : 'il ka IiiK Pi c I. Ni a 1.1:1.. 22a.,-El c'J ~11.0 -i'.I.I:L Iiaeai g_1V11% aii i".'1-Li.liitr•. di, , X5ill lab:lc ,_-.I 3- ' I:i-:Il:L.:i',i '.I IalIi':'•; A '>. I LSI:51.0. ; I I . I SL t ."--I.1.5-1:-1::' 1.:k. .117, ?N.3. 3 $.1 •;:;:- II -4 k•.11.:. It••_iircm: 1.1 ir;:;:• 1.I Jti 225.44.•I5 11•i-;:-;:•-11 k t':niald-Ar•di I iApJ , 1 A ti: .;:•..1.t_.f:;.5c. 3 i';_ .•• I I. ? IT-2.•;' 1. 2:2 l- .473. ?NA. u..k. I I' I•.1 tic...Ji ll; 1.1 :,:_;:_;:.•i ' I. 33•-;.3 I U :;•I•;:•-'-. I- I i .um.tam: .y.-'. 1-tiiit•r:ll',:• Ii•-:rd :ut•_ i •;_;:•••. 1-;: I• 3 • -? 1ti :1 :'-r, .\Icthr- I cisltc•.rFii:1•I• •; k.:ti1 • 1• . . 1 •;:•x4-x-.; I ..IIL:ric tl.•;:;:+.I 1., .1) 15.•F•F.•1 1.-N."1.1- 2'.t-- 'C•.:c:u 1.1 i. :-;:•_1;` .1) 2 5.4 /I5 Foci: I I 1 i..-%I'i.• i i.'J'J. I 11: I I 11.1..1.1!, . 1.-57-A ?-hlct_1,::13p_i'inIco•:' 7 RI;: I I.•F~•.•I x ? -$ _'-'f A1.•:rl;ipaa'icm:' I Ih.I::' • I. 4S :::•?4-4r,-.k A.1.....11;ifi:1ar•:c_1c . .': r,:•.I Jt ?5.•.:..•Ix I 'S:•-1 ?-' Ardl.l ;r:t:1t' _' ?:•.1;:' 1• :;::.4.,i ;ri-:5 :5-? ki-:i'Irt'• .i Ia1•dliiacci'ic _' RI;:. I. •F :41-3 2-N. ki-:rirt'• 44 i:..-.-.1 lc ' '' I. I-::• • I• •Fti 1•;:•5-'.'r-_' ii-:ii:t'116•ilium tad lr:ric. I Oh.I-;:. I• ::•::.4.,i I .i2-'1 --' ki-:I•i:c'a•:IF',:•:i'ic I I :,I- I. .is; 1 ••; I --2I-.2 .E3-:ik' 'auI1.i:•1•-_i , Icn:. 4 IAl;: I •Fti 1 ,: -t 1k-'I U-:iw,.'1 I: 1111.11.11 aril k..is •' I ..I";:' I' .•..'i 2 1 k'-I 11 -'' I. 111:• r-••:1'IC I k•:.I-,:' I' i .;.`i 2{::::- I I-1.1 k ham stilt-sic ,:1 I :.I:: Jti ?: .•F'•.•Ix - .'& - ; ,4- : _I: Iuim•_ric. .; k:N.I-.: .l ..;11(..11;..1.1,:. Pt; I '•t3-4"-w Inds.:it-.:-: I ..2.3-Ld Pp: acll./ 7 ii:•.1-;: I. •F:* , '_- 1-::-:I ,k. ;Irhhii;lk I•IC '' I11I::. • .1) 3:•_.;.; I:•.•;'4. I :: ti I ..; --_-._1j l'tl•b_c_Ic N k:,I I. •kS .-t;4-•;:• I-N. I. ; ,_ ,;r_I:Ia cit...- ' t ..I Jt ?'....,. I5.•;"rt. I :: I '';-I i1,-1.1 l.',,.:,...n.:c ti 1,..1-1:. B •F:./.04 I ;'I.i: I'A.1i It:\Pr. 1.1 Ui.r;:• 1 ; 67 Table 2. Heavy metal emissions from a Concrete Batch Plant that could have potential impacts on human health and agriculture crops. Source: EPA AP-42 Chapter 11 — T:\]3LL-; J ]. 1?-X II:V{GLISII lJNLT5) t•ems r:•1'L1:TI: 13/trT('] I PLANT METAL I:I.1IS X)N I`: {•T(IRS - J:Iliis.si }n T..ca I 1..--.1 k=:k .l.lr :U &-itc ki.1%II:Lar_ i'_Id:YHL..:5_ t lium:Li _ I-cad ti1an a:lc•.ti i_•L.c I Ph u'1.h,ilia ' cicn i Jai Kacir.^- {'.:rr_.nl ail.' I ii..r.c ' I SL .'-tli-I..I I -II '.I _.c::x.,;-'.I.' I .?IJC-Ilk l.:.I,-'.I1 1-.;u J,-'I1 :.&,..• LI'• J_L13.:-IJ•I I fri-C-ti ..1 c -LI;' `LJ.1 J: L. Fab:6: 1•:I1.:1 .I.J.L-.4.I'I .I.Nr1L-III NC) 1%,:ii,-'IA I.LI'IL_px I_-''C-U? .iIke-;;x S.D NJ, J: L cnl:iY. Sullll:cIlca ?IJ.' J-iI:i rip 'si't ;-'Jti-IJI I-_ •, 4L) I} N[) [) NI) \17 \U ti[) ',J] J: .. l:;iI 'i•_ I-_I1ti. -'.18 ti.1I.Ic-Ilk __`:"v-1!I _.1 J•:-'JS 5.2.1c-4i 7 ? rtc-IJ 2 _k.c-;K? ;.5•Ic-'IL. 7.2.1c-IA,. colt nil Mix ix Ii.11.:1 ii1_ -::4/1"S• %-IJ,-II. --i:•-. i 5.:xi-Ll{' t•IJ' ..lx _•.i. _. I S.t_tli. ..s I7 S C-1.15 ti Ii,-.:-.; 5.•;::•,:,..!:1 u: A ELI,'iL Hite:- 2•-:{:C-'.I ? IJ• 7.I•i.•-ii _.2 :1-'.17 3.1 ,,..-Li! •t_7S;c-IJk ' IN..:-:,;;; -.ti';:c-LIC- ND' J: lluLI. 1.n 4.1:IJ ' ! SC-L -'.1}-IJII -- III _, ll`-LI} 1..l-lc-Il' :.•I],.-'.I.4 _. 1. I-:-of, i.r+1_-LIf. 1r_.39:-IJ' I IIr. +:' :•u.11,:-, ti 1.1,≥c-I%% ... Full:i: i':II•:1 1,.:5}:-'17 I .11-Ia-11: 'I_1 -_-.pl .1. 1'.-:-'.Iii I.S.:---mi y_Li 1 -IJ.' -1 •I,-5+'I: _._':-c-'-If I._.'c-Il: J: NJ) No Lal:t 'All enns sinr. tac[Lars ..;re. IT_ LIi LIt 11oLLLII:mL per ion Lfi ni:11f71.O 1u:LdL d '.:n lus s naicl oil Lem:1 e_ L_tgl.led in:aerial IP_CIIIdcs ti.1tina ..;p i ni_Le. ...1 nd_ Lem,_ _L. ..enacrn cuppl'enien I ar_Ll iLiC -LIrtac L' Iii%E CCIr.: a59L7ci:lied WLLII [iii:!..: maLci i ils. lb: aL"tirauI iiial,7Lai ,;•.'n1 p;I LLI;n11 n I u'n{ICCC ban:Ilex Lsr.rLTLeLl In leferentidk 9 mil Hi was IS fly lb; °mince :I_;I Il';ITit _42' Ihs tian_ll_-19: lb!. ticzelli and 73 Ihs c Cnit'r_l _iinplelr.L'nI. ,'IPII TL}xnu ills 20 _'i l k-in- it 11-.liter 51-.Is.added Li this solid I11alw`ii;iI 1ti' I'znciitic 4024 Ills':L•T_e i-.:ll lti L:Ird I Lt L L•P_L'vie. i.. . .. . ' ' .L'. �JI ' l h . 1 . . 1' •)•h . . 1 . . . L ' l I' 'd I14 . L . , ' .: Iii ]l}L II Itil L'frl Qlti I IL L i�Jt-11.1tSt�1 I.fLLLS}_l .�LI i i5 L l'! L LI IIiSn} IC4 tL Ci rll L 4 l LI1�It015111 L_4IlL}-l}I15� L.]L IIIr� weft!Ci LL�L LI L LS 141.11 L t�CL rlLl .LI}L T_ AJCL1,1u iLl cL?11174}l led CIII is'LL:ns 1. t 1„J:LispLl.tirous LInrjjI1% LIr.Lkt 1ll-dre ?L`Losix dci \cion. It is r{h.lrl:ink k at,sum,- Lh ll (Lit ,Ijkti113-e•11C:s. I+ti.1L11par:IhJe In rh i :Alfr.uc! eI1' t7wne:4:4 .:LIkI nj t rIlk! dlllc'L' 11%i i..11:4_ ' Relerti.r.:C ILI. L ii I'•L'tcrcncc 11. •I Jae tinJt;swin lac L0TLIS_1Li arc lb Lll ',nll.:lani l' !or_ .1I 'Ct n cn1 and amen' .r llppJcu1C11t_ Ern i :acmi I:uclar% v.%rL LIL\ti1o17id from a t., plc al Lc nwral Mr up .raI LL r.. The :Li-'rate c LILII;IIC only.: pct. era..1I .emtssMnt i:lrhh i rn'LJ d Llnn4 c;IcJ: IttL r.;.ii as L14".1. ' I-Zcicrcr_La tr :Ind I II- 'Ike t'lnissmn I ac lar un1k arc lb L, "'ilk:Lint per !or_-al cetuCnc all a ccntc11111:11"Lei,lcr L. I:iii t+l an L. '1L SIti were dcv ILIpc;L I ram Cato 1}-1'1.:.11 crii b Irilx Ioadir_p operiIi n b, 1#;L<Ctd LI^L1r. 1']s::: 1.L5p-I'r.-aLLor.s DI c.c.rk- J5 F;ld]n!ii 11^L'r.M 15711 d LlrniL IIm Pori.% Les p rLS_i r:Llllti. ill,: al cr-ip.' eapi::rt clticicrey tl;:rin;! iI:. !stuffy, u.lt -'"... 68 CLR-34 Neighborhoods Assn. V . Real Property USR15-0027 Ellen E. Kisker, Ph .D. and Diana Hite, Ph. D. 8/5/2015 69 Response to the Weld County 34 Value Diminution Study by M ichael Smith, Foster Valuation Company LLC Ellen Kisker, Ph.D. and Diane Hite, Ph.D The Smith report for MMM concludes: "Thousands of homes throughout Northern Colorado have been constructed and sold in proximity to industrial uses, gravel mines, asphalt batch plants, concrete batch plants, railways, and other uses in similar intensity to those planned for the Martin Marietta Weld County 34 project. Analysis of paired sales data revealed very similar sale prices per square foot for single family homes located in and out of proximity to more intense industrial uses similar to those planned. Therefore, as of the June 18, 2015 date of value, it is unlikely that completion of the Martin Marietta Weld County 34 project as planned will result in a diminution in value with regard to future sale prices of single-family homes." We reviewed Mr. Smith's report and find that it provides no credible evidence that the Martin Marietta Weld County 34 project will not cause substantial declines in nearby residential property values. V The first sentence in the quoted conclusion above has no bearing on the question of whether establishing the asphalt/concrete/aggregate plant to the proposed location will reduce property values in adjacent residential areas. Any construction and sales after industrial uses are established are based on prices that already reflect any reduction of property values due to the industrial uses. V Paired sales analysis is not a valid way of estimating the effect of the proposed industrial use on property values. o Mr. Smith compared homes that sold in neighborhoods near an asphalt and concrete batch plant or unspecified disamenities to homes that sold in the same period in neighborhoods not located near heavy industrial uses. Comparison homes were selected to have similar physical properties to the homes near heavy industrial uses (similar square footage and similar year of construction) based on information in the MLS. The analyst asserts that the comparison data are considered to be a good representation, but does not say how the comparison sales were selected or demonstrate that they are representative or even say who considers them representative. One has to conclude that the comparison sales were likely handpicked to support the desired conclusion. We could likely find comparison houses that would lead to the opposite conclusion. o The paired sales analysis does not take into account other important factors that affect house values, such as neighborhood characteristics, public school quality, distance from a central business district, or how much information the buyers had about the nearby industrial uses when they decided to purchase the home. Omitting these other factors biases the results. Thus, the results that are presented are not credible. 70 o If the MMM analyst selected houses in the neighborhoods near heavy industry that were bought by out-of-state buyers who may not have had information about the nearby heavy industry or may have been under pressure to buy a house quickly and paid a higher price because of that lack of information or pressure, then the comparisons would clearly misrepresent the effect of the heavy industry on house values. o The use of MLS data for purposes of finding matched properties is questionable. Researchers using these data in more sophisticated statistical models (see below) have found that analyses based on MLS data lead to estimates of effects on house values that are biased toward finding little or no effect. V Economists who study the effects of "disamenities" (gravel mines, landfills, etc) on residential property values use more sophisticated statistical models that include all sales records in the study areas, control for a wide range of factors that can also affect housing values, and address the statistical problems inherent in making simple, selective comparisons like those that Mr. Smith made. o Economists who have studied the effects of disamenities on residential property values consistently find that they have negative effects. That is, when statistical models account for differences in house characteristics as well as differences in neighborhood characteristics, property taxes, public school quality, and information effects, the distance to the disamenity affects the average house sales price significantly, and the effect is negative. That is, all other things equal, the closer a house is to the disamenity, the lower the sale price for the house. o Without data from another location with a similar asphalt/concrete/aggregate plant with a rail loop, we cannot estimate the amount by which property values will decline here, but the existing studies strongly suggest that the decline will be substantial. Background To arrive at these conclusions, we drew on the key studies summarized below that analyze the effect of environmental disamenities on residential property values. Hite, Diane, Chern, Wen, Hitzhusen, Fred, and Randall, Alan (2001). Property-Value Impacts of an Environmental Disamenity: The Case of Landfills. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, vol. 22, no. 2/3, pp. 185-202. V Examined the property value impacts of landfills using a hedonic price model V The model accounts for: o housing structure characteristics (age of structure, number of rooms, bedrooms, baths, half baths, porches, and stories, square footage, garage and lot, and whether it is a condominium, has central air conditioning, has a fireplace, and masonry construction) o neighborhood effects (distance to central business district; school district quality; crime rate) o information effects ( percentage of buyers who came from out of state) o distance to landfills and other disamenities and amenities 71 V The percentage of buyers who moved in from out of state (and presumably had less knowledge about local amenities and disamenities) is positively associated with property value, suggesting that information may play an important role in determining market price. When buyers come from out of state and may not know much about the landfill or have to make quick house buying decisions, housing prices are higher, all other things equal . V Property values are negatively impacted by proximity to landfills, all other things equal . If all houses inside of 3 .25 miles of the landfill are moved to 3.25 miles from the landfill, property values are estimated to increase by nearly 18%. Brasington, David M., and Hite, Diane (2003). Demand for Environmental Quality: A Spatial Hedonic Analysis. LSU Department of Economics Working Paper Series, Working Paper 2005-08. Used hedonic price analysis to estimate the average value of a house in the geographic area as a function of a set of explanatory variables. V Explanatory variables include : o house characteristics ( lot size, age of house, size of house, number of full and partial bathrooms, number of detached structures on lot) o neighborhood characteristics (distance from central business area, community population growth, neighborhood racial composition, education levels, income levels, and poverty rates) o property tax rates o public school quality (proficiency test scores) o distance to the nearest hazard V Uses small geographic areas such as census block groups as the unit of analysis, with variables that are averages for that geographic area . Thus no single transaction or characteristic has an unwarranted influence on the overall findings. V Spatial dependence, that is, the degree to which the price and characteristics of a house affect the price of neighboring houses, is taken into account in the statistical model Second stage demand model V Estimates distance to the nearest hazard as a function of the implicit prices derived from the hedonic price analysis and other demand shift variables V Implicit prices are partial derivatives of average house price from the first equation with respect to distance to hazard, school quality, house size, and lot size. However, these are endogenous, so instruments for these must be found (arts, accessibility, MSA growth, and commute time) V Demand shift variables are community income, climate, % with a graduate degree, % with children Findings 72 V Hedonic price analyses show that environmental hazards have a small negative but statistically significant relationship with average constant-quality house prices. At the mean, moving 10% closer to the nearest hazard decreases average house price by .3%. V Demand model analyses shows that people with higher income, higher education levels, and people with children demand more environmental quality ( larger distance from hazard) . V Taking a house that is slightly more than a mile from the hazard and moving it to half a mile from the hazard results in a loss of $3,278 (about 6% of the value of the average house) . V In an expert witness report, Diane Hite characterizes the findings by saying that the analysis "confirmed that house values at 1/4 mile from a toxic release source...would have their value decreased by 48%, all else constant." Erickcek, George A. (2006). An Assessment of the Economic Impact of the Proposed Stoneco Gravel Mine Operation on Richland Township. Report completed at the request of the Richland Township Planning Committee. V Examined the potential impact of a proposed gravel mine on residential property values and the potential employment impact of the mine on the area's economy V Summarizes the literature by saying that studies applying hedonic pricing models generally show that proximity to landfills, hazardous waste sites, and the like has a significant negative effect on the price of a residential property. V Drew on Hite (2006) study of the effects of distance from a 250-acre gravel mine on the sale price of 2,552 residential properties, controlling for a large set of other factors that influence a house's price. She found a large, statistically significant effect of proximity to the gravel mine on home sale prices. The closer to the mine, the greater the loss in house value. A residential property located a half mile from the mine experienced a 20% reduction in value. A property one mile from the mine experienced a 14.5% decline in value. These estimates are similar to estimates of the effects of landfills in the literature. V The loss in house value is a way to quantify in dollars the loss in quality of life as capitalized in home values. V Using the model parameters from the Hite study, this study simulated the loss in housing values that would result from the proposed gravel mine. More than 1,400 homes within a 3-mile radius of the mine would have been negatively impacted, with the total loss of values reaching nearly $32 million . V The fact that over time housing and commercial developments move closer to and sometimes adjacent to mine operations does not mean that the mine has no effect on housing values. Prices adjust within a short time following establishment of a mine to compensate for the loss in quality of life, and new residents and businesses make decisions based on the new prices. Anstine, Jeff (2003). Property Values in a Low Populated Area When Dual Noxious Facilities are Present. Growth and Change, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 345-358. V Used a hedonic price model to analyze the effects of distance from a heavy metal manufacturing facility and a rubber-compounding factor on assessed tax value of homes between one-tenth of a mile and five miles of the two facilities. 73 V The rubber-compounding factory produces visible smoke and a detectable odor while the heavy metal manufacturing facility does not. The former has a significant negative effect on assessed tax value of homes, controlling for other house characteristics. V A home's distance from the rubber-compounding factory significantly affected its assessed tax value, and if the home was located between the two facilities, there was a further reduction in assessed tax value. Hite, Diane, and Jauregui, Andres (2005). Don't Ask, Don't Tell : The Impact of Real Estate Agents on House Prices Near Environmental Disamenities. V Studied the impact of real estate agents on the price of houses that are located close to landfills using a hedonic price model . The authors hypothesized that real estate agents obtain higher prices than those theoretically expected when the houses are located closer to an environmental disamenity. They attribute this result to differences in information about the presence of the environmental disamenity between buyers, sellers, and their real estate agent, that ultimately have an impact on their bargaining position. V The analysis is based on 2,967 transactions involving houses located close to four landfills in Franklin County, Ohio, in 1990. V On average, results suggest that at distances less than 1 mile away from the landfills, the percentage increase in the house price obtained by a real estate agent is greater than the commission rate. For example, the weighted predicted rent for transactions made through a real estate agent at an interval distance of 0.75 miles away from the landfills is $7,680.37, while the predicted rent for transactions made without an agent is $6,780.71. The difference between these two predicted house values is 13.27 percent. V The paper provides evidence that estimating hedonic price models with MLS data can downwardly bias estimated impacts of an environmental disamenity. Nelson, Jon P. (2004). Meta-Analysis of Airport Noise and Hedonic Property Values. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 1-27. V Based on meta-analysis of the findings of 33 studies, the author concludes that a property located at 55 dB would sell for about 10-12% less if it was located at 75 dB. Baranzini, A., Schaerer, C., and Thalmann, P. (2010). "Using measured instead of perceived noise in hedonic modles." Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 473- 482. V Finds a 23% discount in housing values due to daytime noise levels of 65 dB Batemean, I. A., Day, B.H., Lake, I.R., and Lovett, A.A. (2001). The effect of road traffic on residential property values: A literature review and hedonic price study. Scottish Executive Transport Research Series, The Stationery Office, Edinburgh. V Finds that noise impacts depend on magnitude, frequency, duration, variability, and time of occurrence. 74 Larsen, J.E. 2012. " Surface street traffic volume and single-family house price. " Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 17(4):317-320. V Additional traffic from a mine that can cause significant congestion has a negative effect on house prices. House values near a street under study lost approximately 2. 1% of their value when traffic was doubled . Additional information provided by Dr. Diane Hite, an academic economist with expertise in environmental valuation and economic modeling V Synthesis of published studies shows that the value reduction associated with a distance of '/ mile from a gravel pit is 25% and a distance of 1/2 mile from a gravel pit is 18%. Similarly, the value reduction associated with a distance of '/ mile from industrial odor is 48% and a distance of % mile from industrial odor is 23%. V These estimates are separate, and it is Dr. Hite's opinion that the diminution in value will be greater when these two disamenities are found together. Summary We can summarize our findings by the following observations: ✓ Research studies suggest that the loss in market value of nearby residential properties could be as high as 40% for those nearest to the proposed Highway 34 project location. ✓ These losses will lead to a loss in property tax revenue for the county and reduced welfare of older neighbors who are relying on the savings invested in their houses to sustain them in old age. ✓ MMM has proposed NO mitigation . 75 CLR-34 Neighborhoods Assn. VI . Addendum A : Response to Stewart Environmental USR-15-0027 David W. Kisker, Ph . D. 8/5/2015 75 6681 Apache Road Johnstown, CO 80534 August 5, 2015 Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Re : Response to Stewart Environmental Consultants LLC comments regarding the Air Emissions Report Analysis that was submitted to the Weld County Commissioners on June 18, 2015. Commissioners: In their July 20th response (actually submitted DURING the Planning Commission hearing on the USR15- 0027 case) ( Exhibit 1011) to the report that we submitted on June 18th as well as during the Planning Commission hearing itself, Dr. David R. Stewart asserts several claims relating to our report, and argues that those points diminish the significance of our report. By necessity, some of this discussion is somewhat technical . However, the concepts are not especially difficult so I hope that you will find this document to be reasonably accessible. Although we have no interest in entering into a "expert vs. expert" confrontation, we feel that in several respects, Dr. Stewart has misrepresented or minimized our major points inappropriately. As a result, we have prepared this brief response. Note that we do NOT plan to spend significant time at the BOCC hearing on this topic, but if the Commissioners have concerns, we will be prepared to discuss them . Finally, we wish to apologize for the lateness of this submission. We recognize the burden that it places on you as Commissioners. We had expected that any comments provided by Stewart would have been available long before the PC Hearing, and as a result of our preparation for the BOCC hearing, this submission has been delayed . Respectfully submitted, i/L ( ?,,,/e/c-cP David W. Kisker, Ph . D. 76 Response to Stewart Environmental Consultants LLC comments regarding the Air Emissions Report Analysis Prepared by David W. Kisker, Ph. D. on behalf of the Indianhead Estates West Homeowners Assn. In their correspondence, dated 7/20/15, ( Planning Exhibit #1101 ) and presented at the recent Planning Commission Hearing on 7/21/15 for USR15-0027, Dr. David R. Stewart of Stewart Environmental made several assertions that were intended to negate and/or minimize the significance of the report that we previously submitted to the County as part of the USR review process. In addition, at the PC Hearing itself, during the rebuttal period, he asserted that our contribution should be ignored because of what he claimed were flaws or irrelevant information . Although in the response itself, Stewart generally acknowledged that our analysis was correct, and actually made several adjustments to their own analysis as a result, they nonetheless make several misleading claims. 1. Stewart asserts that we used only "worst case assessments" for all scenarios. This is correct. We based our analysis on the words of Mr. David Hagerman at the June 9th, 2015 public meeting: "So these models that we're going to be talking about in just a moment—we model the worst case. We model the plant running 24/7. We model the plant with the least efficient equipment from an emissions standpoint. We model the worst case. We use a CDPHE approved model and we compare those results against acute and chronic standards." D. Hagerman, June 9, 2015 The entirety of his comments can be reviewed here : https ://youtu . be/AzYLnehHmZo Furthermore, Figure 1 shows one of the slides that he used during that presentation, emphasizing their claim that they do the modeling with the worst case scenario. 2. Stewart asserts that the hourly production rate has nothing to do with the CDPHE permitting process, which will be based on the annual production limit of 450,000 tons per year. a . This statement, while true, is clearly intended to mislead . As Dr. Stewart well knows, the hourly rate is a REQUIRED element of the dispersion analysis. In order to perform a suitable AERSCREEN analysis of the pollutants that are transported away from the stack, it's necessary to use the hourly production rate, which coupled with the EPA's tabulated "emission factors" (AP-42 tables) 77 allow the estimation of the pollutant concentrations at the property line as well as nearby "sensitive receptors" . b. The use of the MAXIMUM possible hourly production is clearly claimed by Mr. Hagerman to be the procedure that was used . However, we found that this was not the case. When we reported this fact, Stewart responded by asserting that it's not appropriate. Apparently, Mr. Hagerman does not agree ! ! _ Heal * Notes q 0 HS Result Its Better • Actual Resu than Model formance Mo • del Per getter th an EPA and California b Regulated by CDPHE/ E Protect Model Public Health Environment Ca Se .. . . . ..... .. .. .. ... . . . . . . . ..... . . . • Model Worst ............................. - • CDPHE Model • Acute and Chronic Standards Figure 1. Slide from D. Hagerman's presentation at Public Meeting, June 9. 2015 3. Stewart responds to our criticism of the improper use of the CO emission factor from the asphalt plant by stating that this is allowed by CDPHE. a . This may well be true. However, its use in the original report is not documented as it should have been . Again, we were taking Mr. Hagerman at his word that they always use the EPA models. Apparently, this is only sometimes true. b. Furthermore, in Table 2 of the response, Stewart actually shows that if the proper, EPA recommended AP-42 emission factor would have been used for the 78 Taft Hill site stack test, that facility would have actually EXCEEDED the estimated emission (41 .0 tons per year vs. 29 .3 tons per year) . The question is why it is necessary to deviate from the recommended value since other facilities are being permitted using the tabulated AP-42 emission factor. 4. Stewart attempts to minimize the importance of using a proper model to analyze the site emissions when there are multiple sources. a . In fact, the original report by Stewart was fundamentally incomplete . The fact that AERSCREEN was used and represented as a meaningful result is just not appropriate. In the original report, there was no mention of the fact that a more complete study using AERMOD would be required because of the site complexity. Instead, that study was represented by both Stewart and Mr. Hagerman as a useful analysis from which sound conclusions could be drawn, each of them even emphasizing how "good" their results were since they supposedly even exceeded the tougher California standards. (At least they emphasized this until we pointed that this was not, in fact true ... ) 5. Stewart acknowledged the discrepancy between the APEN for the concrete plant and emissions report. The truck mix capability was not considered in the Stewart report. a. While acknowledging the discrepancy between their original report and the APEN permit application, Stewart now says that MMM has agreed to reduce the requested production in their APEN . This would need to be confirmed in writing. Furthermore, Stewart explained that MMM did not inform Stewart that the concrete plant was capable of both central mix and the higher emission truck mix plant. In our analysis, we again used the "Worst case" of 100% truck mix because of the claims by Mr. Hagerman . Now, Stewart says that only 10% of the capacity will be truck mix. While this may or may not be factual, it's clear that the 100% truck mix case must be used if "worst case" analysis is to be done because the emissions from the "truck mix" version are about 2X as high as from the "central mix" operation . b. Stewart also acknowledges that they did the calculation for the emission from the hopper loading, mixer loading and truck loading were done incorrectly. However, by including only 10% truck mix, the assertion that this represents a true worst case scenario is false . In fact, unless the permit were to impose such a limit, the calculated emissions would be completely inappropriate . We stand by our original analysis that the emissions ( PM and PM10) may be MUCH higher than Stewart asserts in their response. Because of the extreme health risk of particulates, this is one of the most hazardous operations on the entire site . 79 6. Stewart explains that the dust generation due to traffic was not in the original scope of the report that they prepared . a. We are gratified to learn that Stewart was proactive on this issue . In fact, fugitive emissions from truck traffic on the site will be one of the largest contributors to the emissions. We have confirmed in general terms Stewart's calculations that were included in the original documents that they provided (we arrived at particulate emission rates that were slightly higher than the Stewart calculations.) b. In their response, Stewart has done new calculations of the fugitive emissions from the site traffic. There is inadequate information to validate their calculations. However, the fact that the emission factors have been reduced by about 10X is problematic. It appears that this has been accomplished by assuming that the "silt loading" is reduced by 90% for some indeterminate reason . Without further details, we cannot be sure, but the EPA's AP-42 document does not support this level of reduction on the paved roads due solely to the street sweeper. If instead, a reduction in silt loading of 30% is used, as Stewart indicated would be appropriate, substantially higher EF values are obtained . Source of EF PM2.5 E.F PM 2.5 PM 10 EF PM10 calc (lb/VMT) Emissions (lb/VMT) Emissions Asphalt (tpy) (asphalt)(tpy) Original 1.07 9.94 4.57 42.4 Stewart 1 New Stewart 0. 14 1.3 0.56 5.2 Klitch/Kisker, 0.812 7.54 3.31 30.7 New (30% control) It must be noted that even with the corrected EF, these values are much lower than the original Stuart analysis. This is a result of the much lower values for total Vehicle Miles Traveled, VMT, which is a direct multiplier in the fugitive emissions equations found in the AP-42 document. Given the necessarily limited scope of this document, we won't attempt to rationalize all of those details. However, even assuming that the mileage adjustment is appropriate, it would appear that all of the Paved Road fugitive emissions in the new Stewart analysis are potentially understated by about 5 .75X, which would result in a corrected 1 Calculation of Emissions using the current Stewart value for Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) 80 total from the paved roads only of about 56.9 tons of PM2 .5 and 231 tons of PM10. To confirm this, it would be necessary to review the details of the new Stewart analysis, but because their response was submitted at the Planning Commission hearing itself, this was not possible. 7. Stewart takes issue with our use of the maximum hourly production rate (500tph) that was provided to us by Mr. Hagerman. Furthermore, on page 9 of the Stewart response, it is stated that: "This [i.e. the hourly production] will be limited by the amount of asphalt that can leave the facility by truck." a. Again, we were analyzing the plant operation based on the maximum production rate because that's what Mr. Hagerman said that they did . It's now clear that is absolutely NOT the case, and, in fact, Dr. Stewart acknowledges this, and even claims that it should not be done. Obviously, MMM can't have it both ways. b. The even more surprising point is the assertion that the production is limited by the truck shipping rate ! ! This is absurd, since this is a continuous drum mix plant, and will have 3 storage silos specifically so that the plant production is NOT limited by truck availability. 8. Regarding the emissions of particulate matter from the asphalt and concrete plants, Dr. Stewart claims that our analysis was flawed, again because we looked at the "worst case" production rates that were reported by Mr. Hagerman and were originally in the APEN for the Ready Mix plant. He goes so far as to say (page 10, second paragraph) that: "Dr. Kisker overestimated the amount of particulate matter due to using longer hours than permitted, higher production rates than permitted, and uncontrolled emissions rather than the controlled emissions per the permit application" a. Over estimate due to longer production . Not true. We used the exact same AERSCREEN calculation as did Stewart. We did use the higher production rates that were provided by Mr. Hagerman for the asphalt plant and were found in the APEN application for the concrete plant. b. Higher production rates than permitted . Not true. No application for the asphalt plant has been submitted . The APEN rate was used for the concrete plant. c. Used uncontrolled emissions. Not true . We used the same emission factors as did Stewart for the asphalt plant, and the correct ones for the concrete plant. d. Referring to table 9 on page 10 of the Stewart comment, we also point out that their OWN calculation shows that according to the corrected AERSCREEN calculation they will be in excess of the NAAQS value for PM2 .5, and nearly 81 exceed it at the nearby residence. This is the same conclusion that we drew. Table 10 shows that they will also exceed the EPA's annual limits. e. Finally, their assertion that AERSCREEN will tend to overestimate the actual emissions is not supported by the experiences of others. Generally, it's found that a full analysis using AERMOD may show the situation to be either better or worse, once all sources are properly taken into account. The blanket statement that AERSCREEN will overestimate the impact is not correct. 9. Stewart now acknowledges that the estimates of pollutants at the fence line and nearby properties were based on math errors, resulting in higher formaldehyde levels than previously estimated. He claims that the formaldehyde emission will be reduced by the presence of carbon filters on the AC tanks. a . First of all, the carbon filters on the AC tanks are irrelevant since the emissions that are discussed are from the drum mix aggregate dryer ! ! The carbon filters on the AC tanks will have no controlling effect on the dryer. We are surprised that Dr. Stewart would assert this claim ! b. Dr. Stewart suggests that the actual emissions will be less than estimated using the EPA emission factors. We have no way of knowing whether this statement is valid or not. 10. In Table 12, Stewart presents the "Annual" levels of exposure to the HAP compounds emitted from the asphalt plant. While he acknowledges that the formaldehyde levels at the property line and nearby residence will exceed the EPA "carcinogenic screening level", he claims that this is OK because the excess risk may only be 1 in 100,000. a . First of all, it's important to understand that to arrive at the estimate of the annual exposure, the procedure that was properly used was to multiply the HOURLY exposure by 0. 1, resulting in the estimate of 2 .07 xg/m3. This factor is based on the hourly production rate of 380 tons per hour rather than the higher level of 500 tph provided by Mr. Hagerman .2 If the maximum rate is used, then the hourly formaldehyde exposure at the residence is 27 ccg/m3, rather than the 20.7 that the Stewart report impliess. b. The EPA actually has various factors that are to be used to convert the hourly emission rate from AERSCREEN to other time periods3. These are shown in the table below: Note that this fact is not stated and is arrived at only by "back calculating" the assumed production rate. 3 Source: AERSCREEN Users Guide, US EPA. 82 Time period 1 hour 3 hour 8 hour 24 hour Annual Factor 1 .0 1.0 0.9 0.6 0. 1 Adjusted Formaldehyde 27 27 24.3 16.2 2 .7 (°' g/m3) c. The question of hazard level is important. There are several possible values that can be used to assess formaldehyde related risk. Clearly, an annual average is probably inappropriate, as the asphalt plant operation is seasonal . A more appropriate estimate of risk would be a daily estimate, since it's likely that a person in the surrounding neighborhood could be exposed for a full day of emissions if they were doing outdoor activities such as gardening when the plant was in operation . As reported at the Planning Commission hearing, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health ( NIOSH ) specifies a Recommended Exposure Limit ( REL) of 20 xg/m3 for their TWA limit, which is a 10 hour exposure limit. Apparently, a person who was outdoors for a full workday, near the plant boundary could actually be exposed to a formaldehyde level that would exceed the REL published by NIOSH ! ! ! d . At the Planning Commission meeting, we also pointed out that the estimated level of formaldehyde exposure does, in fact, far exceed the more stringent limit of 9 xg/m3. Referring back to Figure 1, although Mr. Hagerman apparently was happy to compare the AERSCREEN results to the California standards, at the Hearing Mr. Stewart devalued that comparison by saying that the CA limit was irrelevant because it was California . Again, you can't have it both ways. Eliminating the CA comparison because you don't like the results when the estimate is done correctly is not only invalid, but it also suggests that the entire approach to analyzing the emissions is not based on an honest assessment, but rather on a desired outcome. 11. Finally, on page 13 of their comments, as well as at the Planning Commission hearing, Dr. Stewart asserts that the use of the Air Quality Index (AQI) to scale the PM2.5 concentration is not valid. He makes claims that it's only appropriate for large areas and populations and that it has multiple factors included which would make it impossible to assess the impact of the PM2.5 exposure. a . Simply put, this is wrong. The EPA has individual formulas that relate the concentrations of individual criteria pollutants to the AQI hazard scale. This is 83 done so that an overall AQI hazard level can be reported, no matter which of the criteria pollutants is the most dangerous at a particular time. This does not in any way invalidate the EPA's published scaling factors for the purpose of assessing hazard levels due to individual components. In conclusion, we are frankly disappointed that the pursuit of an honest assessment of the impact of the Martin Marietta Materials Highway 34 project continues to be so entwined with misinformation and misleading analyses. Frankly, we don't know whether MMM is an honest company or not. However, in assessing this question of the extent and risk of emissions, which is second only to traffic in its potential impact and incompatibility with the neighboring USES, it's become apparent that the ONLY way to even consider allowing this project to move forward would be if it were subject to extreme scrutiny at every step of the way. Martin Marietta has no right to potentially subject the surrounding residences, properties and activities to what may well be unhealthy levels of pollution, whether it's from particulate contamination, hazardous air pollutants such as formaldehyde or other, yet to be determined risks. 84 CLR-34 Neighborhoods Assn. VII . Addendum B : Health Impacts of Particulates USR15-0027 DaveKisker 8/5/2015 The following document from the US EPA describes some of the issues relating to the health impacts of small particle pollution. This issue is particularly relevant because of the large amount of fugitive dust that will be generated by the proposed operations. Even though a cloud of dust is dispersed as it is carried by the wind, the particulates do not simply disappear. Rather, they become even more insidious, as their lack of visibility may generate a false sense of safety. There are numerous publications regarding this risk. At this point in time, it's becoming clear that even the EPA's enforcement levels are not likely to completely protect our citizens' health, especially the young and the elderly. In fact, a recent publication from the Harvard School of Public Health1 indicates that the danger of exposure to PM2.5 is present well below the current annual exposure limit of 12 mg/m3. The conclusions of that article state: "In conclusion , the acute and chronic effects of low-concentration PM2.5 were examined for Medicare population using a comprehensive exposure dataset from a satellite-based prediction model . Our findings show that both short- and long- term exposure to PM2.5 were associated with all-cause mortality, even for exposure levels not exceeding the newly revised EPA standards, suggesting that adverse health effects occur at low levels of fine particles. The policy implication is that improving the air quality below the current EPA standards can still yield health benefit." 1 "Low Concetration PM2.5 and Mortality: Estimating Actue and Chronic Effects in a Population-Based Study", Shi et al., Environmental Health Perspectives, To be published. http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409111 86 The National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particle Pollution REVISED AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR PARTICLE POLLUTION AND UPDATES TO THE AIR QUALITY INDEX (AQI ) On Dec. 14, 2012 the U .S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) strengthened the nation's air quality standards for fine particle pollution to improve public health protection by revising the primary annual PM2.5 standard to 12 micrograms per cubic meter ( µg/m3) and retaining the 24- hour fine particle standard of 35 µg/m3. Exposure to fine particle pollution can cause premature death and harmful cardiovascular effects such as heart attacks and strokes, and is linked to a variety of other significant health problems. Particle pollution also harms public welfare, including causing haze in cities and some of our nation's most treasured national parks. EPA has issued a number of rules that will make significant strides toward reducing fine particle pollution ( PM2.5) . These rules will help the vast majority of U .S. counties meet the revised PM2.5 standard without taking additional action to reduce emissions. AIR QUALITY STANDARDS The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set two types of outdoor air quality standards : primary standards, to protect public health, and secondary standards, to protect the public against adverse environmental effects. The law requires that primary standards be "requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety," including the health of people most at risk from PM exposure . These include people with heart or lung disease, children, older adults and people of lower socioeconomic status. Secondary standards must be "requisite to protect the public welfare" from both known and anticipated adverse effects. Standards to Protect Public Health EPA reviewed thousands of studies as part of this review of the standards, including hundreds of new studies published since EPA completed the last review in 2006. The new evidence includes more than 300 new epidemiological studies, many of which report adverse health effects even in areas that meet the current PM2.5 standards. EPA also considered analyses by agency experts, input from the independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and extensive public comments. In addition, the agency conducted a provisional review of significant new studies, including studies submitted during the public comment period on the proposed standards. New studies continue to report a wide range of health effects associated with both long- and short-term exposures to PM2.5. 1 Primary (Health) Standards for Fine Particles: EPA has set both an annual and a 24-hour standard for PM2.5. These standards work together to protect public health from harmful health effects from both long- and short- term fine particle exposures. Revised annual standard: The primary annual fine particle standard is designed to protect against health effects associated with both long- and short- term exposure to PM2.5. The existing annual standard has been in place since 1997. o EPA has determined that the current annual fine particle standard (set in 1997) is not adequate to protect public health as required by law. o The agency is strengthening the annual fine particle standard by revising the level from the current level of 15 .0 micrograms per cubic meter ( µg/m3) to 12 .0 µg/m3. An area will meet the standard if the three-year average of its annual average PM2.5 concentration (at each monitoring site in the area ) is less than or equal to 12 .0 µg/m3. o As part of EPA's commitment to transparent, open government, EPA sought and received extensive public input on this standard, which provides critical health protection to tens of millions of Americans. The agency held two public hearings and received more than 230,000 public comments on the proposal . Retained 24-hour standard: The primary 24-hour fine particle standard is designed to work with the annual standard to provide supplemental health protection against short- term fine particle exposures, particularly in areas with high peak PM2.5 concentrations. The current 24-hour PM2.5 standard was issued in 2006. o EPA is retaining the existing 24-hour fine particle standard, at 35 p.g/m3 . An area meets the 24-hour standard if the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations in one year, averaged over three years, is less than or equal to 35 µ8/m3. Primary (Health) Standard for Coarse Particles Studies suggest that short-term exposure to coarse particles ( PM10) may be linked to premature death and increased hospital admissions and emergency department visits for heart and lung disease . EPA is retaining the existing primary 24-hour standard for coarse particles at 150 µg/m3. An area meets the 24-hour PM10 standard if it does not exceed the 150 µg/m3 level more than once per year on average over a three-year period . 2 The existing coarse particle standard has been in place since 1987. Secondary Standards for Particle Pollution : Particle pollution causes haze in cities and some of the country's most treasured national parks. In addition, particles such as nitrates and sulfates contribute to acid rain formation which makes lakes, rivers and streams unsuitable for many fish . Acid rain also erodes buildings, historical monuments and paint on cars. Particle pollution also can affect the climate by absorbing or reflecting sunlight, contributing to cloud formation and influencing rainfall patterns. EPA is retaining the levels of the existing secondary standards for PM2.5 and PM10 to address PM-related effects such ecological effects, damage to materials and climate impacts . Those standards are : an annual PM2.5 standard of 15 .0 µg/m3; a 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 µg/m3; and a 24-hour standard of 150 µg/m3 for PM1o. The agency is relying on the existing secondary 24-hour PM2.5 standard to protect against visibility impairment, and is not finalizing the separate standard to protect visibility that EPA proposed in June 2012. o EPA had proposed to add a separate secondary 24-hour standard for fine particles to protect visibility in urban areas. The agency proposed two alternative levels for that standard : 30 deciviews or 28 deciviews. A deciview is a yardstick for measuring visibility: the higher the deciview level, the hazier the air appears. o In today's rule, EPA is determining that 30 deciviews is the appropriate target level of protection for a visibility index with a 24-hour averaging time . However, after reviewing public comment on the proposal and further analyzing recent air quality monitoring data, the agency has concluded that the current secondary 24-hour PM2.5 standard will provide visibility protection equal to, or greater than, 30 deciviews. REVISIONS TO THE AIR QUALITY INDEX EPA is updating the Air Quality Index (AQI ) for fine particle pollution ( PM2.5) . The AQI is EPA's color-coded tool for telling the public how clean or polluted the air is, and steps they can take to reduce their daily exposure to pollution . The AQI converts concentrations for fine particles to a number on a scale from 0 to 500. EPA is changing the upper end of the range for the "Good" AQI category (an index value of 50) by setting it at the level of the revised annual PM2.5 standard ( 12.0µg/m3) . 3 EPA also is setting the 100 value of the index at the level of the current 24-hour PM2.5 standard, which is 35 µg/m3. An AQI of 100 is the upper end of the "Moderate" range, and the level above which EPA begins cautioning at-risk groups. In addition, EPA is setting the upper end of the "Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups" range (AQI of 150) at 55 µg/m3' EPA is retaining the existing level of 500 µg/m3 for the upper end of the "Hazardous" category (AQI of 500) . The agency also is retaining the existing levels of 150 µg/m3 and 250 µg/m3for the upper ends of the "Unhealthy" (AQI of 200) and "Very Unhealthy" (AQI of 300) categories. The updates to the AQI take effect on the effective date of today's rule, which is 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. The revised AQI breakpoints are outlined in the table below: Previous Breakpoints Revised Breakpoints AQI Category Index Values ( 1999 AQI ) (µg/m3, 24-hour average) (µg/m3, 24-hour average) Good 0 - 50 0.0 - 15 .0 0.0 - 12 .0 Moderate 51 - 100 >15.0 - 40 12. 1 — 35 .4 Unhealthy for 101 - 150 >40 - 65 35.5 - 55 .4 Sensitive Groups Unhealth 151 — 200 > 65 — 150 55.5 — 150.4 Very Unhealthy 201 — 300 > 150 — 250 150.5 — 250.4 301 — 400 > 250 — 350 250.5 — 350.4 Hazardous 401 — 500 > 350 — 500 350.5 — 500 BACKGROUND EPA has regulated particle pollution since 1971. The agency has revised the standards three times -- in 1987, 1997 and 2006 — to ensure they continue to protect public health and welfare. A table of historical PM standards is available at http ://www.epa .govittninaaqs/standardsipm/s_pm history. html ) 4 The Clean Air Act requires EPA to review national air quality standards every five years to determine whether they should be retained or revised . The revisions to the primary annual PM2.5 standard is a result of that regularly scheduled review. EPA proposed to revise the PM standards on June 14, 2012 under a court-ordered deadline. o In February 2012, the American Lung Association and the National Parks Conservation Association sued EPA for not completing the review of the standards within five years -- by October 2011 . The states of California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington filed a separate suit. o In June 2012, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction ordering EPA to issue a proposal by June 14, 2012. o EPA and the litigants in the deadline lawsuit entered into a consent decree that required EPA to issue final standards by Dec. 14, 2012 . EPA's final decisions on the PM standards also respond to a court remand of portions of the 2006 decision on the PM standards. o In February 2009, the U .S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit remanded the primary annual PM2.5 standard and the secondary PM2.5 standards to the agency. For the primary annual PM2.5 standard, the Court concluded that EPA had failed to adequately explain how the standard was sufficient to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety, as the Clean Air Act requires. For the secondary PM2.5 standards, the Court said EPA had failed to adequately explain why the secondary standards provided the required protection from visibility impairment. The Court also said EPA had failed to identify a target level of visibility impairment that would be requisite to protect public welfare The Court upheld EPA's decisions on the PM10 standards. EPA's decisions on the 24-hour primary PM2.5 standards were not challenged . FOR MORE INFORMATION : To read today's final rule, visit http ://www.epa .gov/airquality/particlepollution/actions. html For technical documents related to this review of the standards, visit http ://www.epa .gov/ttn/naafis/standards/pm/s pm index. html 5 Tisa Juanicorena nECE " ED From: Barbara Moe < barbarajmoe@hotmail.com > i o 24\5 Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 11:48 AM AUG To: Tisa Juanicorena WELD CQuNTY aS Subject: Martin Marietta Asphalt Plant Proposal MMtSStQtm We are very much opposed to Martin Marietta 's proposed asphalt plant. My family has lived in this neighborhood for thirty years, and this is an inappropriate and ill advised plan . We have never been against growth and love having such a nice variety of businesses closer to us. The growth has been a good combination of different things that form a model for our future . This beautiful area should be used in such an intelligent manner because it is the gateway to Weld I County and going west it is the gateway to the Rockies. Your job is such a serious one because you have the power to save this area for the correct growth or let a monstrosity like this plant come into our neighborhood and ruin the future of a lovely area . It is already in the works to make it into a mini Commerce City, and I resent that so much . My home is north of the proposed site, and every vehicle going to the asphalt plant would pass my house. This could take place at any time of the day or night and would be unbearable. When is it right to force people to accept something that will take away their quality of life ? This neighborhood has a rich history in agriculture and residential growth, which has been wise growth with a combination of homes and commercial development to compliment each other. Subdivisions in Weld and Larimer Counties have already been approved and planned with a close proximity to the proposed site . There are luxury apartments being built in the vicinity along with many outdoor oriented businesses that will suffer if this would ever be approved . It is such a far reach to think that this monstrous plant would be compatible with the existing community. This would totally change our community and force many people out of their beloved neighborhoods because of the traffic, health issues, odors, diesel fuel exhaust, noise and dust . These are all such negative effects that absolutely should not be foisted off on the citizens of northern Colorado. Martin Marietta should be forced to build their invasive asphalt plants out in the areas where people do not live. I realize now that they have gotten their $73B net worth by going right over people just like me. This should be stopped . They have enough money to take their asphalt plant anywhere. We are in the fight of our lives just to save the quality of life we worked for, knowing Martin Marietta doesn't give a thought for the little people that stand in their way. It has been an exhausting fight because the promises, half-truths, outright lies, and skewed facts that MMM keeps coming up with . I have been encouraged by the planning staff and the Planning Commission voting to send a denial on to you as the Weld County Commissioners. They could see through all the issues and know this is far more than it is being sold as. Please vote against this because the area is totally incompatible with an asphalt plant. Thank you for standing up for the people that are already here and love it . Sincerely Dennis and Barbara Moe EXHIBIT A\-- u.5e.,,c,„,--,..nr, 1 Case # 15-0027 RSC USR �� V For Public Record �� JUL ? 9 2015 Weld County Commissioners CO e/ p Attn : Diana Aungst, AICP . CFM Planner II MI�1/SS CovNIV Weld County Department of Planning Services N�RS 1555 N . 17th Avenue Greeley . Colorado 80631 Re : Planning Application USR 15-0027 : Martin Marietta Materials Highway 34 Development- OPPOSED Weld County Commissioners: My name is John Cooney and I live on Golden Fields Lane which is just east of WCR 13 and just north of Highway 34 in Larimer County. I want to go on record that I am strongly opposed to the proposed development by Martin Marietta Materials just east and south of my property for a number of reasons. Highway 34 is already congested with traffic and this would just add to it. I 'm also worried about the inevitable air pollution that would go along with this. I have asthma as well as one of my three small children and one of the reasons we live out in the country is for the fresh air. This would be at risk if you approve their request. Please take pity on the residents of this area . especially the folks in Indian Head Estates. This facility would be completely inappropriate in this residential/ agricultural area. Please deny this inconsiderate USR permit application . Thank you . Sincerely. John Cooney 8466 Golden Fields Lane Loveland , Co 80538 (970)412-6142 EXHIBIT RECEIVED Weld County Commissioners JUL 2 9 2015 c / o Diana Aungst , AICP , CFM Planner Weld County Department of Planning Services WELD COUNTY 1555 N . 17th Avenue Greeley , Colorado 80631 COMMISSIONERS Dear Commissioners : We are writing to you concerning your vote on the asphalt plant proposed for Highway 34 . It is our strong feeling that this plant does not meet the intentions of the planning committee ' s vision for the area . We anticipate increased truck traffic on Highway 34 and increased train traffic in the area . There are several housing areas in the vicinity which will be negatively impacted with an asphalt plant . We are also concerned with the environmental impact from the plant on the residents of the area . As Johnstown residents we are hopeful you will reject this request . Sincerely , Pat and Sharon Carr EXHIBIT 4 r o cleri Gabriel and Pamela Ramon 325 Sloan Dr. RECEIVED Johnstown, CO 80534 pamelaramon24@gmail.com AUG 1 0 2015 303-847-1874 WELD COUNTY August 7, 2015 COMMISSIONERS Dear Weld County Board of Commissioners, We are writing to you in regards to the decision you will make on Wednesday, August 12`h regarding the Martin Marietta Materials company that wants to build a distribution facility on land at CR13 and US 34 (USR 15-0027). We ask you to uphold the recommendation by the Weld County Planning Committee to deny the application. As homeowners in the area that live off CR13, we ask that you protect our property values, our quality of life, and our air quality conditions in denying the application. Some of our concerns and reasons for asking for the denial are as follows: • Additional truck and rail traffic that will result from the company's location. We worry about the effect that these heavy trucks will have on our roads and how much more maintenance/construction work will be required in the future for the upkeep of our roads. In addition, we are concerned about the noise and pollution that will accompany these new trucks and rail cars. • A decrease in property values due to the proximity of the company. • Odor and dust from the mixing process and the loading/unloading of rail cars and trucks. Since we live in a very windy area of Colorado, we are concerned about the odor and dust travelling through the air to our area. • Health effects of the chemicals in asphalt fumes. Asphalt fumes vary depending on the course of crude oil used. However, in general the fumes contain carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur, volatile organic compounds, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. While plant workers are at the greatest risk of exposure and of developing asthmatic lung problems or cancer, residents that live near and downwind from a plant for long periods of time can experience irritation and other health side effects from the plant fumes. Children are more sensitive than adults. These fumes can condense on exposed skin and be inhaled into the lungs. We do not feel this plant would be in a safe location for our community at the desired lot. (Reference: http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/factsheets/09ag022.pde As young homeowners, all of our money and our hopes for future retirement are tied up on our house. Our property values and our health are very important to us and we would like to see our region and area continue to grow into a prosperous location where people want to live. Thank you for your consideration of our request and for your work for our county. Respectfully yours, EXHIBIT GabWi,e,1, a.K,o{, Pa,me,ca, Raww f D tAS/2 S -OO(77 RECEIVED 6681 Apache Road Johnstown, CO 80534 AU6 1 0 2015 18 June 2015 WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS To: Weld County Commissioners c/o Diana Aungst, AICP, CFM Planner II Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N . 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 RE: Planning Application USR 15-0027: Martin Marietta Materials Highway 34 Development pp g y Weld County Commissioners: In the document that accompanies this letter, you will find a comprehensive review of the Air Emissions report prepared by Stewart Environmental as part of Martin Marietta Materials (MMM) USR permit application. Because of the extreme level of concern of the surrounding residents, I prepared the report at the request of the Indianhead Estates West Homeowners Association Board of Directors. In addition, the HOA had my analysis and report reviewed by a professional air quality consultant, Ms. Marorie Klitch, President of Klitch Environmental LLC. Her comments are also attached. As you will see in the report, the Stewart report is severely flawed, and should not be considered to be an accurate assessment of the Air Quality impacts of the proposed MMM Highway 34 project. In addition, given MMM's apparent acceptance the Stewart report and its conclusions, despite its serious flaws, we believe that the entire set of analyses that were commissioned and paid for by MMM should be eliminated from further consideration. Although we believe that this misinformation is likely to be intentional, based on other MMM actions, and that this should result in the immediate withdrawal of their application with prejudice, if that cannot be done, then Weld County should require MMM to pay for a completely new set of analyses by experts chosen by the County in cooperation with the neighboring property owners. The studies paid for by MMM simply cannot be trusted. Respectfully submitted, i&-gm-de 4-1 -eal's David W. Kisker 6681 Apache Road Johnstown, CO 80534 EXHIBIT • dave.kisker@gmail.com LAS ' ooai cc: IHE-W Board of Directors 6681 Apache Road Johnstown, CO 80534 18 June 2015 To: Weld County Commissioners c/o Diana Aungst, AICP, CFM Planner II Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N . 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 RE : Planning Application USR 15-0027 : Martin Marietta Materials Highway 34 Development Weld County Commissioners: In the document that accompanies this letter, you will find a comprehensive review of the Air Emissions report prepared by Stewart Environmental as part of Martin Marietta Materials ( MMM ) USR permit application. Because of the extreme level of concern of the surrounding residents, I prepared the report at the request of the Indianhead Estates West Homeowners Association Board of Directors. In addition, the HOA had my analysis and report reviewed by a professional air quality consultant, Ms. Marorie Klitch, President of Klitch Environmental LLC. Her comments are also attached. As you will see in the report, the Stewart report is severely flawed, and should not be considered to be an accurate assessment of the Air Quality impacts of the proposed MMM Highway 34 project. In addition, given MMM's apparent acceptance the Stewart report and its conclusions, despite its serious flaws, we believe that the entire set of analyses that were commissioned and paid for by MMM should be eliminated from further consideration . Although we believe that this misinformation is likely to be intentional, based on other MMM actions, and that this should result in the immediate withdrawal of their application with prejudice, if that cannot be done, then Weld County should require MMM to pay for a completely new set of analyses by experts chosen by the County in cooperation with the neighboring property owners. The studies paid for by MMM simply cannot be trusted. Respectfully submitted, figijcp j / - David W. Kisker 6681 Apache Road Johnstown, CO 80534 dave. kisker@gmail.com cc: IHE-W Board of Directors Marjorie Klitch Marjorie Klitch, of Klitch Environmental LLC has over 26 years of experience in air quality modeling and permitting for a variety of industries , including oil and gas , power generation , mining , cement manufacturing , steel-making , ethanol production , and chemical processing . An expert at a variety of regulatory air dispersion models (CALPUFF , AERMOD , ISCST3 , VISCREEN , MOBILE , FDM , et al ) as well as visibility, noise , and traffic models , Ms Klitch has prepared air permit applications in CO , WY, IN , IA, NM , KS , NV, AK, MN , AR , TX , WV, and LA. She has also performed comprehensive CALPUFF modeling for NEPA analyses in support of Environmental Impact Statements ( EIS ) , and assisted in the review of CALPUFF modeling analyses as a subcontractor to Federal Land Managers . Ms Klitch is also Secretary of Board of Directors for the Rocky Mountain States Section of the Air and Waste Management Association (AWMA) . " KLITCH ENVIRONMENTAL LLC 2925 Swing Station Way, Fort Collins, CO 80521 (970) 481 -6799 June 16, 2015 Mr. David Kisker Indianhead West Homeowners Association P.O. Box 8011 Loveland , Colorado 80537 RE: Review of Stewart Environmental's Emissions Estimates for the Proposed Martin Marietta Materials "Highway 34 Facility" in Western Weld County, and Preliminary Examination of AERSCREEN Modeling Dear David , I have reviewed your "Emissions Validation Report," which attempts to replicate the emissions calculations implied in Stewart Environmental's (Stewart) document "Air Emissions Assessment." Your report also scrutinizes the approach used to estimate potential air quality impacts from Martin Marietta Materials' (MMM) proposed "Highway 34 Facility" in Western Weld County, Colorado, with the AERSCREEN model . The proposed facility would ultimately include: • A concrete batch plant • An asphalt production plant • An asphalt recycling facility • Rock crushing • Storage piles • Material transfers (delivery and sales of rock) • Haul road traffic (deliveries, sales) • Deliveries via rail and an internal rail loop I concur that Stewart's emissions estimates have multiple errors, many of which substantially underestimate potential emissions. Although there are also a few possible emissions over- estimates, I agree with your assessment that total particulate emissions from the facility are likely to be much higher than what Stewart presents in their "Air Emissions Assessment." Although they admit that there will be fugitive emissions from truck traffic and wind erosion , their air quality analysis fails to address what the total impact of the facility would be when these additional fugitives are present. In fact, their air dispersion modeling analysis does not address particulates at all . The emissions and production rates in Stewart's document are confusing and inconsistent within the document, with what has been stated elsewhere, and with what was apparently used in the modeling . When applying for a permit, modeled emission rates must match the facility's maximum emission rate, as the modeled emission rate then becomes a permit limit. For example, if MMM uses an emission rate representative of 360 tons per year (tpy) in their modeling , then the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) will limit their allowable production to 360 tpy. MMM has stated in other parts of the document, and at public meetings, that their production will be anywhere from 400 tpy to 500 tpy. The David Kisker June 16, 2015 Page 2 inconsistency of these and other details casts suspicion on Stewart's attention to detail and quality assurance practices. Underestimating potential emissions results in underestimates of modeled pollutant concentrations outside the facility's ambient air quality boundary (i .e. , fence line). The use of AERSCREEN for a facility with multiple buildings, multiple sources, fugitive emissions, and nearby terrain higher than the facility's stacks is questionable. EPA's regulatory model, AERMOD, would be more appropriate in this context. Stewart's most egregious error with respect to modeling is their confusion of meters with feet. In their calculations document "MMM-Hwy34-Calcs," they state that the distance from the source to their property line is 900 feet (equal to 274 meters), and that the distance to the nearest residence is 1350 feet (equal to 411 meters). Yet they proceed to apply AERSCREEN 's results for 900 meters (about 2953 feet) for the property line impacts, and to use results for 1350 meters (4429 feet) for impacts at the nearest residence. This results in gross underestimates of impacts, which when coupled with underestimates of emissions and production rates (modeling appears to have used emissions based on a lower plant capacity), casts serious doubt on their assertion that the facility will "not negatively affect the surrounding environment." Although , I do not have sufficient documentation to evaluate Stewart's handling of terrain , or building information with which to confirm the building downwash parameters used in the modeling , recommend that the air dispersion modeling be redone with updated emission rates consistent with the maximum production rate, modeling all sources and buildings simultaneously with the more appropriate AERMOD model . In summary, I concur with your assessment that there are numerous errors and omissions in Stewart's assessment of potential emissions and air quality impacts from MMM's proposed "Highway 34 Facility" that must be corrected before Weld County can properly evaluate the application for a Use by Special Review (USR) permit. Sincerely, qrnci-V74.--c- aorreic. Marjorie A Klitch President, Klitch Environmental Emissions Validation Report : Martin Marietta Materials " Highway 34 Project" near Loveland, CO Prepared by Dr. David Kisker, Ph.D. On behalf of Indianhead Estates West Homeowners Assn . June 11, 2015 Executive Summary Martin Marietta Materials ( MMM ) has applied for a Use by Special Review (USR) permit for land near US-34 and WCR-13 in Weld County. In this report, a number of aspects of the USR application have been considered especially related to the Air Emissions report that was prepared by Stewart Environmental (Stewart) and included as part of the USR application that was submitted to Weld County. Upon completion of this review, we have found that there are numerous instances of misleading information, incorrect calculations, and understatement of the emissions and their impact, relating to the proposed operation. Key examples include: V Misleading statements of Asphalt Plant annual production V Underestimate of Concrete Plant annual production by as much as 20% V Underestimate of Asphalt Plant hourly capacity by as much as 25% V Use of non-EPA Emission Factor for Asphalt plant CO emission, resulting in more than doubling the permitted output compared to the EPA recommended value. V Underestimate by as much as 2X of the pollutant concentrations at the MMM property line and at nearby residences in Indianhead Estates. Underestimating the production rate increases the discrepancy. V Inaccurate and misleading underestimate of particulate emissions from Concrete Batch Plant V Suppression of information about extensive dust emissions due to facility traffic V Suppression of report of dispersion of particulates due to concrete batch plant. V Complete lack of assessment of fugitive emissions from handling up to 2 million tons of aggregate/year. V The overall impact of these errors and misstatements suggests that the surrounding residents of the site under consideration are likely to be exposed to extremely hazardous levels of criteria pollutants, especially particles smaller than 2.5 microns, PM 2.5. Additional errors may also exist because we have not been able to reproduce the AERSCREEN calculations that were supplied . Some of these errors actually overstate the expected emissions, but mostly they dramatically understate the full impact of this facility to such an extent and in such a systematic way as to be shocking and suggests that ALL analyses supplied by MMM are likely to be similarly flawed and must be redone by independent analysts not chosen by MMM . 1 Background MMM ( Headquarters: Raleigh, NC) has submitted an application to Weld County, Colorado, for a "Use by Special Review" permit to construct an extensive aggregate processing and distribution center near the intersection of the US-34 Highway and Weld County Road 13. This is an extremely controversial project because of the large negative impact that is expected on all of the surrounding land owners and residents, many of whom have lived at their present locations for decades. This facility is projected to include a continuously operating drum mix asphalt plant, a concrete batch plant, concrete crushing and recycling, asphalt recycling, and substantial aggregate transfers (i.e., material loading and unloading). The total projected throughput of this facility is 2 million tons annually, according to Mr. David Hagerman, VP of Martin Marietta Materials. One of the primary concerns of the surrounding residents is the nature and extent of emissions from these operations, including not only the hazardous air pollutants ( HAPs) and the "criteria pollutants" as designated by the EPA, but also the substantial amount of fugitive dust generated both by the plant processes and the site traffic. MMM states that these activities are all "highly regulated" and that the neighbors should be assured that the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment "would not approve anything that was unsafe." In addition, MMM retained a consultant, Stewart, to perform an AERSCREEN dispersion modeling analysis, and provide a report for inclusion into the USR application (report is included in this package) . Based on those results, MMM claims that nothing that is being proposed on this site will be any sort of health hazard, and, in fact retained a local toxicologist as a consultant to make the same claims. The fallacy of using this approach is that this entire set of assertions depends on an accurate assessment of emissions as well as an appropriate modeling activity using the EPA's plume dispersion models such as AERSCREEN and AERMOD. In the next sections, the numerous inaccuracies of the claims that have been made by MMM will be investigated and their implications explored . Description of Emissions Modeling by Stewart Environmental Although the modeling of emissions from industrial activities such as asphalt plants and concrete batch plants might seem to be somewhat esoteric and therefore reserved as the domain of "experts," in fact, to a large extent, the process is quite simple, and can be separated into several steps. a . Compliance with total emission limits established by the USEPA. The first step in an emissions assessment is the consideration of whether the industrial activity will be able to meet the total annual emissions limits which have been established by the EPA for several "criteria pollutants." These pollutants are carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides ( NOx), Volatile organic compounds, (VOC), total particulates ( PM ), small particulates, 10 microns and smaller ( PM10) and very small particulates, 2.5 microns and smaller ( PM2.5). 2 b. Plume Dispersion Modeling, Part 1. Estimation of the "maximum impact" of the emissions: This part of the emissions assessment is slightly more complex than the annual emissions estimates because it uses a model that describes the physical process known as "plume dispersion ." Simply put, this model mathematically describes the reality that "the solution to pollution is dilution ." In other words, since the emissions from an industrial process are typically emitted from a stack with a relatively large flow of air, what is found is that a "plume" containing all of the various outputs is driven out of the stack, into the sky. The initial dilution is often substantial, as much as a million times. And as the plume travels over the terrain, diffusion causes continued dilution to occur, so that eventually, the pollutants contained in the initial emission are in such low concentrations that they are considered to be non-hazardous. Since the chemical and particulate constituents of the plume generally behave similarly but independently, it's convenient to do a single calculation with a "standard" emission rate of 1 g/sec, and then scale this result for various constituents using the individual emission rates for each pollutant. Typically, emission factors ( EF) from the EPA's AP-42 tables are used . If other sources are used to estimate emissions, their use should be justified . If an industrial site is relatively simple, does not have many large structures and is not located near large terrain features, the dispersion of the emission plume can be calculated using software tools based on the EPA's analysis package, AERSCREEN . However in a complex setting, such as the proposed Highway 34 Project, it may be necessary to construct a more complete model that takes into account ALL of the industrial processes (including fugitive sources as well as stack emissions), as well as the hydrodynamic effects of large structures such as the silos. In any case, the maximum impact should address ALL emission sources on the property including fugitive emissions and must be based on actual maximum production rates. c. Plume Dispersion Modeling, Part 2. Estimation of the impact of emissions at specific receptor points: Comprehensive emissions modeling also requires an analysis of the expected concentration of pollutants, especially hazardous air pollutants ( HAPs) to be estimated at other points, such as the property fenceline and the location of nearby "sensitive receptors," e.g. residences, schools, churches or other sites where people are likely to be exposed to the pollution. In this case, the same standard AERSCREEN calculation can be used and scaled in a similar fashion using the emission rates for each pollutant. However, instead of noting the maximum value of the dispersion concentration curve, the estimated values at the fenceline and nearby receptors are compared to known limits such as state or National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS) or other limits, below which major health effects are not expected. 3 d. Non-point source dispersion modeling: Scaling of AERSCREEN results is only valid when a single source is modeled . Because MMM will include more than one point source, as well as numerous fugitive sources (haul road traffic, material transfers, aggregate storage piles), the proper assessment of a site such as the MMM Highway 34 project should include dispersion from non-point sources, such as loading/unloading/traffic/ etc. However, because the Stewart Environmental analysis did not include this modeling, it is not considered here. However, as a result, the Stewart analysis is fundamentally incomplete. The Stewart Environmental report and the MMM USR application — major and misleading inconsistencies When the report that was submitted with, and incorporated by reference into the MMM USR application was reviewed, it became apparent that there were substantial inconsistencies between the report and some of the representations made by MMM in the USR application. Based on concerns that resulted from this review, a request was made of MMM (through the consultant firm, Tetra Tech) to provide the entire modeling results from Stewart, including the AERSCREEN model as well as the EF calculated results. Sections of the Stewart report, as well as the requested model data, are included with this document. Problem #1—Understated asphalt plant production. Mr. Hagerman has routinely stated that all of the air contamination modeling that has been done is based on "worst case scenarios, maximum operation ." Most recently, he did this on Tuesday, June 9th, at a Public Meeting. In considering the total emissions from the Highway 34 facility, it's necessary to know the annual production . The USR application states that annual production will be 450,000 tons. This is actually lower than the permitted amount at the Ft. Collins, Taft Hill plant, which is 475,000 tons per year, so we suspect that the USR amount is lower than what will be requested on the permit (not yet submitted) . However, the real problem comes upon inspection of the Stewart calculations. In their calculated total emissions for the asphalt plant, Stewart states that the 450,000 production was used. However, upon checking Stewart's calculations, we find that an annual production rate of only 360,000 tons per year was actually used. Stewart notes that some of the time, part of the production will consist of recycled asphalt product, and a similar calculation is made for a 90 tpy production rate of recycled asphalt. 4 Table 1 summarizes the estimated criteria pollutant emissions from the asphalt plant as estimated using the appropriate emission factor from AP-42 and the plant maximum production rate of 450,000 tons/yr. An emission Air Emissions Assessment Martin Marietta Materials U.S. Highway 34 Facilities Page 5 of 14 STEWART ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS. LLC factor for PM2.5 is not directly listed in AP-42, but AP-42 gives a PM2.5 fraction of 5.5% for the uncontrolled emissions. Table 1 - Estimated Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Asphalt Plant Emissions from Emissions from Emission from Silo Total Emissions Criteria Pollutant Drum Dryer (tpy) Truck Load-out (tpy) Filling (tpy) (tpy) PM 3.89 0 09 ' 11 4.09 PM10 1.17 1.17 PM2.5 0.82 0.82 CO 52.2 0.21 0.21 52.66 NOx 4.68 4.68 5O2 0.61 0.61 VOC 5.76 5.76 Figure 1. Excerpt from Stuart Environmental report, page 5 This is then added to the information from Figure 1, above, for a total potential annual production of 450,000 tpy. However, since the EF's for the use of recycled asphalt are identical to that for virgin asphalt, it is misleading to suggest that this calculation is for the entire 450,000 tpy production, when it's actually only for 360,000 tpy. That is, it does not matter whether the plant is using recycled asphalt or not. The actual calculated output should be based on 450,000 tpy. There is another problem with the Stewart total emission report for the asphalt plant. In the EPA's AP-42 tables, the recommended EF for CO is reported as 0. 13 lbs/ton, meaning that the annual emission rate for CO would be based on that value. The EPA values are based on measured values from multiple operating plants, so they are considered reliable. Furthermore, in the AP-42 document, (Table 11. 1-7, footnote b) the EPA states that: "The CO emi ssi on factors represent normal pl ant operations without scruti ny of the burner design, operation, and maintenance. Information is avai I abl e that indicates that attention to burner design, periodic eval uati on of burner operation, and appropri ate mai ntenance can reduce CO emi ssi ons. Thus, a CO emission rate of 0.13 lbs/ton of production should be considered to be an upper limit for permitted emissions and should only be replaced for strong technical reasons. Nonetheless, Stewart, at the request of MMM, did not use the tabulated EF for CO. Instead, a value of 0.29 lb/ton was used without justification, despite, as shown in Figure 1 above, the claim that the AP-42 values were used . Since the permitted emission amount will be based on this analysis, MMM does not plan to be required to meet the level of operation that the EPA recommends for asphalt plant emissions, which would be less than half of the calculated amount. 5 ( It should be noted that MMM did the same thing when the recently revised emissions permit application was submitted for the Taft Hill Road plant in Ft. Collins, CO. This was noted in the independent assessment report that was requested by the City of Ft. Collins and Larimer County. The author of that report noted that other asphalt plants were getting permitted and meeting the 0. 13 lb/ton level, so it should not have been necessary to use the higher, less efficient value. An excerpt from that analysis is presented in Appendix B, and the entire report is available upon request.) The implications of this approach are several . First, of course, the actual emissions, not only of CO, but of all other criteria pollutants will be higher than those shown in Table 1 of the Stewart report because of the actual production rate of at least 450,000 tons per year, instead of the 360,000 annual rate that Stewart used for the tabulated value. Second, the use of the higher EF for CO directly contradicts the claim that Mr. Sharp and Mr. Hagerman have repeatedly made that the permitted levels will be based on the EPA tabulated values. Instead, MMM is apparently planning to be permitted to release more than twice as much CO as the EPA guideline-65 tons vs. 29 tons per year. While this alone does not present a likely health hazard, it sets the stage for the remainder of the Stewart report which is included in the USR application . Problem #2. Incorrect Concrete Plant Emissions In the case of the concrete plant emissions, the misleading information is even more flagrant than for the asphalt plant. In this case, Stewart reports the "plant wide concrete plant emissions" for an annual production of 325,000 cu . Yds./year, and indicates that it's for a "central mix plant." The USR also reports that the annual production will be 325,000 cu . Yds./year. Stewart also states that truck traffic and wind erosion are not accounted for. Presumably, the inputs and constraints on this section of the report were at the request of MMM . There are several difficulties with this part of the report. First, in the Air Pollution Emission Notice (APEN ) that MMM submitted to the State of Colorado (Appendix Al), the annual production rate that is requested was 400,000 cu yds per year, nearly 20% more than represented by the included emission values. Second, in the APEN submission, MMM emphasizes that the plant will be capable of both "truck mix" and "central mix" production (Appendix A2) . However, the emissions reported by Stewart are the values for "central mix" production only. As shown below in Table 1, the EF values, and therefore the estimated emissions from "truck mix" operation are substantially higher than those for "central mix" operation. Because the plant is capable of truck mix production, the estimation of emissions must be based on the emissions from this type of production in order to accurately represent the emissions and their risk to the neighboring residents. Of course, the dominant emission from the concrete batch plant is due to truck loading. According to the AP-42 document ( page 11. 12-1), "The extent of fugitive emission control varies widely from plant to plant." In the USR application, MMM does not give sufficient detail to evaluate the level of particulate control 6 that will be possible at this facility. Therefore, we have considered both "controlled" and "uncontrolled" emission factors for both the "central mix" and "truck mix" cases. Furthermore, based on the footnotes of AP-42 Table 11. 12-2, the tabulated EF values for the Loading process are not given in the standard "lbs/ton of concrete production", but are instead scaled to the total amount of cement and cement supplement (see pages 11. 12-8,9). This means that to convert to "lbs/ton of production", the loading EF's must be multiplied by 0.14. This was not done in the Stewart report, but is correctly implemented in Table 1. Even with this major downward adjustment to the truck loading fugitive dust, the minimum total emissions still exceed the amounts reported by Stewart ( 15.05 tons/year, vs. 13 .77 tons/year) assuming the best case scenario of 100% control of truck mix loading. However, the comparable worst case scenario, in which the truck mix loading is completely uncontrolled, would result in about 72.5 tons of particulate emissions when the analysis is corrected for the total production rate. Table 3 summarizes the estimated emissions from the ready mix plant as estimated using the appropriate emission factors from AP-42 and the plant maximum production rate of 325,000 cubic yards per year. The emissions were calculated using the AP-42 emission factors for plant wide emissions for central mix concrete. But, permit asks for both, central mix and truck mix Air Emissions Assessment Martin Marietta Materials U.S. Highway 34 Facilities Page 6 of 14 ETEW'ART ENVIRONMENTAL CONSL1_TAr_TS. __- Controlled AP 42 Controlled - AP-42 Source Emission Type Emission Factor (lb/ton) Emissions (tpy) PM PM10 PM PM10 Aggregate transfer fugitive 0.0069 0.0033 2.26 1.08 Sand transfer fugitive 0.0021 0.00099 0.69 0.32 Cement unloading to silo point 0.00099 0.00034 0.32 0.11 Cement supplement unloading to silo point 0.0089 0.0049 2.91 1.60 Weigh hopper loading fugitive 0.0048 0.0028 1.57 0.92 Mixer loading fugitive 0.0184 0.0055 6.02 1.80 Fugitive (tpy) 10.53 4.12 Point (tpy) 3.23 1.71 Total (tpy) 13.76 5.83 The values provided in Table 3 summarize the emissions generated from the ready mix operations; truck traffic is not accounted for. Wind erosion has not been factored in at this time. Figure 2. Excerpt from Stewart Environmental report (page 6) showing the tabulated emissions reported in the USR application. 7 Production Rate: 400,000 Cu. Yds./yr AP-42 EF, Ibs/ton concrete AP-42 Emissions, tons/year Stewart Source Emission type Controlled? PM PM10 PM2.5 PM PM10 PM2.5 PM PM1p Aggregate Transfer Fugitive No 0.C)69 0. 33 0.0003 2.78 33 1. 0.02 2.26 1.08 Sand Transfer Fugitive No 0.0021 0. 10 a n 0.85 0.40 01 0. 0.69 0.32 Cement unloading to silo Point Yes 0.0010 a 3 00000 .4O0 0.1z 0.00 0.32 0.11 Cement supplement unloading to silo Point Yes 0.0039 0Q49 0.0004 3.58 1.97 0.02 2 91 1 6 Weigh hopper loading Fugitive No 0.0048 0. 28 0.000: 31.9 1.13 0.0' 1.57 0.32 Mixer loading, central (1) Fugitive No 0.572 0. 56 0 026 32.22 8.7S 1.45 Mixer loading, central (1) Fugitive Yes 0.118 0. 0.00 1.01- 0.31 0.C5 6 02 18 Mixer loading, Truck (1) Fugitive No 1. 118 a 10 0 050 X2.9 17.4E 2.82 N/A N/A Mixer loading, Truck (1) Fugitive Yes 0.1)98 a 26 0 004- 2 5.5 1.4E 0.25 N/A N/A Cement and Cement supplement Max 72.5 22. 2. To 1 13.177 583 5641bs/cu. Yd. Min 15.0 6.41 0. 1 EF adjustment factor: 0.14 (1) According to AP-42,Table 11.12-2, footnote (f): "The emission factor units are lb of pollutant per ton of cement and cement supplement." Table 1. Comparison of Concrete plant emissions from this work and Stewart The final factor to consider is the movement of heavy trucks around the site, as this will be a large source of fugitive emissions. As shown in Figure 2, Stewart did not account for this in the report. However, in their calculations, they DID assess the impact. Those results are shown in Figure 3 . Stewart estimates the total projected fugitive dust from the heavy truck traffic at this site to be over 400 tons Unpaved roads Annual Emissions Parameter PM2.5 PM10 E.F. extrapolated for natural mitigation (Ib/VMT) 2.91 2.91 Calculated Number of trucks (trucks/year) 116667 116667 On-site mileage (miles/truck) 0.38 0.38 Emissions (lb/yr) 128855 128855 Calculated Emissions (tpy) 64.4 64.4 Calculated Controlled with Suppressants (tpy) 13 13 Paved Roads Annual Emissions - Accounting for Preciipitation Aggrei :ate Ready-MS Asphalt Parameer PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5 PM10 E.F. extrapolated for natural mitigation (Ib/VMT) 0.99 4.20 0.99 4.20 0.99 4.20 Number of trucks(trucks/year) 1166 6.7 41675 23800 On-site mileage(miles/truck) 1.1 0.9 1.1 Emissions(Ib/yr) 7137997 587838 36971 157488 25805 109925 Emissions (tpy) 69.0 293.9 18.5 78.7 12.9 55.0 Totals: PM2.5=113.4 tons per year, PM10=440.6 tons per year Figure 3. Stewart report on Traffic-related fugitive PM10 and PM2.5 (File: MMM-Hwy34-Calcs.pdf) 8 per year of PM10 and PM2 .5. Although Stewart provides no explanation for the omission of fugitive emissions from truck traffic, material transfers, and haul roads in the final assessment of the emissions of this facility, it's clear that this must be considered . Because of the very large amount of particulate emissions, especially PM2.5, which is the most extreme hazard to health, the omission of this calculation from the report that was part of the USR application is puzzling. Even without considering the particulate generation due to the constant handling of nearly 2 million tons of aggregate per year, this facility is projected to potentially emit nearly 600 tons of particulates, including over 100 tons of PM2.5. While some general mitigation of dust will certainly be achieved, in the USR application, no details are given and this issue is not even mentioned . Nor are appropriate metrics suggested that would allow any reasonable assessment of the true risk to the neighboring properties. In sum, the description by Stewart/MMM of the impact of the concrete operation is seriously understated and misleading. This MUST be rectified by a comprehensive analysis of the entire operation by a competent third party in order to truly assess the health impact on the surrounding residents. Problem #3. Incorrect Plume Dispersion Analysis—Maximum Impact Section 3 of the Stewart report is a summary of the AERSCREEN dispersion calculation for the asphalt plant. As explained in Appendix C, a single calculation is performed using appropriate stack output conditions, terrain, meteorology, building configurations, etc. A typical emission rate, based on the hourly capacity is determined using the emission factors from the appropriate AP-42 tables; then the modeling results are scaled to evaluate impacts for individual criteria pollutant species, as well as for the "hazardous air pollutants" ( HAPs), etc. Since the USR application does NOT state that hourly capacity of the asphalt plant, we have attempted to obtain this information directly from the MMM representatives. When asked directly about the hourly asphalt plant capacity in a meeting with members of the CLR-34 Neighborhood Assn . on Tuesday, June 2nd, Mr. Hagerman replied somewhat vaguely, but stated that he "thought" it was 500 tons per hour. Similarly, when I asked this same question on January 27th, at the MMM Open House that announced this project, I was told that it was between 450 and 500 tons per hour. This rate would be comparable to the plant located in Ft. Collins at the Taft Hill site. Because of these vague responses, we believe that the maximum hourly capacity will be 500 tons per hour. However, upon inspection of the calculations performed by Stewart, at the request of MMM, we find that the hourly capacity used was actually only 303 tons per hour. Stewart adds the emissions from an addition 75.82 tons/hour of recycled asphalt (378.82 total tons per hour)but this still falls far short of the actual hourly capacity of as much as 500 tons per hour. While this is an easy correction to apply 9 since it amounts to simply multiplying all of the projected outputs by a factor of (500/378.82)=1.32, this 30% underestimate of the emissions calls the entire AERSCREEN portion of the report into question . Fortunately, in the calculation results that Stewart supplied, the actual output from the AERSCREEN run that was based on the standard rate of 1 g/sec of emission was included . Therefore, we have done a corrected analysis for all elements of the plume dispersion analysis. All plume dispersion analyses are based directly on the AERSCREEN output files supplied by Stewart. [Ultimately, the entire set of AERSCREEN calculations that were done by Stewart must be confirmed . While beyond the scope of this discussion, there are several aspects of that analysis that may be suspect.] A description of this is most clearly presented by first showing a plot of the distance dependence of Stewart's calculated, standard, emission, shown in Figure 4. Standard AERSCREEN model 200 180 160 Source : Stewart Environmental 0140 r 120 a100 - ` ••*,al 0 80 ••••••••••• v 60 _ • ( '• • • • 40 • • • 20 .._. 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Distance from Emission source (Meters) Figure 4. Output from standard (1 g/s rate) AERSCREEN run for MMM asphalt plant conditions. Data from Stewart file: AERSCREEN Output File-Asphalt.pdf (Courtesy Stewart Environmental) From these data, maximum impact can be estimated by properly scaling the emissions using the emission factors for each constituent under consideration . The graph of Stewart's data shows that the maximum concentration is estimated to occur at about 155 meters with a value of 177.4 xg/m3. Using CO as an example, Stewart used an EF of 0.29 (discussed previously) and an hourly production of 303 tons/hour, concluding that the maximum emission of CO is 1966 xg/m3, as shown in Figure 5 from Stewart. Even with the recycled asphalt added, the total is only 2065 xg/m3 , compared to the correctly calculated value of 3244 xg/m3 based on the anticipated production rate of 500 tons per hour. 10 Table 8 - AERSCREEN CO Estimates and NAAQS Values Adjusted AERSCREEN Adjusted AERSCREEN Background Total NAAQS Impact Concentration from Concentration from Concentration Concentration e Asphalt Plant (ugJ�'') Asphalt Recycling (ug/m3) (ug/m') (ug/m3) lug/m ) 1 hour 1,966 !�? 2 941 5,016 40,000 8 hour 1,769 2,3 2,500 4,367 10,000 Corrected 1 hour Emission (adjusted, 0.29 lb/ton, 500 tph): 3244 ag/m3, 6185 ag/m3 with background Figure 5. Maximum impact, CO, corrected for total production, Table 8 from Stewart, page 9. Similar corrections must be applied to all of the of the other criteria pollutants and HAPs to properly assess their impact, however this information was not included in the report, despite the fact that the calculation was, in fact, completed . Although the HAPs and most of the criteria pollutants will remain below most of the threshold values for likely health hazards, as Stewart correctly states, one component of the emissions that is of particular concern, and should therefore be examined closely, is PM2.5, particulates that are 2.5 microns and smaller. The EPA as well as other health related agencies have determined that even modest concentrations of PM2.5 can cause not only chronic health effects, but, if high enough, they can actually initiate cardiac events and strokes. In fact, the EPA lowered the criteria for chronic exposure to 12 xg/m3, and there is evidence that even that value may not be sufficiently conservative for sensitive individuals. Problem #4. Inaccurate assessment of the emissions at the fenceline and nearby properties In the next section of the Stewart report, the calculated concentrations of the criteria pollutants and HAPs are reported for distances from the emission stack that supposedly correspond to the property fenceline and the nearest residence, reported by MMM to be 900 feet and 1350 feet, respectively. Essentially the same scaling procedure is involved —the baseline value of the AERSCREEN calculation is determined at these "sensitive receptor" distances, and then those values are scaled for the particular pollutant of interest. In this case, Stewart used standard AERSCREEN values of 95 .52 and 75. 16 xg/m3, respectively, for the fenceline and the nearest residence, as shown in Figure 6a . In Figure 6b and 6c, Stewart's calculated HAP concentrations at those two locations are presented . Particulate emissions are not included by Stewart. However, referring back to Figure 4, we immediately identify a problem . At 900 feet, which is 274 meters, the ACTUAL AERSCREEN value is approximately 162 ocg/m3, rather than the reported 95.52ag/m3. Similarly, at the 1350 ft. distance, 411 meters, the actual AERSCREEN baseline is about 139 ag/m3. Furthermore, the scaling that is reported in Figure 6b is based on the incorrect production 11 rate of 378.82 tons per hour. When these factors are taken into account, the total increase that properly reflects the expected concentrations is more than double—a factor 2.44. Corrected values for the HAP emissions as well as the criteria pollutants are shown in Table 2. Although Stewart does not estimate the particulate dispersion, the estimated values would be substantially higher, just as they are for the HAP's because of the incorrect production rate, and, especially, the incorrect base rate for the fenceline and sensitive receptor sites, as, shown in Table 2. Location Distance from Site (ft) Max 1-hr (ug/m3) Max Annual (ug/m3) Property Boundary 900 95.52 9.552 Nearest House 1350 75.16 7.516 6a Table 9: Impacts at Facility Property Boundary Acute Impacts Chronic Impacts Calculated Max EPA Safe Calculated Max 1-hr EPA Safe California California e Annual Impact Concentration Pollutant Impact (ug/m ) Concentration OEHHA REL (ug/m') Threshold OEHHA REL (Highway 34 Site) Threshold (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (Highway 34 Site) (ug/m') lug/m ) Benzene 1.78 13X 1300 0.18 7.8 Ethylbenzene 1.10 1.13000 0.11 2.5 .100 Formaldehyde 14.14 55 55 1.41 13 9 Hexane 4.20 0.42 'CU_' Toluene 0.68 37000 37000 0.07 5000 3CC Xylene 0.91 22000 0.09 700 6b Table 10: Impacts at Nearest Residence in Indianhead Estates Acute Impacts Chronic Impacts Calculated Max EPA Safe Calculated Max 1 hr EPA Safe California California 3 Annual Impact Concentration Pollutant Impact (ug/m3) Concentration OEHHA REL 3 OEHHA REL (Highway 34 Site) Threshold (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m ) Threshold (ug/m3) (Highway 34 Site) (ug/m ) Benzene 1.40 1,300 1,300 0.14 7.8 60 Ethylbenzene 0.86 140,000 0.09 2.5 2,000 Formaldehyde 11.13 55 55 1.11 13 9 I Hexane 3.30 0.33 7,000 Toluene 0.54 37,000 37,000 0.05 5000 300 Xylene 0.72 22,000 22,000 0.07 700 6c Figure 6. a) the AERSCREEN values used to estimate nearby impacts; b) HAP concentrations estimated for property boundary; c) HAP concentrations estimated for nearby residence. File: MMM-Hwy34- Calcs.pdf As seen in the table, the actual projected emissions from this plant are substantially higher than stated by Stewart. While most of the HAPs are still projected to be present at low levels, some, such as formaldehyde, may reach levels that could impact sensitive individuals over time. And, the particulate 12 pollution, especially in the form of PM2.5 may pose a major risk, especially when all other sources are considered . 1 hour maximum from AERSCREEEN EPA Fenceline (900 ft) Nearby Residence (1350 ft) MMM USR (Stewart) CA REL 24 hour limit Pollutant Type ocg/m3 °T/m3 Residence, ocg/m3 ocg/m3 ccg/m3 Benzene HAP 3.98 3.42 1.40 i 27 Ethylbenzene HAP 2.45 2.10 0.86 - Formaldehyde HAP 31.67 27.17 11.13 55 Hexane HAP _ 9.40 8.06 3.30 _ Toluene HAP 1.532 1.31 0.54 Xylene HAP 2.04 1.75 0.72 Total PM Criteria 220.85 189.49 Not reported PM10 Criteria 66.30 56.88 Not reported _ 150 PM2.5 Criteria 46.38 39.79 Not reported 35 CO Criteria 2962.35 2541.77 Not reported VOC Criteria - 326.88 280.47 Not reported _ NOx Criteria _ 265.59 227.88 Not reported _ 5O2 Criteria 34.73 29.80 Not reported Table 2. Corrected emissions at receptor sites, compared to MMM USR report Problem #5. Omission of assessment of dispersion from the concrete plant Although the provided information from Stewart indicated that an AERSCREEN analysis was done for the concrete batch plant, this was omitted from the report supplied as part of the USR. Using the AERSCREEN simulation results for the concrete plant, provided by Stewart of the, a plot of the baseline emission (based on 1 g/sec) is presented in Figure 2 . This data is based on a "point source", the emission due to the silo filling operation . Standard AERSCREEN Model-Concrete 1 g/sec emission 800 Courtesy: Stewart 700 a- Environmental 1 600 i —I-- 1 AERSCREEN-Concrete E 500 I 1 I I — — Fenceline I 400 I I — — Residence o • Iur) I - 'g- 300 • I it t • • I I • • ' 200 1. • . . . . • I I ' . ' ' • • • • • . • • 100 I 1 I e 0 I T 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Distance from source, meters 13 Figure 7. Stewart results for AERSCREEN Model of Concrete Batch File: AERSCREEN Output File-ReadyMix.pdf To assess the impact of this emission, a similar approach is taken as before: values from the standard calculation are determined from the data and then scaled to the "sensitive receptor" position using the production rate and EF values. In this case, the baseline value at 1350 (411 meters) feet is 215xg/m3, resulting in a projected concentration of PM2.5 of about —7 xg/m3, assuming a production rate of 300 cu. Yds. per hour as used previously by Stewart. AERSCREEN @ 411 Meters xg/m3 215 APEN Production Rate cu . Yds./hr 300 Production Rate tph 603 .6 Emission Factors (AP-42) PM lbs/ton 0.0089 PM10 lbs/ton 0.0049 PM2.5 lbs/ton 0.0005 Particulates at Residential Receptor PM xg/m3 146 PM10 xg/m3 80 PM2.5 xg/m3 7 Table 3. 1 hour Estimate of Concrete Plant dispersion at residential receptor based on Stewart AERSCREEN model Although a complete AERMOD calculation would also deal the large amounts of fugitive dust from the aggregate stockpiles as well as the non-point sources, we can now make an estimate of the MINIMUM amount of particulate pollution due to the asphalt plant and concrete plant at the residential receptor located at 1350 feet (Table 4) . Despite this very limited analysis, the projected rate of particulate emissions, especially PM2.5, is expected to violate the National Ambient Air Quality Standard at the nearest residence. Residential Receptor— point sources only 1 hr. 24 hr. 24 hr. AQI NAAQS 8 ag/m3 background Asphalt Concrete Total Total Limit PM, xg/m3 260 146 414 248.4 PM10, xg/m3 78 80 166 99.6 73 150 PM2.5, xg/m3 55 7 70 42 117 35 Table 4. AERSCREEN Estimate of Point source particulate emissions at residential receptor. EPA's Air Quality Index (AQI) calculated for particles only. 14 Problem #6. Misleading description of the health impacts of PM2.5 Although the Stewart report was not primarily intended as an assessment of health impacts, they did express the opinion that there would be no hazard associated with the MMM Highway 34 project. Furthermore, at the June 9, 2015 meeting Mr. Stewart (in response to a suggestion that a network of Air Quality Index (AQI ) sensors might be used to monitor and warn the adjacent properties of excessive particulate pollution) asserted that using the EPA's Air Quality Index was subject to competing contributions from other species such as ozone, dismissing the idea that it could, in fact be used to observe changes due to the activities at the MMM site. In addition, no consideration to the health impacts of PM2.5 were mentioned in the Stewart report. ( Despite this, note that MMM states that they monitor their employees for particulate exposure ! ) However, the EPA does not agree with Stewart, and offers a guideline for particulate pollution only. It's more convenient to use the AQI as a guideline to health impacts since it can be calculated only for the small particulates, PM2.5 and PM10, as shown in Figure 8. The EPA Guideline for particulate only AQI is shown in Figure 8. Air Quality Index Who needs to be What Should I Do? Concerned? Good No one. Air quality is good for It's a great day to be active outside! 0-50 everyone. Moderate Some people may be unusually Jnusually sensitive people: Consider reducing prolonged or 51-100 sensitive to particle pollution and Leavy exertion. Watch for symptoms such as coughing or may need to take precautions Jhortness of breath. These are signs to take it a little easier. everyone else: It's a good day to be active outside! Unhealthy for Sensitive groups include people Sensitive groups: Reduce prolonged or heavy exertion. It's sensitive Groups with heart or lung disease, older OK to be active outside but take more breaks and do less 101-150 adults, children and teenagers. intense activities. Watch for symptoms such as coughing or shortness of breath. People with asthma should follow their asthma action plans and keep quick relief medication handy. If you have heart disease: Symptoms such as palpitations, shortness of breath, or unusual fatigue may indicate a serious problem. If you have any of these, contact your health care provider. Unhealthy Everyone can be affected Sensitive groups: Avoid prolonged or heavy exertion. 151-200 Consider moving activities indoors or rescheduling. Everyone else: Reduce prolonged or heavy exertion. Take more breaks during outdoor activities. Very Unhealthy Alert Everyone Sensitive Groups: Avoid all physical activity outdoors. Move 201-250 activites indoors or reschedule to a time when air quality is better. Everyone else: Avoid prolonged or heavy exertion. Figure 8. Air Quality Index with levels of concern and health impacts (Source: www.airnow.gov) 15 As can be seen, the projected levels of fine particulate pollution (AQI=117, Table 4) at the residential receptor should NOT be considered safe. Furthermore, the USEPA has been tightening these standards based on a growing body of evidence that even short term exposure can cause acute health effects. Finally, it must be noted that even this level of impact does not completely describe the potential effects of this site. As stated earlier, the use of the AERSCREEN model is not likely to be adequate for this very complex operation . In addition, neither Stewart nor we have yet considered the impact of the substantial fugitive emissions, not the effects of the truck traffic. And, while some dust may be managed by sprinking the site with water, there can be no assurances that it will be adequate, especially given the willingness of MMM to distort their actual plans. Conclusions In this report, we have reviewed in detail the "Air Emissions Assessment" prepared Stewart Environmental for Martin Marietta Materials and incorporated by reference into the USR15-0027 application. We find that it is severely lacking in content, technique and completeness. Substantial errors in the analysis, as well as severe understatements of the planned production for asphalt, concrete and aggregate handling are found throughout the report, making its value extremely limited, especially for judging the health impacts of this operation . In summary, Stewart has several substantial and misleading errors: 1. Understating the annual production from the Asphalt plant (Table 1) 2. Using incorrect emission factor for CO emission from asphalt plant. 3 . Does not use annual production requested in APEN permit for concrete plant 4. Does not use plant type requested in APEN permit for concrete plant. 5. Suppresses site traffic impacts. 6. Incorrectly states property line and neighborhood emissions impact by a factor of 2 .5 7. Suppresses dispersion calculation from concrete plant. 8. Misrepresents impact of plants on health, especially for PM2.5 Furthermore, because of the breadth of the errors, omissions and misleading approaches that are found in this report, the only possible conclusion is that at least some of this was done intentionally at the behest of Martin Marietta Materials. Given the resources available to that Corporation, it begs the question to assert that it was in any way unintentional . Rather, the systematic nature of the erroneous and misleading approach demonstrated in the Stewart report, and affirmed by MMM, should be taken as evidence that all of the other reports submitted as part of the USR—noise, odor, traffic, wildlife, drainage, real estate impacts, etc.—may be similarly tainted. As such, the preferred approach would be for the County to require that the USR application be withdrawn immediately with prejudice. If this is not possible, then a complete set of new reports that consider the ENTIRE operation, should be commissioned at the Applicant's expense, by consultants that are chosen together by the County and the neighboring property owners. 16 Appendices Al. Excerpt from MMM concrete plant APEN Application showing requested Annual Production A2. Excerpt from MMM concrete plant APEN Application emphasizing that concrete plant is both truck mix and central mix. B. Excerpt from Gephart report concerning the CO emission factor. C. Background for Air Emissions Calculations 17 Appendix Al Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Page 2 of 4 Air Pollution Control Division - CONCRETE BATCHING PLANTS - Dec - Feb Varies Mar - May Varies June - Aug Varies Sept - Nov Varies Section 2 Equipment Information Plant Type: El Central Mix Plant (Wet) ® Truck Mix Plant (Dry) Plant Design Rate (Maximum Capacity per Hour) 300 Cubic Yards per Hour (finished product) Mix Plant: Make Erie Strayer Model MPB-11 C Serial NA Requested Production Rate: 400,000 Cubic Yards Per Year (This Will Be A Permit Limitation) Actual Production Rate: NA - New Permit Cubic Yards Per Year Year For Which The Actual Data Applies: NA - New Permit (e.g. 2001 ) Silo Information (Attach a separate sheet if necessary) Silo Number Make Model Capacity 1 - 6 (6 Total Silos) Erie Strayer MPB-11O 120 Tons Each Transfer Method Information (Method used to transfer cement andlor fly-ash to silos) Cement: ,II Pneumatic Conveyor ❑ Bucket Elevator Fly-ash: 0 Pneumatic Conveyor ❑ Bucket Elevator 18 Appendix A2 U.S. ' Service,,, CER IED MAIL;L, RECEIPT m (Domestic Mall Only; No insurance Coverage Provided) hi Martin F•r • •Ilv•ry int.rmatl.et vl>< t .ur w t www.u: •s.o+m, Marlette OFFICIAL USE er u, Potlogo $ in Ca»1od Fee ti Ps_ wk o Rorie Receve Fee So O (tndonemnm Requited) CI CERTIFIED MAIL: 7012 1010 0002 5591 5713 Reesttde•i Delivery Fee iEndateomentiiepared) CI eal January 26, 2015 a Total Pam E.Foos f1.1s«ow Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment o Street,Act it; »"""""»"'»'»»•'""""» Air Pollution Control Division r- °epos:gift --••"•••»•»•••••••--•• ----- Gb: swat aws APCD-SS-81 03 l- i11111, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South cur '°'° ,u' "" Denver, CO 80246-1530 Re: New Portable APEN for Concrete Ready Mix Plant Mr. Ryder, Enclosed please find a completed Air Pollution Emission Notice (APEN) for a new portable concrete ready mix plant. The expected construction date is July 2015 with the projected start-up date being January 2016 The plant is unique as :t 'r:ill herve the ability to operate as a wet/central mix plant, but will also be able to operate as a dry/truck mix plant. The idea behind this design is to allow for better maintenance and management of projects by type. There still remains one active load out at a time and a dust collector will be used to control emissions. Martin Marietta wants to ensure the plant design is fully understood and the permit is written in a manner in which it allows the plant to operate as it is designed (both wet and dry). Should you have any questions, need to discuss the plant design or need additional information regarding this submittal please do not hesitate to contact me at 303-406-8593 or walter.wright@martinmarietta.com. SENDER• COMPLETE THIS srr'rloN COCA METE THIS SECTtotV ON p�I{/�gy Sincerely, • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete << 'IO sc. n [ • item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. X O Agent 1/ f� /,cc ,,Ir/' your Mime and address on the reverse 0 Agent see ewL '��1. so that we can return the card to you. • 1 ■ Attach this card to the back of the malipiece. B. Resat �y i p�'`e tM C• Date or Dewey Walt Wright _ or on the front W apace permits. �'/j�/(tr A �^r�� or Environmental Engineer 1' Ntda 'dosed to: seri a-- -Qfipt from item 1? ❑ yes LAMS ►eerr dress below: 0 No 19 Appendix B- Excerpt from report commissioned by Ft. Collins and Larimer County regarding MMM 's recent asphalt plant permit in Ft. Collins . At the request of the AQAB and ESAB, ARS conducted a review of other asphalt plant permits to determine if lower CO emissions are in fact technically achievable. ARS conducted a query using the USEPA RACT/BACTILAER Clearinghouse (RBLC) that turned up emissions data for two asphalt plants located in Clark County. Nevada (Las Vegas). These data are summarized in Table 4-1. It should be noted that both asphalt plants listed in the RBLC were subject to "best available control technology" (BACT) as the applicable emissions standard and not RACT. However, the selection of lower CO emissions to meet BACT requirements documents the technical feasibility of improved CO emissions control and as such. mandates that such controls be considered as RACT. Table 4-1 RBLC Query Results: Asphalt Concrete Manufacturing Source ID RBLC ID CO Permit J imit (BACT) Nellis Air Force Base NV-0047 0.13 lb/ton, 16.25 lbhr Aggregate Industries — Sloan Quarry NV-0045 0.10 Iblton, 45.0 lb/hr ARS also located four recent USEPA permits for asphalt plants located on tribal lands in the western United States. These permits are: • Pioneer Asphalt, Inc. — Permit R10NT502400 (Draft) • Granite Construction Company — Permit R10NT502300 (9/19/2012) • Knife River. Inc. — Permit R10NT50,210 (9/19/2012) • Mickelsen Construction. Inc. — Permit R10NT502501 (Draft) For all of the USEPA permits listed above. the CO emissions control was not subject to RACT, BACT. or any other emissions standard. Nevertheless, all permits were issued based on CO emissions at 0.13 lbi ton, which equals the AP-42 emissions value for a natural gas-fired drum mix asphalt plant. However. none of the USEPA permits appear to have required emissions testing for CO, so it is unknown if the 0.13 lbr ton emissions level was actually achieved in practice at any of these facilities. Martin Marietta Materials Air Permit Review— Technical Report Prepared by D. Howard Gebhart Air Resource Specialist. Inc. In summary, for those cases where asphalt plant emissions control data are posted in the RBLC and in other asphalt plant permits issued by USEPA Region X. the CO emissions are significantly lower than the RACT limit established by APCD in the MMM draft permit. The APCD RACT analysis is deficient without a detailed evaluation of CO emission control options that might lead to better emissions control and lower allowable CO emissions under the permit. A review of asphalt plant permits issued elsewhere would suggest that improved CO controls are technically achievable, so control options to achieve improved CO controls should have been evaluated by APCD for application as RACT. There is no evidence in the MMM permit record that such an analysis was conducted. 20 Appendix C Emission Analysis Background Materials In this section, a brief description of the procedures used for the estimation of emission from pollution sources. Because of the range of possibilities, no attempt at being comprehensive will be made. Rather, it may be useful to the reader to understand the particular calculation that was done in this case. To estimate the emissions of the criteria pollutants, it's a simple matter of looking up the proper "emission factors" (EF's) for each pollutant in the EPA publication, AP-42. This document includes tabulated EF values (emission amounts per unit process amount, e.g. pounds per ton ) for numerous industrial processes, including details such as the specific fuel source that is used for the burner in an aggregate dryer, and for different concrete processes such as "central mix" or "truck mix." So, for example, to estimate the CO emission from a natural gas fired drum aggregate dryer that processes 100,000 tons per year, the tabulated emission factor (0. 13 lbs/ton, AP-42 table 11 . 1-7) is multiplied by the annual production to obtain an annual emissions of 0. 13 lbs/ton X 100,000 tons/year=13000 lbs (6.5 tons) of CO per year. A similar procedure is followed for each of the other criteria pollutants. Furthermore, the EPA requires that ALL emissions from ALL processes on a site must be included in the analysis. Thus, for the PM class of emissions, all of the emissions are to be summed to determine compliance with the ambient air quality standards, since particulates are emitted from several of the pieces of equipment, including the asphalt plant and the concrete plant as well as the aggregate handling activities. As simple as this procedure is, it's self evident that the results depend entirely 1) use of an accurate annual production rate, 2) inclusion of all processes on the site under consideration, and 3) use of the correct EF for each piece of equipment or process. Although the dependence of the dispersion processes depends on several more complex physical factors such as terrain, wind direction and speed, and the proximity of other structures near the emitting stack, generally it's found that the concentration of a pollutant will generally decrease with distance from the emission source. By using the EPA's model, AERSCREEN, to mathematically simulate the plume dispersion, these effects can be evaluated in a fairly simple manner, using proper terrain models and meteorological data. A critical limitation of AERSCREEN is the manner in which it handles complex sites, especially relating to the presence of multiple nearby structures. AERSCREEN can only consider a single emission source, and a single structure that would intitiate downwash (which greatly changes the results). A more complete model can be done, using the EPA's AERMOD simulation tool . However, the normal procedure is to run AERSCREEN, running AERMOD only if there are indications of non-compliant emissions, or if the site 21 complexity suggests that using AERSCREEN will not adequately represent the emissions and their dispersion from the complete facility. Finally, because when they are relatively dilute, all of the emitted species behave similarly as they disperse from the plume, a common methodology is to do a single, dispersion calculation, using a "standard" pollutant emission rate of 1 gram/second, for example, and then simply scale those values, using the tabulated emission factors, according to the actual hourly production rate of the process under consideration . This approach is only valid for sites that have all emissions emanating from a single stack; if there are multiple stacks or multiple sources, such scaling of modeled impacts is not possible. An example of what the dependence of concentration on distance from the source might be is shown in Figure 1. Output Plot 3.0 Concentrations in (10'1 ) µg;'rrr3 Max,. Conc.= 26.15 µ.g;'rrr' 2.5 At Dist.= 0.254 km (0.16 miles) 4 2.0 a ■ 1 .5 1 ■ • 1 .0 -a-.-a 1:11 0.0 050 1 ,00 1 ,50 (miles) 2,00 2r50 3,00 0.00 0.50 1 .00 1 .` 0 2.00 (km) 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 E .00 In this example case, which was modeled using flat terrain, and a single meteorological condition, the concentration maximum (maximum impact) at a given receptor height, occurs at about 0. 16 miles from the source of the pollutant and then decreases out to the maximum distance used for this calculation . Since an emission rate of 1 gram/sec was used, it is then necessary to scale the results according for the actual emission rates for the pollutants under consideration . For, example, starting with the EF for CO, 0. 13 lbs per ton of production, we also need to know the production per second of the process. Thus, if the drum dryer considered before had an hourly capacity, Ch, of 100 tons, then the properly scaled emission rate of CO is obtained by converting the units to metric: Scaled emission (g/s) = EF(lbs/ton ) X Ch(tons/hour) X (454 g/lb)/(3600 sec/hr) = 0. 13 X 100*454/3600 = 1.64 g/s of CO emissions, running at the full hourly capacity 22 In our example, the resulting maximum impact of the CO emission would be the product of the scaled rate, 1.64, and the maximum concentration calculated by the model, (in this case, 26.15 xg/m3) or 42.8 xg/m3. Again, it's clear that the proper EF values and production rate are required for accurate estimates. In addition, it's important to assure that the AERSCREEN model properly represents the situation correctly. Especially in the case of significant terrain or multiple sizable structures on the site, it may be important to undertake the slightly more complicated modeling that is possible with the AERMOD platform rather than relying on AERSCREEN . Finally, estimation of pollutant concentration at the location of sensitive receptors follows a similar procedure. Instead of using the maximum concentration, the value that is calculated at the distance of the receptor is used . In the given example, if the fenceline were at 500 meters, and the nearby receptor were located at 1000 meters, then the scaled emission rates would be 17.83 xg/m3 and 11.32 xg/m3, resulting in CO concentrations of ( 1.64* 17.83)=29.24 xg/m3 and (1.64* 11.32)=18.56 xg/m3, respectively. Concentrations of each pollutant of concern would be estimated using the same procedures, each with their own emission rate. 23 Case # USR 15-0027 For Public Record July 22, 2015 RECE"J ED Weld County Commissioners JUL 9 2015 c/o Diana Aungst, AICP, CFM Planner II TV Weld County Department of Planning Services WELD COONEBS 1555 N. 17th Avenue COMMISS Greeley, Colorado 80631 970-353-6100 ext 3524; Fax: 970-304-6498 daungst@weldgov.com Weld County Commissioners: Re: Planning Application USR 15-0027: Martin Marietta Materials Highway 34 Development I am a resident in this community and live on C.R. 56. I am not opposed to development but I am opposed to this intensive of a development. I implore the County Commissioners to deny this application. After attending the Planning Commissioner's meeting last week there are still several concerns. Martin Marietta did not address the residence major traffic concerns for CR 13 and HWY 34. As a de ce I usually make a left hand turn at HWY 34, therefore this is a major concern. Traffic: • County Road 13 is buckling at the Railroad Track that comes from Windsor. There is also damage to the road closer to Highway 34 on CR 13. This road hasn't had the extensive truck traffic that is predicted under the plan — the road has already been repaired twice in the last 2-3 years. With the additional truck traffic, who will be responsible for the repairs to the road ? • Martin Marietta has planned to add a right turn lane and extend the right merge lane further to accommodate the truck traffic. However, it would be beneficial to have a left turn lane, a lane to go straight, and the right turn lane. This would facilitate some of the residences who need to commute to work but would get behind several trucks and may not be able to get through one light. I do believe their statement that it would only take 45 seconds to get through the intersection is faulty in the math. I have sat at this intersection multiple times for over 15 minutes waiting for a cement truck to cross the highway. • Martin Marietta made a comment the Kelim frontage road traffic goes east towards Greeley and that traffic is irrelevant. That is a completely false statement. CDOT had eliminated the cross traffic from Kelim from turning left onto Hwy 34. Their only access for trucks is the frontage road to CR 3 or CR 13. CR 3 does not have any merge lanes and is right next to the railroad tracks crossing Hwy 34. The best viable option is for the trucks to turn left at Hwy 34. It is impractical for a semi truck to exit Kelim at the main entrance, proceed to enter the turn left lane at HWY 34 and CR 13 to make a U-Turn at the intersection and head west. • The light at Hwy 34 should be a three-way light accommodating the traffic on the frontage road. With all the technology available this shouldn't be a problem . If a vehicle isn't at the light, the light for the frontage road would not be triggered. EXHIBIT l AP its - o , Lighting: • Any lighting should be Dark Sky Compliant. This was never confirmed at the meeting. They have reduced their security lights from 35' to 25' . Will this still be Dark Sky Compliant? Noise : • For compatibility, please keep noise at a residential level instead of Industrial level . Martin Marietta wants to move into our neighborhood . The requirements should be more stringent. We aren't moving in next to their facility Odor: • We rr cu ently have very little odor in the community. This plant will create odor at the maximum level. Will there be a compensation pool for those whose health is impacted by this plant for relocation ? My mom is elderly and lives directly south of the plant. My daughter and granddaughter live with her — my daughter has allergies and asthma . Martin Marietta has said that 75% of the time the wind blows from the north . Air-conditioning bothers both of them so that is not an option . We have been residents of this community for 27 years. When we purchased our property, the projected development was apartments along HWY 34, then medium to low density for the rest of the area . • We have had smells from the feed lot when the winds are from the east. The feed lot was here first and the new owners have eliminated most of the smell by not leaving dead calves to rot. Most of our wind is from the North blowing the odor from the proposed plant directly to our house. • From the reports, how can it be determined that odor emissions will never cause a problem to our community? • Some jurisdictions require a 4X dilution at the asphalt plant rather than a 7X dilution . We would like to see the more stringent requirements applied to this facility. Martin Marietta and their employees had stated at the meeting the company will do "what it takes" and not balk. On this statement, they have never addressed this question. It was asked at the meeting that was held at University High School . Trains: • Train and truck vibration can impact the quality of life we enjoy in our community • Increased train traffic will cause delays on all roads — CR 13, 56, 3, 20, 15, Hwy 402 and Larimer County Rd 18. • Noise from trains coupling, unloading, traveling on the spur leading to wheel noise, train engines constantly running will be at a high level our community hasn't had before . Martin Marietta has stated that lubricating the wheels and tracks will remedy this situation . However, will this actually be a daily duty for Martin Marietta ? • How often will trains be unloading? How will seasonal traffic affect this operation and the surrounding businesses? There are too many questions unanswered with this proposal . • We were told the trains will come from the south . Will that still be true ? Community: • Martin Marietta is vague about the definition of Community. We are the community, those properties that are adjacent or in the immediate area where the plant is planned . Our Community is agriculture and residential — Martin Marietta does not benefit our community. Furthermore, placing one property owner's rights above all others is discrimination to existing property owners. • Martin Marietta addressed concerns with Indian Head Estates. They have not addressed other county residences who are unable to be shielded from this plant. This would encompass CR 13 and CR 56 for the first half mile. Their resolution would be for us to plant trees and/or shrubs to lessen the visual impact. This is impractical as trees planted on the south side of the street will create a snow barrier causing the road to blow shut with snow in the winter even more so than it does now. It would also cause an inordinate amount of snow at the driveway making it impassable. The road already drifts severely causing vehicles to get stranded in the ditches. I am very concerned that if this barrier is planted that cars will damage the fence and trees. This will cause an additional burden on the County to keep CR 56 passable during the winter. • The Berm should shield activities from CR 13 and CR 56. Pollution: • I am still concerned about fugitive dust from the cement and asphalt plant contaminating my field. Martin Marietta did not address possible contamination who to contact when it happens and compensation for damages caused by their plant. • Water drainage is to be released off CR 56. How much water will be released during the rains and will the water be clean of contaminant? This was the first time I had heard it would be released on CR 56. What means and ditches will be used? Who will maintain those ditches when they fill with silt? The drainage pipe is near the west railroad track and backs up with silt. When the drainage pipe backs up it floods over the road and into my field . Martin Marietta should be responsible to keep the drainage pipe clear of debris and silt. If the water is using this drainage pipe, who will maintain the ditch that will go under the railroad track? This needs to be addressed in more depth. Currently very little water has been flowing down the bar ditch. • Have ALL pollution sources been thoroughly studied? From reading the report the air quality report did not appear to do so. Facilities: • Martin Marietta addresses the industrial facility to the west. This facility does not emit odors, continuous noise level, contaminants, etc. To me this comparison is apples to oranges. Yes, light industrial is in our neighborhood to the west. Martin Marietta's facility is an intense operation . There is already an additional site that will be requesting a re-zoning just north of Martin Marietta's to be re-zoned to Industrial 2 from Agriculture if this USR is approved. There have been comparisons to the loading facility to the west. This facility is nowhere near the noise level and impact to our quality of life that this proposed plant will have. I live in the country to enjoy the quiet solitude and sounds of nature. I don't feel that I should be forced to stay indoors to avoid the noise, odor, dust and lights that will plague us with this development. We urge the commissioners to seriously consider these issues. With the development of Centerra, this operation is not conducive to the area's plan. The respective municipalities and Larimer County are opposed to this development. I don't want to see a hodge podge of development similar to Hwy 85 at this gateway to Weld County. Therefore, I sincerely request the County Commissioners to DENY this application. Sincerely, Janet Ross 6248 CR 56 Loveland, CO 80534 James Warner 6239 Weld County Road 36 Platteville, CO 80651 �ECE( VED 8/7/15 Weld County Commissioners AUG 1 0 2015 c/o Diana Aungst ( USR15-0027 ) WELD Weld County Planning COMMA SOUNT 1555 N . 17th Avenue IONERS Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Weld County Commissioners: As a resident of Weld County, I am writing to express my full support for the approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project ( USR15-0027) . I understand that some in our community have voiced concerns over the project. I, however, am one of thousands of citizens who will benefit from this project through our community's ability to repave my streets, build new retail centers and increase economic growth through housing and business development. The project site is located between two active railroads and very close to major highways, which makes it well suited for this type of project. Our community will benefit from the project as the cost to construct vital infrastructure required to support the continued economic growth may be completed at a reasonable cost as compared to importing materials. Additionally, the project will allow needed natural resources to be imported by train to the site, providing a local source and reducing the amount of trucks bringing this material from ever increasing distances. I urge you to approve Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project and look forward to your response ! Sincerely, James Warner EXHIBIT Ac 1 co g- 2 Ryan Warner 2451 South Timberline Rd Fort Collins, CO 80525 8/7/15 RECEIVED Weld County Commissioners AUG 1 0 2015 c/o Diana Aungst (USR15-0027) WELD COUNTY Weld County Planning COMMISSIONERS 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Weld County Commissioners: I am writing to express my full support for the approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project ( USR15-0027). I understand that some in the community have voiced concerns over the project. I, however, am one who will benefit from this project through our regions's ability to repave my streets, build new retail centers and increase economic growth through housing and business development. The project site is located between two active railroads and very close to major highways, which makes it well suited for this type of project. Our region will benefit from the project as the cost to construct vital infrastructure required to support the continued economic growth may be completed at a reasonable cost as compared to importing materials. Additionally, the project will allow needed natural resources to be imported by train to the site, providing a local source and reducing the amount of trucks bringing this material from ever increasing distances. I urge you to approve Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project and look forward to your response ! Sincerely, Ryan Warner EXHIBIT Ltsg_ -IOD--7 I A --\-- Mark Mowbray 1107 Patricia Dr Loveland, CO. 80537 7/30/2015 � Weld County Commissioners facell °. c/o Diana Aungst (USR15-0027) ��, Weld County Planning uG 4 t' 'J 1555 N. 17th Avenue tilAvN'(Y Greeley, CO 80631 *l�LQ kS S CDONoRS C OMM Dear Weld County Commissioners: I am writing to express my full support for the approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project ( USR15-0027). I understand that some in the community have voiced concerns over the project. I, however, am one who will benefit from this project through our regions's ability to repave my streets, build new retail centers and increase economic growth through housing and business development. The project site is located between two active railroads and very close to major highways, which makes it well suited for this type of project. Our region will benefit from the project as the cost to construct vital infrastructure required to support the continued economic growth may be completed at a reasonable cost as compared to importing materials. Additionally, the project will allow needed natural resources to be imported by train to the site, providing a local source and reducing the amount of trucks bringing this material from ever increasing distances. I urge you to approve Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project and look forward to your response ! Sincerely, Mark Mowbray EXHIBIT A- 1 1/1ir6LkS• 'Ca 2 RECEIVED AUG 102015 WELD COUNTY COM Den n is R, l s MISSI0NERS 32m JeCratiespelD ti-ovela In or Weld County Com�sionnee'� 1' s c/o Diana Aungst (USR15-0027) Weld County Planning 1555 N. 17`" Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Weld County Commissioners: As a resident of Weld County, I am writing to express my full support for the approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project (USR15-0027). I understand that some in our community have voiced concerns over the project. I, however, am one of thousands of citizens who will benefit from this project through our community's ability to repave my streets, build new retail centers and increase economic growth through housing and business development. The project site is located between two active railroads and very close to major highways, which makes it well suited for this type of project. Our community will benefit from the project as the cost to construct vital infrastructure required to support the continued economic growth may be completed at a reasonable cost as compared to importing materials. Additionally, the project will allow needed natural resources to be imported by train to the site, providing a local source and reducing the amount of trucks bringing this material from ever increasing distances. I urge you to approve Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project and look forward to your response! Sincerely, anntoo tegi+3 EXHIBIT ttc tL S-Wa-1 -5-ece ro0Sf [Your Name] 1 1 `/ L✓, C� /c � s (o [Street Address] RECEIVED [City, ST ZIP Code] Poi- f e Co to S 3 f [Date] AUG 1 0 2015 WELD COUNTY Weld County Commissioners COMMISSIONERS c/o Diana Aungst (USR15-0027) Weld County Planning 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Weld County Commissioners: I am writing to express my full support for the approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project (USR15- 0027) . I understand that some in the community have voiced concerns over the project. I, however, am one who will benefit from this project through our regions's ability to repave my streets, build new retail centers and increase economic growth through housing and business development. The project site is located between two active railroads and very close to major highways, which makes it well suited for this type of project. Our region will benefit from the project as the cost to construct vital infrastructure required to support the continued economic growth may be completed at a reasonable cost as compared to importing materials. Additionally, the project will allow needed natural resources to be imported by train to the site, providing a local source and reducing the amount of trucks bringing this material from ever increasing distances. I urge you to approve Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project and look forward to your response ! Sincerely, [Your Name] EXHIBIT 1 K -al[Your Name] v IPn c S C I Gr [Street Address) 'O Lt Qu( ( - U teal D C O r e cad 'try') [City, ST ZIP Code] Op ccc [Date) 7/ I 7/ t,4O RECEIVED Weld County Commissioners c/o Diana Aungst (USR15-0027) AUG 1 0 2015 Weld County Planning WELD COUNTY 1555 N. 17`h Avenue COMMISSIONERS Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Weld County Commissioners: I am writing to express my full support for the approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project (USR15- OO27). 1 understand that some in the community have voiced concerns over the project. I, however, am one who will benefit from this project through our regions's ability to repave my streets, build new retail centers and increase economic growth through housing and business development. The project site is located between two active railroads and very close to major highways, which makes it well suited for this type of project. Our region will benefit from the project as the cost to construct vital infrastructure required to support the continued economic growth may be completed at a reasonable cost as compared to importing materials. Additionally, the project will allow needed natural resources to be imported by train to the site, providing a local source and reducing the amount of trucks bringing this material from ever increasing distances. I urge you to approve Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project and look forward to your response ! Sincerely, [Your Name] EXHIBIT Lesa u - i5 - ••ri REceive0a 4 WI n[Your Name) 1 5;4bn� [Street Address] 3 / 3 3 Ai c 02 3 AUG 1 o 2075 [City, ST ZIP Code] Le la,+ i, 5'3 C CJ 8 0 v` (Date) S WELD (;QV 7_ / 7- �,5 MIS NT`Y Weld County Commissioners c/o Diana Aungst (USR15-0027) Weld County Planning 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Weld County Commissioners: I am writing to express my full support for the approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project (USR15- OO27). I understand that some in the community have voiced concerns over the project. I, however, am one who will benefit from this project through our regions's ability to repave my streets, build new retail centers and increase economic growth through housing and business development. The project site is located between two active railroads and very close to major highways, which makes it well suited for this type of project. Our region will benefit from the project as the cost to construct vital infrastructure required to support the continued economic growth may be completed at a reasonable cost as compared to importing materials. Additionally, the project will allow needed natural resources to be imported by train to the site, providing a local source and reducing the amount of trucks bringing this material from ever increasing distances. I urge you to approve Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project and look forward to your response! Sincerely, [ o ame] EXHIBIT ni [Your Name) - �- [Street Address) aci [City, ST ZIP Code] 1 � 2 "nha•(.0 RECEIVED [Date) ZsinNats -N-ts �O ,7 1 So,O3 AUG 1 0 2015 7/ )5 Weld County Commissioners WELD COUNTY c/o Diana Aungst (USR1S-0027) COMMISSIONERS Weld County Planning 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Weld County Commissioners: I am writing to express my full support for the approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project (USR1S- 0027). I understand that some in the community have voiced concerns over the project. I, however, am one who will benefit from this project through our regions's ability to repave my streets, build new retail centers and increase economic growth through housing and business development. The project site is located between two active railroads and very close to major highways, which makes it well suited for this type of project. Our region will benefit from the project as the cost to construct vital infrastructure required to support the continued economic growth may be completed at a reasonable cost as compared to importing materials. Additionally, the project will allow needed natural resources to be imported by train to the site, providing a local source and reducing the amount of trucks bringing this material from ever increasing distances. I urge you to approve Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project and look forward to your response! Sincerely, [Your Na EXHIBIT ltd [ S - CO jYour Namej rel-4 /' Ra 44f) (/7j) e [Street Address) a3 / re, fra m� �� RECEIVED [Date] ""c—O ( RAZ C.() • &OS— /! AUG 1 0 2015 Weld County Commissioners WELD COUNTY c/o Diana Aungst ( USR15-OO27) COMMISSIONERS Weld County Planning 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Weld County Commissioners : I am writing to express my full support for the approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project ( USR15- OO27) . I understand that some in the community have voiced concerns over the project . I, however, am one who will benefit from this project through our regions's ability to repave my streets, build new retail centers and increase economic growth through housing and business development. The project site is located between two active railroads and very close to major highways, which makes it well suited for this type of project. Our region will benefit from the project as the cost to construct vital infrastructure required to support the continued economic growth may be completed at a reasonable cost as compared to importing materials. Additionally, the project will allow needed natural resources to be imported by train to the site, providing a local source and reducing the amount of trucks bringing this material from ever increasing distances . I urge you to approve Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project and look forward to your response ! Sincerely, r Name] • EXHIBIT AO ..� _ 9 . [Your Name] baovy, b CiC. [Street Address] c2cR '4 Opk-pcche [City, ST ZIP Code] ruck �'�y [Date] 7 — `. FI p.r -L S i C_.6 C I RECEIVED Weld County Commissioners c/o Diana Aungst ( USR15-0027 ) AUG 1 0 2015 Weld County Planning 1555 N . 17`" Avenue WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Weld County Commissioners: I am writing to express my full support for the approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project (USR15- 0027) . I understand that some in the community have voiced concerns over the project. I, however, am one who will benefit from this project through our regions's ability to repave my streets, build new retail centers and increase economic growth through housing and business development. The project site is located between two active railroads and very close to major highways, which makes it well suited for this type of project. Our region will benefit from the project as the cost to construct vital infrastructure required to support the continued economic growth may be completed at a reasonable cost as compared to importing materials. Additionally, the project will allow needed natural resources to be imported by train to the site, providing a local source and reducing the amount of trucks bringing this material from ever increasing distances. I urge you to approve Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project and look forward to your response ' Sincerely, vjetidif 04\\Agiceirl [Your Name) EXHIBIT I -. See. IS— 007 [Your Name) j3S „de_ [Street Address] / Zcl 14v G Ze, 3 [Date] T ZIP Code] c1 ' / I +.r 5 Cos Z y T g��— �" � � - /S" Weld County Commissioners RECEIVED c/o Diana Aungst (USR15-0027) Weld County Planning AUG 1 0 2015 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Dear Weld County Commissioners: I am writing to express my full support for the approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project (USR1S- 0027). I understand that some in the community have voiced concerns over the project. I, however, am one who will benefit from this project through our regions's ability to repave my streets, build new retail centers and increase economic growth through housing and business development. The project site is located between two active railroads and very close to major highways, which makes it well suited for this type of project. Our region will benefit from the project as the cost to construct vital infrastructure required to support the continued economic growth may be completed at a reasonable cost as compared to importing materials. Additionally, the project will allow needed natural resources to be imported by train to the site, providing a local source and reducing the amount of trucks bringing this material from ever increasing distances. I urge you to approve Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project and look forward to your response! Sincerely, -- Ce [Your Name) EXHIBIT A ICJ s - DOzr1 (Your Name) 7.--6.40( b (Street Address]'3q7 46 Or (City, ST ZIP Code) For Cc ll ) .n5 , CC O .GP-c ( Date] 7/I 742.0 Weld County Commissioners RECEIVED c/o Diana Aungst ( USR15-0027) Weld County Planning AUG 1 0 2015 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 WELD COMMISSIONERS TY Dear Weld County Commissioners : I am writing to express my full support for the approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project (USR15- 0027) I understand that some in the community have voiced concerns over the project . I, however, am one who will benefit from this project through our regions's ability to repave my streets, build new retail centers and increase economic growth through housing and business development . The project site is located between two active railroads and very close to major highways, which makes it well suited for this type of project. Our region will benefit from the project as the cost to construct vital infrastructure required to support the continued economic growth may be completed at a reasonable cost as compared to importing materials. Additionally, the project will allow needed natural resources to be imported by train to the site, providing a local source and reducing the amount of trucks bringing this material from ever increasing distances. I urge you to approve Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project and look forward to your response ! Sincerely, (Your Name] EXHIBIT I I5 —O39- [Your Name] . DN(,o6 c\ OAH\5 [Street Address] ( 1_\ 1,_ 19-.$1.‘ (-tree__ c . � Zit-6� AC [City, ST ZIP Code] Feet Con; Ins CO Q,o52to [Date] `7_ -� ., 2b15 RECEIVED Weld County Commissioners c/o Diana Aungst ( USR15-0027) AUG 1 0 2015 Weld County Planning 1555 N. 17th Avenue WELD COUNTY Greeley, CO 80631 COMMISSIONERS Dear Weld County Commissioners: I am writing to express my full support for the approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project ( USR15- 0027) . I understand that some in the community have voiced concerns over the project. I, however, am one who will benefit from this project through our regions's ability to repave my streets, build new retail centers and increase economic growth through housing and business development. The project site is located between two active railroads and very close to major highways, which makes it well suited for this type of project. Our region will benefit from the project as the cost to construct vital infrastructure required to support the continued economic growth may be completed at a reasonable cost as compared to importing materials. Additionally, the project will allow needed natural resources to be imported by train to the site, providing a local source and reducing the amount of trucks bringing this material from ever increasing distances. I urge you to a prove Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project and look forward to your response , Sincerely, [Your Namej —I—J;(1k Pea'An EXHIBIT 1 �\ (Your Name] rc_ Her (--CCE1 [Street Address] 9 3c forr(/ (3AP -c f" I (City, ST ZIP Code} (_c fre (��cl Co,[Date] 1 . 7 _ '� RECEIVED Weld County Commissioners AUG 1 0 2015 c/o Diana Aungst (USR1S-0027 ) Weld County Planning WELD COUNTY 1555 N . 17th Avenue COMMISSIONERS Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Weld County Commissioners: I am writing to express my full support for the approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project (USR15 - 0027). I understand that some in the community have voiced concerns over the project . I, however, am one who will benefit from this project through our regions's ability to repave my streets, build new retail centers and increase economic growth through housing and business development . The project site is located between two active railroads and very close to major highways, which makes it well suited for this type of project. Our region will benefit from the project as the cost to construct vital infrastructure required to support the continued economic growth may be completed at a reasonable cost as compared to importing materials. I Additionally, the project will allow needed natural resources to be imported by train to the site, providing a local source and reducing the amount of trucks bringing this material from ever increasing distances . I urge you to approve Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project and look forward to your response ! Sincerely, acer vvitit (Your Name! JG\ M6S s{ e flat (2 EXHIBIT t 8 L, —0051 [Your Name) P � A R D l � lA 0 � [Street Address] 11[City, ST ZIP Code] L t V £ L- Jb A) 0 [Date] ^ / i `1 RECEIVED Weld County Commissioners c/o Diana Aungst ( USR15-OO27 ) AUG 1 0 2015 Weld County Planning 1555 N. 17th Avenue WELD COUNTY Greeley, CO 80631 COMMISSIONERS Dear Weld County Commissioners: I am writing to express my full support for the approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project (USR1S- 0027). I understand that some in the community have voiced concerns over the project. I, however, am one who will benefit from this project through our regions's ability to repave my streets, build new retail centers and increase economic growth through housing and business development. The project site is located between two active railroads and very close to major highways, which makes it well suited for this type of project. Our region will benefit from the project as the cost to construct vital infrastructure required to support the continued economic growth may be completed at a reasonable cost as compared to importing materials. Additionally, the project will allow needed natural resources to be imported by train to the site, providing a local source and reducing the amount of trucks bringing this material from ever increasing distances I urge you to approve Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project and look forward to your response ! Sincerely, [Your Name) EXHIBIT 1 IA. r/a-1 [Your NameJ �p� ' . o w t I L^ do L.� [Street Address] .2 5 / F A zSS A 4, I , ( 1 C [City, ST ZIP Code] Lacy ( V l ( . Co &, o ‘o / [Date] an _ 2 REcEtvED Weld County Commissioners AUG 1 0 2015 c/o Diana Aungst (USR15-0027) Weld County Planning WELD COUNTY 1555 N. 17th Avenue COMMISSIONERS Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Weld County Commissioners: As a resident of Weld County, I am writing to express my full support for the approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project ( USR1S-OO27). I understand that some in our community have voiced concerns over the project. I, however, am one of thousands of citizens who will benefit from this project through our community's ability to repave my streets, build new retail centers and increase economic growth through housing and business development. The project site is located between two active railroads and very close to major highways, which makes it well suited for this type of project. Our community will benefit from the project as the cost to construct vital infrastructure required to support the continued economic growth may be completed at a reasonable cost as compared to importing materials. Additionally, the project will allow needed natural resources to be imported by train to the site, providing a local source and reducing the amount of trucks bringing this material from ever increasing distances. I urge you to approve Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project and look forward to your response ' Sincerely, [Your Name] 7a9'C Lis /1.•c.- ft-, EXHIBIT Int Z1.*- [Your Name] IL ° b Q 2 r M , �Y\ CL 1L [Street Address] (p I t • hd c-�- (City, ST ZIP Code) al; L `, Co 110 �O I (Date] ) 10 ] c RECEIVED Weld County Commissioners AUG 1 0 2015 c/o Diana Aungst (USR15-0027) WELD COUNTY Weld County Planning COMMISSIONERS 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Weld County Commissioners : As a resident of Weld County, I am writing to express my full support for the approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project (USR15-0027). I understand that some in our community have voiced concerns over the project. I , however, am one of thousands of citizens who will benefit from this project through our community's ability to repave my streets, build new retail centers and increase economic growth through housing and business development. The project site is iacated between two active railroads and very close to major highways, which makes it well suited for tnis type of project. Our community will benefit from the project as the cost to construct vital infrastructure required to support the continued 7•ronomic growth may be completed at a reasonable cost as compared to importing materials. Additionally, the project will allow needed natural resources to be imported by train to the site, providing a local source and reducing the amount of trucks bringing this material from ever increasing distances. I urge you to approve Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project and look forward to your response ! Sincerely, I (Your Name] \--Acc/44 EXHIBIT A 1A u.�� ov2 [Your Name] Tr<< Ly M ` Ginn ` S [Street Address] C61 ►-C h1 ra DV [City, ST ZIP Code] w„,4$or (O 81)5SD (Date] cht k1/4/ 1o , ZOIC RECEIVED AUG 1 0 2015 Weld County Commissioners c/o Diana Aungst ( USR15-OO27 ) WELD COUNTY Weld County Planning HERS 1555 N . 17' Avenue COMM ISSIO Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Weld County Commissioners: As a resident of Weld County, I am writing to express my full support for the approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project (USR15-OO27). I understand that some in our community have voiced concerns over the project. I, however, am one of thousands of citizens who will benefit from this project through our community's ability to repave my streets, build new retail centers and increase economic growth through housing and business development. The project site is located between two active railroads and very close to major highways, which makes it well suited for this type of project. Our community will benefit from the project as the cost to construct vital infrastructure required to support the continued economic growth may be completed at a reasonable cost as compared to importing materials. Additionally, the project will allow needed natural resources to be imported by train to the site, providing a local source and reducing the amount of trucks bringing this material from ever increasing distances. I urge you to approve Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project and look forward to your response ! Sincerely, *c#Ev'p. L ctifr“.4,/see, (Your Name] is Cl OA46inn IS EXHIBIT X SeIS- 410?-1 [Your Name] [Street Address] (City, ST ZIP Code] [Date] RECELVED • Weld County Commissioners AUG 1 0 2015 c/o Diana Aungst ( USR15-0027) Weld County Planning WELD C0U RS 1555 N. 17th Avenue COMMISSIONS Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Weld County Commissioners: As a resident of Weld County, I am writing to express my full support for the approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project ( USR1S-0027) . I understand that some in our community have voiced concerns over the project. I, however, am one of thousands of citizens who will benefit from this project through our community's ability to repave my streets, build new retail centers and increase economic growth through housing and business development. The project site is located between two active railroads and very close to major highways, which makes it well suited for this type of project. Our community will benefit from the project as the cost to construct vital infrastructure required to support the continued economic growth may be completed at a reasonable cost as compared to importing materials. Additionally, the project will allow needed natural resources to be imported by train to the site, providing a local source and reducing the amount of trucks bringing this material from ever increasing distances. I urge you to approve Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project and look forward to your response ! Sincerely, PAyr [Your Name] ft- ft EXHIBIT U 5- Co? (Your Name] Pc1/4frQ F Frec min V\ [Street Address] a (0 i a a n a S -f- [City, ST ZIP Code] • [Date] , ( QOGtC RECEIVED Weld County Commissioners AUG 1 0 2015 c/o Diana Aungst (USR15-0027) Weld County Planning WELD COON RS 1555 N. 17th Avenue COMMISSIONS Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Weld County Commissioners- As a resident of Weld County, I am writing to express my full support for the approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project (USR15-0027). I understand that some in our community have voiced concerns over the project. I, however, am one of thousands of citizens who will benefit from this project through our community's ability to repave my streets, build new retail centers and increase economic growth through housing and business development. The project site is located between two active railroads and very close to major highways, which makes it well suited for this type of project Our community will benefit from the project as the cost to construct vital infrastructure required to support the continued economic growth may be completed at a reasonable cost as compared to importing materials. Additionally, the project will allow needed natural resources to be imported by train to the site, providing a local source and reducing the amount of trucks bringing this material from ever increasing distances. I urge you to approve Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project and look forward to your response ! Sincerely, pcdtis1/4p1/4ibes [Your Name] EXHIBIT A (Your Name] l`'1/4Z- ‘kAta\g ( z.,°--cS‘\& ai-C- -[Street Address] '�Tt_ ` ` z.-,r S'- c `aT' ` mS (City, ST ZIP Code] Catc� C �[Date] � c o zci6el `k • ZeL int\ RECEtVED Weld County Commissioners c/o Diana Aungst ( USR1S-0027) AUG 0 2015 Weld County Planning 1555 N. 17`h Avenue WELD COON Rs Greeley, CO 80631 COMMISSION Dear Weld County Commissioners: As a resident of Weld County, I am writing to express my full support for the approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project (USR15-0027). I understand that some in our community have voiced concerns over the project. I, however, am one of thousands of citizens who will benefit from this project through our community's ability to repave my streets, build new retail centers and increase economic growth through housing and business development. The project site is located between two active railroads and very close to major highways, which makes it well suited for this type of project. Our community will benefit from the project as the cost to construct vital infrastructure required to support the continued economic growth may be completed at a reasonable cost as compared to importing materials. Additionally, the project will allow needed natural resources to be imported by train to the site, providing a local source and reducing the amount of trucks bringing this material from ever increasing distances. I urge you to approve Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project and look forward to your response ! Sincerely, ks-k.Cint&SL [Your Name] • EXHIBIT sK 4r 0 . Uc*u ' Q-rOo4'a - [YourName ] [Street Address) 09 £V I Sts � Q . (City, ST ZIP Code) G-Ct , CO , @D1/234 [Date] t' t3 - `S RECEIVED Weld County Commissioners AUG 0 205 c/o Diana Aungst ( USR 15-0027) WELD COUNTY Weld County Planning COMMISSIONERS 1555 N . 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Weld County Commissioners : As a resident of Weld County, I am writing to express my full support for the approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project (USR15 -OO27) I understand that some in our community have voiced concerns over the project . I, however, am one of thousands of citizens who will benefit from this project through our community's ability to repave my streets, build new retail centers and increase economic growth through housing and business development. The project site is located between two active railroads and very close to major highways, which makes it well suited for this type of project. Our ::ommunity wi!I benefit from the project as the cost to construct vital infrastructure required to support the continued economic growth may be completed at a reasonable cost as compared to importing materials. Additionally, the project will allow needed natural resources to be imported by train to the site, providing a local source and reducing the amount of trucks bringing this material from ever increasing distances. I urge you to approve Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project and look forward to your response ! Sincerely, 4,142-kk, [Your Name ] EXHIBIT I —' (Your Name) I t GA ``r . 1 (Street Address] c2Z 9 At- t 47t&t 5 r [City, ST ZIP Code] A(7,24 tet l od I"cOLFL [Date) oaps, f �1 RECEIVED Weld County Commissioners AUG 1 0 2015 c/o Diana Aungst ( USR15-0027) Weld County Planning WELD COUNTY 1555 N 17`" Avenue COMMISSIONERS Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Weld County Commissioners: As a resident of Weld County, I am writing to express my full support for the approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project (USR1S-0027). I understand that some in our community have voiced concerns over the project. I, however, am one of thousands of citizens who will benefit from this project through our community's ability to repave my streets, build new retail centers and increase economic growth through housing and business development The project site is located between two active railroads and very close to major highways, which makes it well suited for this type of project Our community will benefit from the project as the cost to construct vital infrastructure required to support the continued economic growth may be completed at a reasonable cost as compared to importing materials Additiona:ly, the project will allow needed natural resources to be imported by train to the site, providing a local source and reducing the amount of trucks bringing this material from ever increasing distances I urge you to approve Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project and look forward to your response ! Sin erely, [Your Name] N ! L ` l (/�/� /-- k.--/ � � EXHIBIT 1:3C- U-` Ae - OO- (Your Name] Rc� -k C • (Street Address]Address] a-OO g\i • Std 4-.4 (City, ST ZIP Code! G.eQ�.C� C , 8O(Q CI (Date) - '-� '� � `� - ` � RECEIVED Weld County Commissioners AUG 1 0 2015 c/o Diana Aungst ( USR15-0027 ) Weld County Planting WELD COUNTY 1555 N. 17'h Avenue COMMISSIONERS Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Weld County Commissioners : As a resident of Weld County, I am writ rg to express my full support for the approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project (rUSR1S-0027 ). ' understand that some in our community have voiced concerns over the project. i, however , am one of thousands of citizens who will benefit from th ! s project through our community's ability to repave my streets, build new retail centers and increase economic growth through housing and business development The project site is located between two active railroads and very close to major highways, which makes it well suited for this type of project. Our community will benefit from the project as the cost to construct vital infrastructure required to support the continued economic growth may be completed at a reasonable cost as compared to importing materials. Additionally, the project will allow needed natural resources to be imported by train to the site, providing a local source and reducing the amount of trucks bringing this material from ever increasing distances . I urge you to approve Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project and look forward to your response ' Sincerely, [Your Nama ' EXHIBIT 1111) . � , - c 1 . (Your Name) �`W n t- k� [Street Address] S 2 2- LT `N t Vat (City, ST ZIP Code) . Gisce-e cf CO 801 (Date) `I- rt - 5" RECEIVED Weld County Commissioners c/o Diana Aungst (USR15-0027) AUG 1 0 2015 Weld County Planning COUNTY 1555 N 17th Avenue WELDSS COMMISSIONERS Greeley, CO 80631 COMM Dear Weld County Commissioners: As a resident of Weld County, I am writing to express my full support for the approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project (USR15-0027). I understand that some in our community have voiced concerns over the project. I, however, am one of thousands of citizens who will benefit from this project through our community's ability to repave my streets, build new retail centers and increase economic growth through housing and business development. The project site is located between two active railroads and very close to major highways, which makes it well suited for this type of project Our community will benefit from the project as the cost to construct vital infrastructure required to support the continued economic growth may be completed at a reasonable cost as compared to importing materials. Additionally, the project will allow needed natural resources to be imported by train to the site, providing a local source and reducing the amount of trucks bringing this material from ever increasing distances I urge you to approve Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project and look forward to your response ! Sincerely, jkt&'t/lj t/b >„. [Your Name] EXHIBIT .444 e JUG- 17-2015 10: 40 FROM: MARTIN & SONS EXCAUA 9706350413 TO: 4073902 P. 1 [Your Name) _be fees F .4-f- 7t1 [Street Address] 1(74 p a_fe Id Co . -a [City, ST ZIP Codej er ii3O N 0, ea Pos/-3 [Date) Ple_ � � �`� RECEIVED Weld County Commissioners AUG 1 0 2015 c/o Diana Aungst (USR1S-0027) Weld County Planning WELD COUNTY 1555 N. 17t" Avenue COMMISSIONER i Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Weld County Commissioners. As a resident of Weld County, I am writing to express my full support for the approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project (USR15-0027). I understand that some in our community have voiced concerns over the project. I, however, am one of thousands of citizens who will benefit from this project through our community's ability to repave my streets, build new retail centers and increase economic growth through housing and business development. The project site is located between two active railroads and very close to major highways, which makes it well suited for this type of project. Our community will benefit from the project as the cost to construct vital infrastructure required to support the continued economic growth may be completed at a reasonable cost as compared to importing materials Additionally, the project will allow needed natural resources to be imported by train to the site, providing a local source and reducing the amount of trucks bringing this material from ever increasing distances I urge you to approve Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project and look forward to your response! Sincerely, /* >71a4C- (Your Name) EXHIBIT Otis -50?-1 JUL- 17-2015 10 : 40 FROM: MARTIN & SONS EXCAVA 9706350413 70 : 4073902 P . 2 [Your Name) Sri 41-4) D. � h �� [Street Address) fen Ale-- 3 [City, ST ZIP Code] [Date) (.� P•r- 0 u 4), (" a . � S V_ i7- /. RECEIVED Weld County Commissioners AUG 1 0 2015 c/o Diana Aungst (USR15-0027) Weld County Planning WELD COUNTY 1555 N. 17'h Avenue COMMISSIONERS Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Weld County Commissioners: As a resident of Weld County, I am writing to express my full support for the approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project (USR15-0027). I understand that some in our community have voiced concerns over the project. I, however, am one of thousands of citizens who will benefit from this project through our community's ability to repJvc my streets, build new retail centers and increase economic growth through housing and business development. The project site is located between two active railroads and very close to major highways, which makes it well suited for this type of project. Our community will benefit from the project as the cost to construct vital infrastructure required to support the continued economic growth may be completed at a reasonable cost as compared to importing materials. Additionally, the project will allow needed natural resources to be Imported by train to the site, providing a local source and reducing the amount of trucks bringing this material from ever increasing distances. I urge you to approve Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project and look forward to your response! Sincerely, Cr)litasitk [Your Name] EXHIBIT , O2 1 ;t [Your Name] ,�h��Gr `> C o- -il ate [Street Address] /0 > 'Pi-J' <I,e'\' [City, ST ZIP Code] S 6..f4Ct4^%�✓ Cd `0/ [Date] ia�S RECEIVED Weld County Commissioners c/o Diana Aungst ( USR15-0027) AUG 1 a 2015 Weld County Planning , 1555 N. 17`h Avenue WELD C ONEYS Greeley, CO 80631 COMMISS Dear Weld County Commissioners: As a resident of Weld County, I am writing to express my full support for the approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project (USR15-0027). I understand th at at some in our community have voiced concerns over the project. I, however, am one of thousands of citizens who will benefit from this project through our community's ability to repave my streets, build new retail centers and increase economic growth through housing and business development. The project site is located between two active railroads and very close to major highways, which makes it well suited for this type of project. Our community will benefit from the project as the cost to construct vital infrastructure required to support the continued economic growth may be completed at a reasonable cost as compared to importing materials. Additionally, the project will allow needed natural resources to be imported by train to the site, providing a local source and reducing the amount of trucks bringing this material from ever increasing distances. I urge you to approve Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project and look forward to your response ! Sincerely, [Your Name] EXHIBIT u, , V - W - Mr. and Mrs. Mel Everhart 4514 O Street Greeley, CO 80631 Weld County Commissioners c/o Diana Aungst (USR15-0027) RECEIVED Weld County Planning 1555 N. 17th Avenue AUG 1 0 2015 Greeley, CO 80631 WELD COUNETY RS COMMISSIO July 21, 2015 Dear Weld County Commissioners: We have been a neighbor of Martin Marietta for almost 4 years living just north of their 35th Avenue facility. In these years, we have found them to be willing to keep us informed of their plans and feel they operate within the standards set with people in mind. As we read the information regarding their USR, we realized Martin Marietta has a well thought through plan. As growth in northern Colorado causes continued demand for concrete and asphalt, it takes foresight and means to meet this need . This appears to be what Martin Marietta is offering in asking for USR1S-O027. As Martin Marietta moves forward to be financially profitable and still remain community minded we must accept some change. Change stirs up fear of the unknown and also the independent spirit of not wanting anything to disrupt our lifestyle. Yet without some sacrifice we will have to go elsewhere for these products which means increased cost to everyone plus loss of jobs and revenue in our area . Thank you for making the information available on the internet for us to see the plan they have. We'd encourage you to allow Martin Marietta to create this new resource for our area. Sincerely, adeLICA Mel and Deb Everhart EXHIBIT —e3.1 UsdQt6 -coal 33 Bill Barrett Corporation RECEIVED August 10. 2015 AUG 1 0 2015 Weld County Board of County Commissioners WELD COUNTY c/o Diana Aungst (USR 15-0027) COMMISSIONERS Weld County Planning 1555 N . 17`h Avenue Greeley. CO 80631 Dear Commissioners: Bill Barrett Corporation urges you to approve the proposed Martin Marietta Highway 34 project under USR15-0027. As was evidenced in the recent transportation summit that you hosted . transportation is key to the continued economic growth of Weld County and all of Northern Colorado . The Highway 34 project will be integral to the large number of projects that will be undertaken in Northern Colorado over the next several years to upgrade and maintain the critical transportation infrastructure. Without the ability to provide asphalt and other materials need in close proximity to these transportation projects. it will be exceedingly difficult and expensive to complete these projects. The site selected by Martin Marietta is ideally located for projects in Weld County and nearby communities but will also be key to the future expansion of 125 . We believe that Martin Marietta has done an exemplary job of finding the best location for this project and in proposing a wide range of measures to mitigate the impact the project will have on neighboring properties . We also believe that Martin Marietta will live up to the commitments they have made and will do everything within their power to be a good neighbor to nearby residents. Thank you for your consideration of our comments . Sincerely. -07 k ug Denison EXHIBIT nvirgrSmental/Governmental Affairs Liaison S - cOr7 33105 COUNTY ROAD 33 GREELEY , CO 80631 P 970 353 0407 X6015 F 970 353 0961 SCCuRC energy services July 20, 2015 Weld County Commissioners c/o Diana Aungst (USR15-0027) RECEiVED Weld County Planning 1555 N. 17th Avenue AUG 1 0 2015 Greeley, CO 80631 WELD COMMISSIONERS RE: Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project (USR15-OO27) Dear Weld County Commissioners: We are writing to express our full support for the approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project (USR15-0027). We understand that some community member have voiced concerns over the projects. We, however, will benefit from this project through our region's ability to repave our streets, build new retail centers and increase economic growth through housing and business development. The project site is located between two active railroads and very close to major highways, which makes it well suited for this type of project. SECURE Energy Services uses aggregates regularly to maintain our warehouse yard as do most oil field companies. As an industry, the containment berms, production pads, and many drilling sites generate a high demand for aggregates. Having these needed resources available will ultimately help to create safer working environments on drilling sites. The region will benefit from the project as the cost to construct vital infrastructure required to support the continued economic growth may be completed at a reasonable cost as compared to importing materials. Additionally, the project will allow needed natural resources to be imported by train to the site, providing a local source and reducing the amount of trucks brining this material from ever increasing distances. We look forward to your approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Project. Sincerely, 1StEXHIBIT Eric Bertoch ?Di Operations Manager lat_s2 LS— O0?-1 8217 Wact ?n'h Street Suite A (r.-:=,f,,,, Co'orado 'RnF ?4 Processing, Recovery & Disposal I Drilling Services I OnSite Services Tisa Juanicorena From: Dave Kisker < dave.kisker@gmail.com > Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 1:48 PM To: Tisa Juanicorena Subject: would this make your life easier? RECEIVED Tisa, I have learned that a number of our neighbors are planning to give a 2 AUG 1 0 2015 minute presentation at the BOCC meeting during the usual public comment (;AUNTY period . Several of them ( I don't know how many for sure) are wanting to COMMISSIONERS supply a 1 or 2 page "handout" to the Commissioners as they give their 2 minutes. Since these will need to be part of the record, it occurred to me that it might be simpler if they were to submit these "handouts" in PDF format in advance, and then just refer to the exhibit number rather than use physical handouts. Does this make sense? Does it help you? I really don't want to make more work for you, but I figured that since the Commissioners can apparently bring up the exhibits in real time, if we can get folks to get them in to you in advance, we might be able to simplify the process. I think we can also probably get the individual PDF's attached to only one or two emails so that you don't have to deal with excess email traffic. Then, we'd just need to get the list of exhibits and the 2 minute folks could refer to their particular exhibit instead of distributing paper copies. Please advise. Dave Dave Kisker My philosophy toward retail: "Be easy to do business with. If you make it difficult for me to give you money, I won't..." EXHIBIT LTh us2IS- ri 1 Tisa Juanicorena From: Dave Kisker < dave.kisker@gmail.com > Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 1:40 PM To: Tisa Juanicorena Cc: Diana Aungst; Tom Parko Jr. RECEIVED Subject: Re: List of people AUG 1 0 2015 On 8/10/2015 9: 17 AM, Diana Aungst wrote: WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONER, Did you already sent the list of people that you will represent to Tisa ? If not please do so as soon as you can. Tisa, Here is our current list of folks that will be represented by the group presentation . There may be an addition to the speakers, so we will provide the final list at the meeting. Dave Speakers Dave Kisker John Cummings Gary Oplinger Chris Friede Ray Moe Represented by the speakers: Doris Eckhardt Lisa Piraino Joyce Johnson Jean Malchow Sue Bickling Glenn Schlotter Don Casey Holly Cummings Renata Meusch Sue Oplinger Kate Brown Linda Liggon Sandi Lamontagne John Boeddeker Linda Novak Lloyd Schwalm Shirley Schwalm EXHIBIT I t Tisa Juanicorena From: Diana Aungst Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 3:05 PM To: Tisa Juanicorena Subject: FW: MMM asphalt plant Tisa I responded to the question. RECEIVED Atm 1 1 2015 WELD CDUNERS Diana Aungst, AICP, CFM COMMISSION Planner II Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue - Greeley, Colorado 80631 970-353-6100 ext. 3524 Fax: (970) 304-6498 daungst@weldgov.com <mailto:ldodge@co.weld.co.us> www.weldgov.com <https://www.facebook.com/WeldCountyGovernment> <https://twitter.com/weldgov> <https://www.youtube.com/user/WeldCountyCO> Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Daniel Main [mailto:dnolmainman@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 1:31 PM EXHIBIT To: Diana Aungst ___a\\1_ Subject: MMM asphalt plant I rani I We just learned of this project today, but still want to voice our opinion . We are very opposed to this plant in our community. We understand the meeting occurred on July 21st. What is the outcome ? Thank you, Dan & Rene 314 Tartan Drive Johnstown CO Rafaela Martinez From : Jennifer Fuller Sent: Tuesday, August 11 , 2015 10: 19 AM To : CTB Subject: FW: opposition memo Fur tomorrow's hearing. From : Cox Mail [mailto:vickibetton©cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 10 : 10 AM To: Jennifer Fuller; Mike Freeman; Julie Cozad; Barbara Kirkmeyer; Sean Conway; Steve Moreno; Jennifer Finch Subject: Fwd : opposition memo Weld County Commissioners RECEIVED c/o Diana Aungst, AICP CFM Planner II AUG 1 1 2015 WELD COUNTY Weld County Department of Planning Services COMMISSIONERS 1555 N. 17`x' Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 EXHIBIT Re: Planning Application COZ 15-0001 , Weld34 LLC Rezoning Request Weld County Commissioners: Please accept this message as my strong opposition to the Martin Marietta Minerals (MMM) zoning application. This proposal (COZ15-0001 ) is actually worse - with far greater potential impact than the MMM USR request. As we learned in the July Planning Board hearing - MMM understated the increase to traffic — which will increase nearly 3 fold over their estimates — and they understated the number of employees that will conduct work at their proposed plant. What else have they intentionally understated? Can you trust their estimates on any of the other important environmental issues such as air, noise and water quality? Their solution to the increased traffic concerns is to lower the speed limit on CR34. Please - try to envision the clogged traffic flow that scenario would create from Loveland to Greeley. Try to envision the impact of longer lines of cars waiting far more often at railroad crossings. Try to envision the impact of all that on the quality of air and noise for that entire corridor. At the risk of beating a dead horse — all these environmental issues affect the quality of life for everyone around the region — not just us home-owners who live in the immediate vicinity. 1 Please Commissioners — I implore you to listen to the voices of opposition from Weld County citizens, of surrounding municipal and county leaders, as well as those of your own planning board — and vote against MMM's incompatible rezoning request. Respectfully submitted, Vicki Belton, Executor Dale Horn Family Trust Property Owner 1074 Poplar, Johnstown CO 80534 The preceding message (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act. 18 U.S.C sections 2510-2512. is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential, protected by attorney-client or other privilege. or otherwise protected from disclosure by law. If you are not the intended recipient. you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and destroy the original message and all copies. 2 From : Courtney Swanson August 2015 8174 Field Circle Arvada, CO 80005 To: Weld County Commissioners RECEtV ED C/o Diana Aungst, AICP, CFM Planner II AUG 1 1 2015 Weld County Department of Planning Services WELD COON-i-Y 1555 North 17th Avenue COMMISSIONERS Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Case #USR15-0027 FOR PUBLIC RECORD Dear Commissioners: I am writing to strongly oppose the Martin Marietta Materials Development Plan proposed on Highway 34. There are many reasons to support why this land area is not a suitable fit and I feel that the risks and personal impact involved are not being considered. The negatives far outweigh the positives of housing such a large and unfavorable infrastructure on this otherwise quiet and majestic space. To begin with, the integration of such a large, industrial site within a rural community means increased traffic; and not just any traffic but traffic that includes large trucks and the transport of heavy machinery and product loads. I am concerned with how this will impact and further reduce the commuter safety in an already dangerous travel area. The traffic flow brought on by the MMM development plan is putting lives at increased risk and that is unacceptable. Furthermore, the agricultural impact of this project is huge. The area surrounding the proposed site has been lucrative farm land for years and the livelihood of many is being threatened . Not only do the residents depend on the land and its many values but so do those who benefit indirectly from it. It is not okay to strip the possibility from individuals who depend on this farm land to benefit big business. Also, please consider the significance of taking away the picturesque views currently enjoyed by so many of the areas residents. While it may seem insignificant when compared to the safety and livelihood described above, these views are the reason many people chose to move to or stay a part of the community. The Martin Marietta Materials facility would be an eye sore and completely destroy the natural beauty that has made this a home and welcoming place for so many. In recent years, some of these homes and the surrounding land have become the sites for weddings, graduations, and other life celebrations. Adding an industrial plant and the sights and smells that go along with it, would destroy the hopes of those who plan to host or participate in these important future events. Damaging this natural beauty and the opportunities that come from it would be irresponsible when there are so many other viable land options away from populated areas. I sincerely hope that the safety, agricultural impact, and natural significance will be taken into consideration and the Martin Marietta Materials Development Plan will be denied . The proposed land is not the place for industrialization and should be left alone. EXHIBIT Thank you, Courtney Swanson Sw n n �P RECEIVED From: Cox Mail [mailto:vickibetton@cox.net] AUG 1 1 2015 Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 12:06 PM To: Diana Aungst <daungst@co.weld.co.us> WELD COUNTY Subject: Opposition to Martin Marietta proposal COMMISSIONERS Please forward this message to the appropriate Commissioners for tomorrow's hearing. To: Weld County Commissioners c/o Diana Aungst, AICP, CFM Planner II Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue e ue Greeley, Colorado 80631 970-353-6100 ext 3524; Fax: 970-304-6498 daungst@weldgov.com <mailto:ldodge@co.weld.co.us> From : Dale A Horn Property Owner 1074 Poplar, EXHIBIT Johnstown ( Kelim) 80534 ?f) C\) To: Case # USR 15-0027 I am strongly opposed to the Martin Marietta Materials (MMM ) Highway 34 Development. A heavy industry plant of this nature is totally incompatible with the surrounding area of zoned residential, agricultural and light industry businesses. I bought my property in 1990. I chose it for the fresh air, serenity, and simple beauty a small acreage farm brings. I purposefully elected to live in this historically prime agricultural area with farms dating back to the 1850's. I am 2 comfortable with the light industrial businesses that have filled in some of the surrounding area but the MMM project is an entirely unacceptable addition. The proposed MMM plant is essentially in my back yard. It will in fact destroy my current way of life with noise, hazardous dust particles, and toxic odors. The plant will disrupt the serenity of my sleep; deteriorate the quality of the air I breathe and pollute the water I drink. I enjoy the quietness of morning sunrises, the sounds of bird's first songs of the day, the early morning bray of my donkey. All that will be gone with a 24/7 heavy industrial plant nearby. Of particular concern is the impact this will have my livestock, some of which I raise and use for subsistence. I am concerned about the impact this plant will have on the ground water my livestock drink. Even if that doesn't happen overnight, the water will certainly be affected. I am also concerned about hazardous emissions and toxic fumes/odors associated with an asphalt plant. I am 87 years old. I have small great-grand children that are accustomed to feeding my livestock and riding the ponies. We will all be negatively affected by the daily, ongoing pollution of over 100,000 lbs/annually of associated asphalt dust particles and unpleasant/toxic odors. Another major concern involved access to/from my home. I can't imagine what it will be like to have an increased of more than 800 trucks daily on WCR 13, and I already have a hard time accessing Highway 34. This increase also brings additional safety risks to me, my children and all the farmers, bikers, equestrians and pedestrians that use WCR 13. The increased noise level is also an issue. The hours of proposed operation, 24 hours/ 7 days a week and 365 days a year are unacceptable and intolerable. There will be an increase of noise from all aspects of the facility operations: backup alarms, heavy conveyor belt operations, idling trucks, heavy equipment operations, train operations, unloading and loading operations, etc. Add to that the increased noise of train traffic by Great Western and Union Pacific. Lastly, my property value is clearly at risk. It is estimated that the negative impact of this plant will likely decrease neighboring properties by 30-50%. I am relying on the value of my property to provide support should I need assisted living — a very real concern at my age, 87. Will Weld County reimburse me for the loss in value? There are other locations within Weld County (the Great Western Industrial Park in Windsor for example) which have all of the infrastructure needed - including all railroads-GW, UP and BNSF. 3 As a 25 year resident and taxpayer in Weld County — I implore you, please vote no on this proposal, and encourage Martin Marietta to seek one of the other more compatible Weld County sites for their facility. Respectfully submitted, Dale Horn 4 Tisa Juanicorena From: Matt Walker < mjw33775@gmail.com > Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 1: 53 PM RECEIVED To: Tisa Juanicorena Subject: Martin Marietta , . AUG 1 1 2T " i:) WELD COUNTY Hello Tisa, COMMISSIONER. I am writing to advise you that I and many of my neighbors do not support the building of the Martin Marietta Material's plant in the proposed location . I do not believe that the proposed location is appropriate: 1 ) there are established homes in very close proximity to that land; 2 ) the HWY 34 corridor is quickly urbanizing east, and that area should be reserved for homes, business, and light industrial - not a high production facility. 3 ) I and my neighbors near Kelim are fearful that smells and noise may emanate from the facility toward our homes - thereby stifiling further development because I truly hope you will take into consideration these and the many other concerns the community has about this project. I fully support having this plant in Weld County, just not in the location being discussed . I would imagine there must be land available along the same rail line in northern Weld County further away from the growing population center. Best Regards, Matt Walker EXHIBIT L€dL l 4Sr O2 C? 1 RECEIVED Citizen Bill Jerke's take on Martin-Marietta's land-use proposal AUG 1 1 2015 Dear Weld Commissioners, WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WD Farr had it, Hank Brown has it, will the Weld County Commissioners have it on the Martin-Marietta case? "It" is Vision ! The ability to see through the clutter and do the right thing to promote the infrastructure of our County. Current Commissioners have done a good job with "Vision" on NISP and County road 49. My definition of property rights while Commissioning was simple, but effective. Let the property owner do what they want with their property so long as they don't demonstrably damage their neighbor/s. Has Martin-Marietta done a good job with respect to mitigating the concerns of the neighbors? Absolutely ! 1. Buffering, berms and landscaping. M-M is providing $100,000 for neighbors to landscape on their own properties to minimize view issues. 2. State of the art environmental controls on equipment. 3 . Noise mitigation including bottom unloading of aggregate and a continuous loop for truck loading, insuring no back-up beep, beep, beep. 4. Working with CDOT with improvements on WCR 13 and Hwy 34, including new lights at M-M expense. 5. In short Martin-Marietta has more than adequately mitigated visual, environmental noise and transportation issues. As a former elected official and taxpayer I'm aware of how Weld wants to diversify our tax base. Martin- Marietta is investing over $20,000,000 in this facility. That will be a healthy property tax revenue for Weld while providing 100 jobs paying an average of $70,000. Is this the best location for this type of facility? Rail is a key component as well as proximity to key highways. As you know, even if they picked another site they would have some level of impact on neighbors. Like the proverbial balloon animal, flatten one appendage and another pops up ! Martin-Marietta deserves a Yes vote ! Sincerely, Bill Jerke Ps. A wise Weld Commissioner once told me that we should never base our decisions on fear ! EXHIBIT 3 Highway 34 UsRis ..O027 . _._ . , ... . .......r_ , ........ . . --,......,_ ____ _ _ *mad. ec- tom► - •_.r i _ - tit% . Valk - t ft ' - /_ f, �_ - ----; ._�vssfslzs's.•.sf�gr•� -:L^-• -.emu. --Ot- '91 N. A. 41 ii,*.% - '4a• `p r 1` r ...s....:i .. s �_._ : . . - Ni EXHIBIT . 14:44,. ;:t ..\\ • , 4 1 i . I. Weld County Board of County Commissioners Hearing Martin August 12, 2015 I Iariotta Highway 34 USR1S - 0027__ _ _ �,. _ te � - — - - T_ _ r -_. - _ � � s ate.:._ _ _ - - - - ='!__Jirt.e.......r.__ _7_...... -41.:"4,- -; ----- -..- \ _ r- __ -• .•, w -_ - , mac _ - - zed • 1/4 _ - 0 , allit..... A --Aft ...ass --:::70: - ... e _ Y._ Jam- y'..' i ; mob• .. } • • ! . _--._ . .-_-�- _. J .• • a�: ___ ._�.....ils ♦ ..._::-..-1..,L.- t•-1:-'4 t * + \ 1\C. V. . - - -tr seI r—•••:''` .'.•- _ �, �. f ♦ .! ' jam �. . ;' Line iNtilliailke Weld County Board of County Commissioners Hearing Martin August 12, 2015 Moriottc Martin USR15 - 0027 �t�rcttG • Meets or exceeds standards for approval by Weld County Code • Compatibility/ Co - exists with surrounding land use — Extensive communication with neighbors — Extensive modifications to the plan • Balancing property owners ' rights • Long -term vision for Weld County ' s economic future Introductions aMartin Marietta Applicant : Martin Marietta Patrick Walker, President, Rocky Mountain Division David Hagerman , P. E . , Regional VP/GM — Aggregates Abbott Lawrence , Regional VP/GM — Ready Mix David Lemesany, Regional VP/GM — Asphalt Land Owners Gerrard Investments , LLC Gary Gerrard , Owner Patrick Groom , Legal Counsel Weld LV II , LLC 3 Introductions aMartin Marietta Consultant Team Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck Carolynne C . White, LEED AP, Attorney Tetra Tech Pam Hora , AICP, Planning and Permitting Fernando del Monte, P. E . , Civil Engineer Evonne Schroeder, Biologist AECOM Tom Damiana , Noise Analysis Stewart Environmental Consultants, LLC David Stewart, Ph . D . , P. E . , Air Emissions 4 Introductions aMartin Marietta Consultant Team Gene Coppola , P. E . , Traffic Engineer Applegate Group , Inc . Tom Hatton , PG , Water Resource Engineer MIG Chase Mullen , Visual Analysis Model CU School of Medicine/ Rocky Mountain Poison & Drug Center Scott Phillips , MD, Medical Toxicologist Foster Valuation Company LLC Mike Smith , MAI , Value Diminution Study 5 Company and Martin CornCommunity Involvement Marietta 901 • I ..• . 1, - �� g _ _ 3 I - -velisiiisaill . li k I i - ��e t 'ask. s • ) ) - t • - ` . .) amills; ,41 Nor _ . Sta nii,.. Wd ti • 6 Vicinity Map Martin Marietta M o ;*Il . ` Q + . i 7, .: . O N. G Y Elf i ' a - 2A D - R �f W -yes O 4 di Jat �-9j7 ''�' �p,0.CC INDIANHEAD H 'QO �p,,•\-� ESTATES • Z 9� STATE HIGHWAY 34 "� �� SUDJVI$IO LEGEND !._ HZtE°RAL T"IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIGHWAY I GREAT WESTERN RAILROAD INTERSTATE HIGHWAY RAILROAD A raw- _`'-' ,.. µ �, BOUNDARY OF Z' ' ' ; ` fUSR15-0027 ��DEVELOP a :rifles. ry - jito... . 4,. ' • JUC 6' `_ , 13 i a (4, :cis, . _ . :�, Yidi •// • G35. 0.1'- 3 225 t �, •r, .r C�/y�I -- _ `:. -+,- , .'- - I. ' + - •.- •�. I j� . Ir .�1�= _ • 9 4i f l •i -� • Parcels in RMarietta Windsor liri i:i1�a:r�iitl•r�e�.:ir ` ` iiiii 2 I_M SA I ( INOIlI 7 )kr Y t; i t, PI 4.44\iiitm.,41 „tittle • Ina 1 --�_.__.l;r ,r4nP.►1L allil ' •" - $lI '' tlit1■® -- { Y rrard , , In d tments • LLC Weld LV II S. . LLC idol `' -7 - 1 r� 1.15,:tott,_ •,..- tr• 1 \ ‘ i : k.,:\ %).. I r if .N' - 8 SitePlan — ti1aretta irrn _ MAIN ACCESS '_ - t r - -. . _ ( -11:14 . . -yam.-r • II* 4 y i`- SECONDARY I - I'. I - - 4 li \\... .‘ A EMERGENCY �, sACCESS \ . ,.:Ii . sV IIIIII.i ,.. . . .s., ''"gliallaillia-- I : ' - ' si j et I' • _ it ` , 's's* aets • t �,` • .II , �S so;.ti - •:, 1r � � l • • ilk \ arT` k �; N ti jay . .I a III ■ illi DP • , II WC 56 4 TakingCompatibilitySeriouslyMartin . ti1tta Redesigned Rail Spur From this . . . To this. . • . • . . . . . . . • . • USE BY SPECIAL REVIE+,^! USRi 5 0027 3 USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW- USR15-0027 § ;,; HIGHWAY 34 DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY 34 DEVELOPMENT I'fit MARTIN MANIFftA FOR.MAR IIN MARICI TA in... ...Y.p.-'.A..MAIMS.WPM SW F` • r TT ('T.:.�ylll AI Cr A•G.i .JiM/i. t Y..1 SC. ,I. • :•Y TIC fro'V SAM'.CtCA..KC4aGL100 Wool r .. .i v.• . .x 611.1611.1•4�.�� r wu l. . ..l. a 1 • ass Eli wives. /rte" .rrw�/J. .r.•.— � N. _ •.��._.� —� I1�•rya•�.� //f`�.�r..YrV arr. _• __ _ \ s..SI.y •v . ----_....w..l.w w; '- • _ wsaana \. v� 11 ., _ 1 —- •••rr— !n. w \`\ f I l j �.-, .. ..r" — owes owns ':- \ 'Lila • -• .I 1 11, F r... ...... I' J7" H"---, �'11 -s_ I =... '� I.u...a ...wwn wee am _ _ t S --mx-a now ..' '.I. , ..r. —. r �.x ��\ \ 9 = - � _ _ a _- == _ _ =3 - 2 € . •s 2 10 SitePlan — Martin Marietta The Trainand SECONDARY EMERGENCY ACCESS-i jA, r`-; :- :-r. a • - -- - AT-GRADE CROSSING ... a- . r . . • FT - , _ r L. _ _ . RAIL LO I I �� ti � . goo -- V Sl .. ■ - .- HOPPE a, LOCATION' ■ I WCR 56 ' . . Site — Aggregates & Martin Marietta R Materials ec c e I . , we ___r__ - " r�a II.* * .� ; , • . Asia., 1 AGGRE ATE - . ti. .' f., 29hLE5 i. ` '-4 H7.4 • 0 7;61#la CONVEYORS �.:. _ , . 1 :. iar 11 : - . - - - ' r „J... -:, PORTABLE _ ,,, RECYCLEill WASH PLANT i IFS ' ausmatibt. La.00.1.1 PLANT RECYCLED s . iMATERIALS • � - . PILES. 0 Si i • . --- , : 12 Site Plan Martin 7FY% Marictto 5 .x _ "" 4 .` _ , 4f1- .- . . ��' • R: ady Mix Concrete T . '4.: Cr lopha TrA ,. .. .e ..\ 'c CD - . , READY IA / 1 ` , . CONCRE AggregateTraffic PLANT LOADING AREA ali�� ; r4 Ii � izar---- ' . - r ASPHALT ` ` - PLANT . AGGREGATE \, LOADING ' ' ,,�4 MATERIALS AREA LOADING AREA ' i I 1 ). 13 4 .: 1-.- -,-;--- - -:, ea , Traffic — DailyTraffic Marietta Development Daily Traffic Highway 34 Project 1, 120 Indianhead Estates 990 400 Single Family Homes * 3, 808 Light Industrial * 6, 889 King Soopers/Shopping Center * 9, 533 Encore Residential * * 28, 026 * Daily traffic volumes from this type of development on the Highway 34 Project Site * * Proposed development on the northwest corner of Highway 34 and WCR 13 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers "Trip Generation Manual', 9th Edition for other uses Martin Traffic - ProposedRoute A& MarHctto . .• . ,+ ` Y ,,• _____ A __ ._ . _____ ._.....,.. ......_• .... w� . 33/ r w r a • , a • , • fr i NA r 'e ..� ...j ?1 '� J. 1 r • I 95/ j R'" r • % r ill t 1 t 4 a . NN fat vpia I-. ! ¶1 \ 0 %44 ti \ e r } n. F Percentages represent a g USR15-0027 traffic flow - # 15 . Tr a c — Proposed Martin varictta TransportationImprovements I PROPOSED I DECELERATION LANE N I PROPOSED ACCELERATION LANE i i \ ittt A \ i I n i \ t` ' \ ENTRANCE TO SITE *_y( ay� HWY 3 __ ___ _ DEVELOPMENT __ _ :F � DRIVEWA( '/ no \ \ 1 1 I _ \ \ 1 tr- I ; \) i ' 1 e w I ' � I I S L ih I I l * Is- k \ ' I * \ II POTENTIAL OOOOOOO0 i } DECELERATION • \ ' I LANE ! 1 . 16 • Tr : Proposeda c Martin Maretta TransportationImprovements A EXTENSION DECELERATION LANE HATCHED AREA SHOWS __________\_ LANE EXTENSION AREA U.S. HIGHWAY 34 WEgee: STBOUND 2 - — i s_ - - - - -"..,"./zizazzIi/7J/fI/T//!!/1Tl//IIII!/// ////t/U_ T/ \- - - _ _ __ _ _ _\- - - _ _ __ _ _ _ - - - - - - - -- THROUGH AND i - _ _ _ _ _ - _ LEFT TURN LANE U.S. HIGHWAY 34 EASTBOUND R-7s Ff __ a 4 r --.-_____\ z _ _ _ _ PROPOSED DECELERATION LANE \I\IN - EXTENSION EXISTING P ACCELERATION LANE SeeCk I i iI 17 • Martin Weld am tt.• • elb " ..... Ilif \ T.--ii - J • 1_44'47 . 4:44 f • ff -j iv 7,, Kam' 7 ' s fi'` _ • 4.-- • • 1 ` 1 I 1i k `,• f �� t� 1 .. I . f r_ ,.- . ' ., Ill ` I Al. I rr 1z 1 l t . • �MZ ... s i • r 1.0 ..,, , - 1 Cti . .' :.1: i ts :} 1: a . - 40 i �,;‘,. 1. •-•• - t ✓• I } y L R ` Ibl Y � rk: c . .. am,. i. . ,.. • , , s-H.„. 1 , i,i, ••••-1911‘ •a }I , r • 1CP 16 • N C I ,I: \LA . . . , ,a 1 ' i : I ti� ' -%`r.ct ' ii i w a i I i I. I ', p i 18 Materials Build Communities Martin Marietta Transportation Manufacturing and Energy Network as,* Health and Eucation Construction kcl Materials Business Residential Agriculture 19 •M r � n Marietta 's 400 . a t Martin Marotta in Weld County il4 \, ir,_ . ___ ,I. _.....,.......................c...........,:e_ __ __..........nz.e.:Th . .,..........................,..........................„........... . 6.. . . . r I Wile : • ••1••` •_`•i�`• I1 rr j •ed�� • Y.: �•�s�• .. vi - T _ I 11 • .t!rlaissii., .. --- - i _............4. .c.. _ / 4 i. 1 :a I Cj `RADA[] w.�--..�.+w . . �. • 1�JI ,ate ' •y \•\. r 4 \I • • • -- 1 1 }• Si1 -- - , • - - • f 4 f r .- _ _ J. Pli • _1alas J` V A.rs,- It 32/ - - is. f • R+ •--' ..ir --- -- M ' IM"'" - fir -^ �ti 60"" v4 1:10 ' ' -.. _ . • • 20 --- - - %..; j Northern Colorado s Aggregate Martin Marietta Resources . .t4strish • _. lei _ - • 1 41 •- / i. lf 0 • t4 _.3r ia - elin5 nut S !,�',�. ., J a i t•51- -- - - - • MI liPalt WI. Fort Collins ' •\\IHIACS<ClC% t. ; �. ,1/41: 1.- tea. -•6'-', . Y ;: Eater �alet�r. ` • r 1 of t " /� w�t it A • 'f ph a . ,j c� .. ''''" . 0 Mason vine ' 4` 1 >. .1' tic,_ �� • 1 O� 14, y r •,r' * w • _y ' . S- ' • l`;:J FLU ) a !M 4 ► t 4 gt�� p ' b1 t 4.Lc a ^ \ r ! -..rya• .*i ill ,it i , Op" �1 4 .•t Loveland .4 ... " _ * , + t . II a _ —...�. - Si bit al .;i: . - \\� • . -` . �S L: _ -, ,• :.i ..tea. _ Big Th 4. 1 t.- . 0 • mesoOw i ils.,,..........._ n Rive r , . _ ► �,. L s A L �� • " -i • ' 4 Northern Colorado's L' !lb South Platte River _ •ISI 4A Future Mining Area 21 Martin Picturee Big - Aggregates Marietta Concrete Aggregate and Asphalt Aggregate will be depleted from Northern Colorado in about 5 years . t i, * allitt`t,sii;\., •* • $. ;, - P- r : \ #.. \ `It$' * . 'r I iv*, • Ite Ilit s):; '14 9 110 ' • t 1 ire . Adrbr- . , ‘ . .4 icips: „. a it � . s Sear •:tele ir % , i, _ . r - -3- ...itic- i . imottat . - __wile • ; , 1 A - a : -iti Ili • • •.0• .. '�� . . Concrete Aggregate Asphalt Aggregate 22 Martin Marietta The of r e ale _.., ... _ f , i., ! 1 L. h t:y' i,: : 1 U ,:4 _. • N. r ,� wig• A Granite Canyon Quarry . I . ( . . , 0 Highway Development � hwa Y 34 4 • ,in t I. ii _ 1 . a - / -.,. * eke ., • „, :, , , • . , , . _ . I . O_F..o,r 1 _C.0,1 I i n s_. isir Its* f t. 1 r • 4. _� : 5'.4 `5i t. ,.4 'Ira . . • _ Y `1C�\ _ •�• -}•'` �3:41, N V11/ 4.4, ...% . , cr...., r ' .! \V La: - .v 14E ! f ifsa.. J L 1, et I •' i - s. - - 23 Trains Minimize Costs and Martin Marietta e e tAddedPr v n 800 — 1 200 trucks perweek 2 3 trains-4,04 reet st wei tcregii ivirsei woe wag& w per week r _ 4 6 was t go S twt � t r;i v4C4 wri—nagenrananse—owilet vvr& taro w+d tws j"b av+O vwm& ewr vwi vrois two, nj-Ls-wn-Ln-Ln-L.n.LLS 'a. 0. t. r't 'Vc' ► D w"t 'o0 .arm, vwTS w1 ' twr+., tw m& ewr'to twee tar's .,fl-t > t1[rt'O Into t:Rr=b t*r't tiler°O tomb vase w & tos+s was vtr o t7Grb twr t tllf' S w WS wi+s w_ wm& verAO twr�!! twr-0 tws-°bb t7tr'"S twr b - - wig ew7_. ew►‘as twee tw40 aetm& att►S twf+S !Boys ewe& . att�' , twrM, atm& tstb r tore. twee, aero'd tor , yre. tiaras was was was w+a twr+s WSS 4PQ1 IgigeS awes twoor ew & aer ,, was t wm6 was was tor' , w'"& 24 Highway Martin Service Area - \ �,� ( ... ),, 10 .40 Fort Collins sb . . } Ali , ,.ti '• h za ,t_t � ry pq ^ it elt m pl "s eat ill . OP p �.�asonvilac " t.� • 1 i r v- r4ittipair i '01 0 _ Lam+" A. -M! I • • i ., anry _,_, till . Hi hwa 34 . , .J_,_,_, - . �. Loveland ' � . _ Y _ e � Greeley E sveiaid .21 441 e 40 lik+ ,,L,, J. ' I y J l�, _ -� \ _ • err } _ • .._ r `` ell%- �_ , • ,�, , -satic _ 1 4 _ . . C'ir,:l�IN t�q f t Ilk r h Ill Fa Ali ' •el 5111 i s •p, 25 Site Selection a Martin Marietta • Three year process , more than 13 sites evaluated • Minimize impacts to the County and communities • Access to transportation infrastructure : • Union Pacific Railroad • Arterial road (WCR 13 ) • Highway 34 • 1 -25 • Signalized intersection This site best meets these criteria 26 Compatibility ti1a - �\ ....era.... �� r i • T., .0 7 .T �1r • {• Rai _ r j'A7 ll rilt.riL • 7...-.-.:_ - _ I`�- • • - Cif { - �� . - 113 :, • ,e . IA '"' ."71A.,„ illithriti51. 'I. * lc _ ., _ j — y �s�.. �_ .• �_ r _ ft s a �-� Reside • ti v ♦. L joit‘s - a .1., .. ,. A ad *Al s Ii seS p Al it I 1 / ... di. . . 35thAvenfle F c • it ; ie., v ,.. ssis .." . ii, r `Il .. . it O '�. � _ mac' , • y . It ..... ...... ___ _ . _____ •.,......... b 2015 Google "`: ( , I, ` - 27 GOO -Infrastructure D r � ve s a n s e ar L. _...e. I _ av _ F1 * "' m HWY 34 COMPATIBILITY MAP O o ` CC 1 ti'' k.. . _ ' . - IN a /,� u O"lir PO . er el • '94 EP; x - STATE HIGHWAY 34 • • I GREAT WESTERN RAILROAD LEGEND lilt I II, 55 It tWHI II I li . I it 54-14 4-4t . tt I ' F+_ - MAJOR �,;,.f.. _ ARTERIAL rJ . fin.s °H.---1-1 ` \k, !I':t ` a ": .e 'I J i r -- �, INTERSTATE ,. hi;.-" ' " A"\ �s�• GA. �' ' +� RAILROAD i 'ji 1 "v BOUNDARY OF _ �"'}��` ‘.:4/ BOUNDARY USR15-0027 _ ! • •_tip l_.� e ' `i• yam"', \ �'A// N ;.414 • Q I r11 r _ 1 i - t'It'" `� 0 3 0175 0 (13:i `. r • i. - ... . e-_,--r . \- . .. .vat,-- . ler t 28 i I r y irate . . Martin Infrastructure Drives Akm tta a n4 - 1- _.--41040,444- - 114014-..•., I CMp-4C::W S Ira HWY 34 COMPATIBILITY MAP r.+eau Ict9Tut I 0 ., - - •- .,v:1- . 14 its -VW • '..q....'� C;. •t cm LEGEND — a- r MAJOR _ Xr � ARTERIAL cr i..r' — - —.I. w;.t..'��. .e>.n... ,a , HIGHWAY _?. Orl__RD:�:i q NOW" .� '. :r-o ,>.y r». /. — INTERSTATE Highway 34 ---p i ' RAILROAD / r ' �"'� ., �_ w r�.��° f� BOUNDARY OF ; )t� / , r USR15-0027 .., . • evelopment t r1 r> `v4 '� 4 LAND USE �4 INDUSTRIAL ® -%' • r PROPOSED - ' - INDUSTRIAL �..,, Nr.•wlMl 111��,��1 !?Y: 2• . q c CSIal WI 4- . 1Stw r».. ;Not 0.35 O.t 75 0 C e 1 1.7•14..4113,c,�t t Mi . M0.Met n r r r Drives ast uctu a ti1tta 4 pia...„ a-. � _-_. -'f ___ , • .,..'I PI C. •••• -41 4. '. CN. ,02‘-'44::.1..J o.,r. ♦ foal. HWY 34 COMPATIBILITY MAP bTT.Cfuo3.bt .. __ . 11N -c If I:IIan."Y•♦11`.VI `. . ... kV • I J f •w:-rrn•r.. • s• I c' <.rn- - ii sw' . �_ :Y. . I -441 oft LEGEND r<r- MAJOR n; — — s ARTERIAL a adalom HIGHWAY i �� INTERSTATE r•++�I RAILROAD „.:. r -" .�i,. BOUNDARY OF •n 'I4 - r Highway 34 1eL►� � :' J _, USR 15-0027 ,.�. r� op LAND USE .. 4 sr,sag GENERAL 1 COMMERCIAL • f ., . INDUSTRIAL �,; ,./Z. K PROPOSED i, `�,; INDUSTRIAL N t• - - r y ,C` A f 1111N� , - _- a 4:. ( rut=Ill+e+ d I Icy •r ♦+ .K.J:0.n'Y - t L . • -' Y nnlnw 77• ? �., . I 0 35 G ':?5 G 0 35 ' 4 IwM91 ELF � / - . .• \ . • r1}I AP-rr- , .. - F � ., '% yr .. 30 �t � _ i- "-- ``. Martin Infrastructure Drives Use Mar etta alai" 1110 . Ca' LAt.:W r..Mupo:•.. C pJY4 Crel-aa.-c `Ti`'ur � I HWY 34 COMPATIBILITY MAP i . S.: Ir \ • • `; ""` I by •? 1ucn.Y. • i. � I ag I w a..,:., « «. �,� / .iik LEGEND +'.: MAJOR t .„ I� �r w >• i """` •r ARTERIAL M'• VIII•ra- I.:*,,I,•Y. HIGHWAY Ii 'I,•o-RNLI...r. ^`N<-r ^'-a . - INTERSTATE • y • alit • Tine , : .•,• r�;='_ r, -. LROAD rr ~4 +'-+-1 BORAUNDARY OF 34 ".: • ! , uLJ_ld"-:' r • may' / 1Ihillii USR15-0027 N �≥w. r i•' MOIRYNEA6 1 • � re - ;:•-• - r ,e' Ii NEIL GO�IKT' ,.. N. I LAND USE . ' tu,4.11 II 11 I I $ I fI II H tI H H H F' f' I C � Vie/ • Ca RESIDENTIAL cT r• , .v re aa.• N•Tv�N ff/ ti�L ! / 3N:;t. �l tr / GENERAL „ „ '`�/rN ` COMMERCIAL 0.4 - I < f -- r - INDUSTRIAL - I:. • j' . _� ... N, / PROPOSED - ; ,, INDUSTRIAL ibl61' �— _ 13 •a/ Yi'N••.w.• . X:O^vxe • ' �f J .�� ''as • .-c r pri PUD - MIXED yii ' USE * , ....% _. • ry -- A Ynv-.• - . .. i roL e 5 31 Martin Community Marietta r WELCOME Highway 34 Proposed Highway 34 Site aerProject Open House Community Meeting January 26, 2014 June 9, 2015 4 : 00 - 7 : 00 PM Martin /� Martin McrieLta /'/r\ 4CIII M.. Landscape Charrette June 24 , 2015 - i Highway 34 Project J.- -re 404,-"t" ' -% Community �� \'F "/ jrr��r��. , ,� e: '' Leader Forum e �� Vieffmtxt,aa:, c. ifivii_b_td) %A P' CM_ 46 --- July 8, 2015 , ' fr, - . , iti per; Acing Air �N.. ia r,� IAMartin 32 - --,Ade fors brs. �ir;ettO a CommunityConcerns Martin Marietta Concerns Air Quality/ Health & Safety /Odor 4` Traffic Noise Visual Impacts Compatibility �� °"" , Property Values Wildlife � J 33 Reports to Address a Martin Marietta Compatibility Related Concerns Typical USR Additional Reports to Address Compatibility Required Study Study Traffic Study Sound Analysis Report _ Visual Analysis Model =1/4\T Answers to Asphalt Plant Health Questions Review of Potential Impact on Organic FarmsYz. Wildlife Desktop Review Water Resources Impact Report Community Benefits of Industrya4V, Real Estate Diminution Study Martin Marietta ' Culture of Safety and Commitment to Sustainability 34 Health & Safety a Martin Marietta Air Permitting Compliance (-- _____. - . ( CaDPHETri �Zit��/� Martin � r�� ultants CO '! Mcrlettc TM impr • Air Dispersir Air Permit Model • AIRSCREEN • AIRMOD • Ensure meets • PM NAAQS at property • Install and maintain line • Air Emissions prescribed controls • • Submit Application Issue permit with • Operate with permit i required controls requirements • Inspection of facility 35 Responding •tote Martin Air Mar � �tta BMPsua t ----","„ . 0 illUbe- ,. .Vilei, -4,--- Cbig a ,. I , • ills-ip,„ • , , 11 el vrt 4 Sail . . • _ , . • . . . , - -a r r ' _ _ . _ Water truck used in Vegetative cover unpaved/unvegetated aved/u nve etated g Paved Roads & p g Street Sweeper areas or v �k t;!s 1 4 1 - : ri '�' / a �, i � � - v, ,,... -, f.,.1 3 r .44 r l .::: 4. li it— Ithilip,' 46. AL. lid, . . lb! i i 4i, • ..• -e 41bTe .;eel .;"allirl. at ' .-1 i . se Pi. : i / 4 . ir t .kit ilk _sir' ....it innk . - , - i - i \‘ ., I. - Ir: . __ - . , 1 it 7! Y tea' �, � i l- ,. b.. p ca }.Ldill - PI • '_ Ri its._ ___ .Water sprays at Baghouse at 36 Partially enclosed hopper transfer points asphalt plant Responding to the Community M Odor Control A& Martin M°r `tt° Emission Capture System Vertical Liquid ACI Carbon Tanks � NJ Filters � , Odor Control 37 Only asphalt plant in CO to use all three technologies ! Projected Noise a Martin Marietta based on modeling Highway 34 Development Estimated 80 Noise Levels at Project Property Line 70 60 � ..�-T. 55 - 72 dBA 47 - 68 dBA 50 m 40 � 50 30 20 10 0 DAY NIGHT • Resdiential Limits a Industrial Limits July 8, 2015 38 Responding •tote Martin • . • Mariotta Minimize ,,, .., , •. , _ . ,.. - ••.,. ..... I .. „. . i._. _ __. .. .. . . . . ,„ .„ --: ,7-: . se --..g j 0 0 : � �. setback 4,._ \1/4 it = I• Vegetated berms saiie • 6, 4' Ai--- f' ii 1,/ I . . .. . , .... . 4, . `''?� ► 1 • a. '4- 11 ..._� 1 , •• Responding •tote Martin Marietta Minimize No i se !.,__ ,- .,, ,, .---- ------- --A., ,,4 . , •• _Ik-_ _ _ramm....„.. ..,„, _,,,.. _ . fir- -. 1 * -_L. _�- - Below Grade Hopper ..__ _. ,__ ___ . _� ,.,.„..., b .,�I a _ " ' 1 - �� ( example from another site ) flat. if- , ► ai=r , / — E , • • _ - - `.�?- - .r 7-s� . .,;,A'O'r - ��• a'. ♦' -a. / �, - • ,..� I., ` lit r ' Y______raimpp.:41 •.. IS .._,...--• * • / . / .51 .._ ‘.. __ammo. ...jp.isit . e — -- 000101......... 40 illiki. 1r' /,�� yam I i r1 arr. II Iii. 0 iill I Acoustical Enclosure ' `p i _ , , . Ahl t 1 , ( example from another site ) R i_ ,_ -'r' � �_ ; `� -er , , 40 Responding •tote Martin Marietta Minimize , .. i .,, . . , ,..________,_ .... . Fc. .. , . ._........ . _ . ,,.. .,.. , I ii w 3 in ai\-' `` U ' ` Noise Monitoring Program g /fir` M n , rt r tea, p _ _ A . C 1 1 , ,..,.......___, 1 1 it r ' 1 • ' f I q 11 I t y iol k 4r 'Designed circular truck route sa patterns for all trucks to ft prevent the need for trucks to j , '_ ; ,. back- u p tt r C ,1r,� �it •i ' .1r t bs 41 ;r, ' a. a . ' Responding •tote Martin Marietta Visual .. _ ..... ... . _ _ _ _____ ___ .c _ _ _ a _ . __ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _______e___ ....._ _ 7-:-.=---- __ a'"gral"� �__,� -- t - _ -_•... • 4f •, ., ' ' : 7.7 ... -. .- -. w % /' etw /9 • 4 - Jr Y.. } r . + ilira. . i ill _ s - ".'.fft S *_ — n 42 Responding •tote Martin Marietta Visual POD __, . . . .. 4 talitirt .. .tiL'11i ,cr }� ,c- .: • • t f{ .. ... Ariss,..„ FedFx facility from Highway 34 Kelim businesses from Highway 34 as you drive east . approaching WCR 13 . 43 Responding to the Community M Martin Visual Impacts ffY% Marictto Respondingtote Comm unity Martin--- 11 Visual ti1ar � etta _ 1 - s� _ .: - _ -_ - -C -- ..�., 1, • %• • W, 1 ' , • Y v _ -%.s.,,.. • < r 4. • . ♦ ot` �• .•t fit_ - - 45 Responding •tote Martin Marietta Visual il 1 --_ t a 1.' h V I _� :r . , - , - Ready Mix - - ;� _ ., . c Asphalt Concrete :iiiitt ' t y aSts Plant Plant .n I ' sa:n"1/4464._ weitarja ,a-a. 46 View from backyards of lots in the southwest corner of Indianhead Estates Subdivision . Responding to the Community a Martin Marietta Visual Impacts lamoripliminr !----immimmum, eirsimi <44(2•Hrt10+,--fr 01 il lirrifik "_ _ 1;6; - - - _ __ __ is a ,! .; - iinsavi: - - 4,4 Without trees in the backyard , the With strategically placed trees in the asphalt plant and concrete plant backyard , views of the silos are silos can be seen in the distance . effectively blocked . 47 Responding •tote Martin Marietta Property Thousands of homes throughout Northern Colorado have been constructed and sold in proximity to industrial uses. gravel mules. asphalt batch plants. concrete batch plants. railways . and other uses similar in intensity to those planned for the Martin Marietta Weld County 3. 4 project. Analysis of the paired sales data revealed very similar sale prices per square foot for single-family- homes located in and out of proximity to more intense industrial uses similar to those planned . Therefore. as of the June 18 . 2015 date of value . it is unlikely that completion of the Martin Marietta Weld County 34 project as planned will result in a diminution in value with regard to future sale prices of single-family homes. Respectively submitted . 4/7/d /r/ Michael A. Smith, MA! CO Certification #C6100036005 Foster Valuation Company LLB' 48 Responding to the Community Martin Hours of Operation and Lighting Marietta Hours of Operation • Business is seasonal — Asphalt operations generally operate fewer than 200 days/year • Operations are typically Monday — Saturday • Occasional night operations — No train unloading at night — Higher priority governmental projects • Operations typically begin around 6 : 00 a . m . Liqhtinq • Meets code 49 • Reduced pole height ( 35 ' to 25 ' ) Responding tote Mart,. in I�1tta Neighborhood I 1t ' • .t t Vii: Jr., 'a y, y k y< lP+, •� f. illr• ":t 1. -. a. _r.� ✓t I r•! ilk itil ' ., ' D YI - ` ..IL II 4. 4 S .s ?s' . ;.v,�4a; .. U - 4' 'fit" �- i. '� • - +Y. r • „�� -.rte ♦ -` Y . \{ ,a ',51.1. sue. , le-.14$ • . , A V ,iiir: - ........ .„ .. . i .. . ., elk .ft . . .:kill:2 ..., 1 : . ' • - _ y •rye ••,. ,r, . _ — ...., ____ . t . ._ _.-a _. t. ...; 4,/a Arnirc4ilfrviti ., i to hl ti. Irt r . �' - •7-- 7 \4111R4 7 mr itj 4. .. y✓ 1 1^•. .TOSS" . �*cr• *h h ... ) �' y� a , 4 h •r c‘ 14 i . . • IC G j . , rse. 1 WI- 9y►�• �. M �'� i Sid" IV illgt et —Ail * it .. IIIKti•: • ' ' r a Y I O 3 op ,, • - . , . . .I " •' 50 Martin Compatibility Achieved Marietta • 700 setback creates greenspace buffer • Vegetated , earthen berms • Below -grade hopper • Acoustical enclosures • Circular truck routes • White noise back -up alarms • Noise monitoring program • State -of-the -art odor control equipment • Meeting National Ambient Air Quality Standards • On -site landscaping and $ 100 , 000 for off-site landscaping • Limited hours of operation • Reduced light pole heights • Neighborhood working group 51 Standards & Conditions of 23 - 2 - 230 a Martin Marietta Section B , 7 1 . Consistent with Chapter 22 , ,/ Protection of private property rights a / Adequate services and facilities to support use , ( Reduce potential conflicts between land uses Promote location of industrial uses along 'V railroad infrastructure 52 Standards & Conditions of 23 - 2 - 230 a Martin Marietta Section B 2 . Proposal is consistent with the intent of the district in which the use is located . 3 . The uses which would be permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses . 4 . The uses permitted will be compatible with the future development of the surrounding area . 53 Standards & Conditions a Martin of 23 - 2 - 230 Marietta Section B NA 5 . Overlay districts 6 . Demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve / � f prime farmland in the locational decision for the proposed use . 7 . Adequate provision for the protection of the health , safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County. 54 Standards & Conditions a Martin Marietta of 23 - 2 - 230 Item C: Where reasonable methods or techniques are available to mitigate any negative impacts which could be generated by the proposed USE upon the surrounding area, the Board of County Commissioners may condition the decision to approve the Special Use Permit upon implementation of such methods or techniques and may require sufficient performance guarantees to be posted with the COUNTY to guarantee such implementation . 55 Request for Recommendation aMaretta Martin of Approval • Meets or exceeds standards for approval by Weld County Code • Compatibility/ Co - exists with surrounding land use — Extensive communication with neighbors — Extensive modifications to the plan • Balancing property owners ' rights • Long -term vision for Weld County ' s economic future Request Recommendation for Martin ofrova Mariotta . . _. ,............. _._ e k • Ani--"Pia..r ‘ mg%; i .. :-.'. " cr. 1HWY 34 COMPATIBILITY MAP t . 4. rte ' �� 4 Legend AONY♦ /. 0 - I, ‘.41k ! / M M[... •_ f /' Ile MAJOR ARTERIAL —‘ » °"" HIGHWAY inn so.... ,r, INTERSTATE .Y.U.-N + w.dS..+ww orw.�-° RAILROAD » BOUNDARY OF e r LAND USR15.0027 w as's,• ice... USE .,, b III < ' �:o<: 13 s GENERAL f a COMMERCIAL ` ' INDUSTRIAL i i `""""• • *ill PROPOSED ,,,t _ r INDUSTRIAL i Pi . -L 1 ' .'�'- j - Y% �.,. __ PUD • MIXED t, Jy� RESIDENTIAL COMIC rid.. 411000 ND 1 �!,;/ • .. . �� % ma ‘•••• . .-:11:1/ is,... • ,.. i sip: pit( �. likt, _, t. ..A;%; .� r L. N .. t /V 0'1 mil=` : " < ;. • I'll- ra�.y , , *-=fir .�.ere'r+l `s i. - I li 03 015 0 03 ,w�q Si ` van— . IIMMIIMI, Mdes is , ' ` _i..a w i• r _ : n:l CLR - 34 Neighborhoods Assn . " Citizens Working for Responsible Development " Aggregate Supply • No evidence provided • No quantification Mitigate : To make less severe or • Unfounded claim intense ; moderate or alleviate • USGS monitors permits MMM Claims • Impact : MMM permitted • Resources depleting in sites may be depleting , Larimer and Weld Counties not all vendors affected Demand won ' t be met • • Design Standards : none • • Enforcement : N /A Estimated 5 years supply remains • Mitigation : N /A 11 EXHIBIT aL1 CLR - 34 Nei• g or oo s Assn . "Citizens Working for Responsible Development " • Large scale negative effects will occur Agricultural - — Water contamination — Hazardous air pollutants 44 — Traffic conflicts Mitigate : To make less severe or • In Oregon and Texas, effects were intense; moderate or alleviate anticipated as far away as 2 miles . • In Garfield County, asphalt plant adjacent to organic farm was denied MM M Claims • Impact : Loss of crops due to contamination ; after the fact damage makes recovery difficult • No impact on local • Desi n g standards : regulatory limits • • • apply agriculture activity • Enforcement : none . • Mitigation : none . regulatory limits do not reflect potential risk due to violations pi . . . CLR - 34 Neighborhoods Assn . "Citizens Working for Responsible Development " • Currently there is no joint county/communities Co m m u n ivfling t P la n planning agreement • Weld County just approved planning cooperative agreement w/ Mead, Milliken and Platteville • Issued statement of support for the US Hwy 34 Coalition • The jurisdictions have done planning and would like Mitigate : To make less severe or to engage the county intense ; moderate or alleviate • This USR is opposed by all the Surrounding Communities . di MMM Actions • Impact : severe . If this USR is approved it would likely undermine • Ignoring the surrounding all the planning efforts of every surrounding community. community ' s deliberate • Design Standards : none . Ill planning • Enforcement : community/county. • Mitigation : very little . Allowing this Incompatible USR huge Industrial variance encourages Application heavy industry to locate here . CLR - 34 Neighborhoods Assn . "Citizens Working for Responsible Development // • Numerous sources of dust exist on site Dust - Asphalt plant ( controlled and uncontrolled ) — Ready mix plant (controlled and uncontrolled ) — Paved roads ( no control ) — Unpaved roads ( no control ) - - Aggregate unloading ( no control ) Mitigate : To make less severe or - Aggregate transfers ( no control ) intense; moderate or alleviate • Sources of unhealthy small particles • — PM2 . 5 — PM 10 • Impact : MMM's own analysis shows over 500 tons M [Vi M Actions per year from paved roads alone — 100 tons or more of PM2. 5 — 200 tpy from Asphalt and concrete plants• -. . • Dust abatement Design Standards : Dust abatement plan; No plan mitigation of most dus t. d t. • Enforcement: Regulatory limits apply, but no • Street sweeper enforcement possible due to timing • Mitigation : Road watering may be 70% effective ( 150 tpy remain); street sweeper may help; no mitigation of most fugitive dust, regulatory limits on emissions only l.1 Mr. Bob Wilson 8354 East County Road 20C Johnstown, CO 80534 Bob. Pursuant to your question regarding mechanical design and mechanical filtration for different construction occupancies, I offer the following general information. Most every heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) system that circulates air to a building space is provided with filtration. Filters serve to remove particles in the air as it is being circulated through the air handling unit. There are many different levels of filtration for many different particle sizes: • Some filters remove only large particles. and smaller particles pass through the filter. These serve to protect cooling and heating coils from excessive debris and buildup. These are the least expensive types of filters and are often used in residential applications. • Some remove mid-size particles (as well as larger particles). Again. the smallest particles and fine dust will pass through the filter. These filters are often used in air handling units serving office and retail type establishments. • Some establishments, such as hospitals or manufacturing facilities, are provided with the highest level of filtration which controls the passage of smaller particles and fine dusts. These filters are the most expensive to maintain, and require air handling equipment where the fans have been designed to push through the much higher pressure drop of these types of filters. Particulates in the outside air will be introduced into building environments if air handling units serving the indoor spaces are not furnished with the appropriate filtration to remove the associated particulates. Normal ambient (outdoor) particulate levels, however, are typically not hazardous to healthy individuals. Accordingly, the level of filtration typically utilized for an office building, retail establishment, or even private residences does not address a situation where there is a high ambient particulate level. Hospitals typically have a higher level of filtration designed at the air handling equipment because some individuals within the hospital have a compromised health condition. Manufacturing facilities of microelectronics equipment, health care equipment etc., also have high levels of filtration because the presence of contaminants on the products can cause faulty operation or health risk to those using the product. As such, extra measures are implemented to control particulates that can be generated from either inside or outside the facility. These filters are quite expensive to purchase and maintain, and in locations where outdoor particulates are high for some reason, there is certainly a cost burden to the hospital because the frequency of filter changes is higher. If the ambient particulate levels are high for a particular reason, the filtration system included in most mainstream commercial and residential buildings will not be able to capture and control the particulates from entering the building. In addition, because the fans in the HVAC equipment have not been designed to accommodate the pressure drop associated with high levels of filtration, this is not something that can simply be added. Matt Rankin %��►�L. President, T4 Architects. Inc. 1 of 1 R4 Architects— 226 Remington Street. Unit #3, Fort Collins, CO 80524 P 970-224-0630 CLR - 34 Neighborhoods Assn . " Citizens Working for Responsible Development " • • Most jobs will be filled from other MMM sitesEconom ICS • Motorists delays on Hwy34 increase • More trucks=increased road maintenance costs • Loss of real estate values — currently valued at over $50 million - causes loss of property tax revenues • Loss of other, higher $ value/higher density development that won't happen • Health and Safety - county and residents will bear costs T Mitigate : o make less severe or • gLoss of crops due to contamination intense ; moderate or alleviate • Managing the clean up of dust, water - County and residents will bear enforcement cost • Many costs that are hard to quantify but still valid MMM Claims • Impact : potentially huge . Loss of • Bring jobs to Weld County revenue, home value, and farming . • Bring numerous unspecified Burden on motorists, County and community benefits Surrounding Municipalities . • Install signal to improve traffic • Design Standards : none . • We asked for an explanation of the • Enforcement : none . community benefits they would bring • Mitigation : No compensation and they ignored our request proffered . Fire and Explosion Hazards • There have been an average of 5 fires per year for past 5 years at Asphalt Plants in the USA . • Over 50 , 000 gallons of the flammable asphalt cement will be used and transported daily ! • Asphalt fires are difficult to put out and require AFFF foam . si • • Front Range it !ot ire Rescu = �� have these systems. Specific Hazards Emergency Response : • Isolate and evacuate in all directions for a1/2 mile • Cool containing vessels in order to keep from auto ignition or explosion Extinguishing Media : Water Spray and Foam • Use of water can cause product heated above 212 F to expand with explosive force ! • • Toxic Smoke , Heat - ` �. .�'' Homes ( families ) within 1500 feet . SSW I. 4e,41-; • • Public transportation Y `" � ; routes also a risk ! Conclusion Many of the handling • Front Range Fire Rescue systems proposed are does not have any Foam heated and need constant maintenance and lots of Type Systems . possibilities for spillage , • Evacuation of over 150 fires and explosions . families within 1/2 mile area ! • This project has simply 4 ( too much risk and is wo. . s incompatible with the area / location . A Pu„ , References • SDS ( MSDS ) • Emergency Response Guidebook Guide # 130 • Jensen Hughes Report dated 5 - 19 - 2015tr •s . • Internet : .............„ CLR - 34NeighborhoodsAssn . "Citizens Working for Responsible Development " • MMM Emissions assessment Health - Certain HAP 's and criteria pollutants exceed standards • NIOSH recommends Mitigate : To make less severe or respirators at projected intense; moderate or alleviate formaldehyde concentrations • Most particulate matter was not considered MMM Actions • Impact : significant health risk to sensitive • Commissioned toxicologist to assess individuals asphalt plant risks • Design Standards : Regulatory limits only g g Y • No concern with particulate matter • Enforcement : none . • Claim that meeting regulations will be adequate • Mitigation : none . no enforcement or • Claim that they "far exceed all monitoring requirements, even for California — Backtracking after CLR - 34 study CLR - 34 Neighborhoods Assn . "Citizens Working for Responsible Development " Health - Physiological Effects • Emissions include formaldehyde & benzene • EPA keeps lowering acceptable PM levels 1997, 2006, 2013 of Air Pollution • Generates dust as level PM2 • WHO as of 2013 feels PM2.5 causes short and long term risks including: • Respiratory disease • Cardiovascular disease • Aggravates asthma Mitigate : To make less severe or • Causes inflammation, abnormal clotting, hardening of the intense; moderate or alleviate arteries leading to heart attack and stroke • Increased hospital admissions • Death from cardiovascular and - respiratory disease • Death from lung cancer • Impact : severe and continuing . Especially [Vi M M Actions with elderly, children with poor lung development, and people with lung and heart disease . • Dust abatement plan Y Design Standards : none . -44 Enforcement : none . • street sweeper • Mitigation : none . No amount will be safe411 enough long term . • AC filtration Just because it is currently legal does not mean it is responsible CLR - 34 Neighborhoods Assn . • "Citizens Working for Responsible Development " • Multiple noise sources on the Noise site — Trains arriving, N 1 hour, night — Trains unloading, 8 hours Mitigate : To make less severe or — Conveyors, continuous intense ; moderate or alleviate — Aggregate dryer — Aggregate transfers — Truck traffic/ loading/ unloading EVIEV1FV1 Actions • Impact : Multiple, continuous impacts — Berms ineffective as most homes are higher • Noise Study - Shrouding should have some positive impact • 10 - 20 foot berms - Noise heard one mile away from Ft . Collins site • Enclosures around equipment • Design Standards : Industrial limits specified • Below grade hopper • Enforcement : none . standard industrial • 24/ 7/ 365 operation noise limits apply • Mitigation : none . Legal limits applied • Industrial noise limit ( 80/75 dB ) . _ Intersection Level of Service Analysis U534 & CR13 US 34 & CR 13 Intersection Level of Service & Delay AM PM Lanes on Level of Service Seconds of Delay Level of Service Seconds of Delay Heavy Vehicle Adjustment US 34 (LOS) Per Vehicle (LOS) Per Vehicle Short Term ( 5 Years, 2020 ) No Heavy Vehicle Adjustment 4 I 20 . 8 C 21 . 1 (PCE) Yes Heavy Vehicle Adjustment 4 D 37 . 5 D 38 . 7 ( PCE) Long Term ( 20 Years, 2035 ) No Heavy Vehicle Adjustment 6 C 33 . 9 D 36 . 4 (PCE) Yes • Heavy Vehicle Adjustment 4 F 182 . 2 F 211 .4 (PCE) HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency Duration, h 0.25 Analyst Analysis Date 7/27/2015 Area Type Other -' Jurisdiction Time Period AM PHF 0.92 - it Intersection US 34 - CR13 Analysis Year 2017 4 Analysis Period 1 > 7:00 1 File Name AM_task2.xus Project Description v , - - Demand Information EB WB _ NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand (v), veh/h ' 10 1945 70 60 1695 35 70 1 30 10 1 20 Signal Information , Cycle, s 100.0 Reference Phase 2 V le-e m YI T Offset, s 0 Reference Point Begin — g Green 5.0 61 .0 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 I . Ie414.1 _ : , 1 Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap EM On cl ‘ 1 �= Yellow 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 Force Mode : Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Red 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 5 6 ! e. Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 5 2 1 6 8 4 Case Number 1 . 1 3.0 1 .1 3.0 11 .0 11 .0 Phase Duration, s 11 .0 67.0 11 .0 67.0 11 .0 11 .0 Change Period, ( Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 3.0 2.8 3.0 2.8 3.0 3.2 Queue Clearance Time (gs), s 2.3 63.0 4.6 49.8 7.0 3.6 Green Extension Time (ge), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 i 8.7 i 0.0 0.0 Phase Call Probability 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 Max Out Probability 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 0.76 1 .00 1 .00 Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 11 2114 76 65 1842 38 77 33 12 22 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/In 1366 1672 700 924 1672 1215 1750 550 1408 1215 Queue Service Time (gs), s 0.3 61 .0 4.8 2.6 47.8 1 . 1 4.4 5.0 0.8 1 .6 Cycle Queue Clearance Time (gc), s 0.3 61 .0 4.8 2.6 47.8 1 .1 4.4 5.0 0.8 1 .6 Green Ratio (g/C) 0.66 0.61 0.61 0.66 0.61 0.66 0.05 0. 10 0.05 0. 10 Capacity (c), veh/h 167 2040 427 118 2040 802 87 4 55 4 70 122 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X) 0.065 1 .036 0. 178 0.552 0.903 0.047 0.882 0.592 0. 170 0. 179 Available Capacity (ca), veh/h 167 4 2040 427 118 2040 802 87 55 70 122 Back of Queue (Q), veh/In (85th percentile) 0.2 32.6 1 . 1 1 .7 19.8 0.4 5. 1 1 .6 0.5 0.9 Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (85th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (di), s/veh 18.8 19.5 8.5 24.8 16.9 6.0 47.2 43. 1 45.5 41 .2 Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 0. 1 30.0 0. 1 3.2 5.9 0.0 57.7 11 .2 0.4 0.3 Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 18.9 ' 49 5 8.6 ' 28. 1 22.9 6.0 4 104.9 54.3 45.9 41 .5 Level of Service (LOS) BF A CC A F D D D Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 48.0 1 D 22.7 j C 89.9 F 43. 1 I D Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 37.5 D Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.2 l B 2.2 I B 3.0 I C 3.0 I C Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 2.3 B 2. 1 B 0.7 A 0.5 A Copyright © 2015 University of Florida, AN Rights Reserved. HCS 2010'" Streets Version 6.60 Generated: 8/4/2015 11 :00:05 AM HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information J 4 -`. 't• 1 Agency Duration, h 0.25 `i a %.1, Analyst Analysis Date 7/27/2015 Area Type Other a -' A I - � L. Jurisdiction Time Period PM PHF 0.92 Is. 4— + •4c ---,, •— — Intersection US 34 - CR13 Analysis Year 2017 Analysis Period _1 > 7:00 or re' -1 r File Name PM_task2.xus . r* Project Description 1 '! t + Y t 0 Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand (v), veh/h 30 1825 35 25 1915 45 55 5 40 10 1 15 Signal Information __, Cycle, s 100.0 Reference Phase 2rl 14% , r21 =» r-� 1 1 , Offset, s 0 Reference Point Begin --�'-Th ► �T�► 1 -ED 2 Green 5.0 61 .0 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 Uncoordinated Yes i Simult. Gap EM On Yellow 4.0 4.0 4.0l 4.0 0.0 0.0 _J' 4.)--i Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Red 2.0 _ 2.0 2.0 _2.0 0.0 _ 0.0 3 ' s Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 5 2 1 6 8 4 Case Number 1 . 1 3.0 1 . 1 3.0 11 .0 11 .0 Phase Duration, s 11 .0 67.0 11 .0 67.0 11 .0 11 .0 Change Period, (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 . Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 3.0 2.8 3.0 2.8 3. 1 3. 1 Queue Clearance Time (gs), s 2.8 58.8 3.4 63.0 6.0 3.2 Green Extension Time (ge), s 0.0 1 . 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phase Call Probability 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 r 1 .00 1 .00 Max Out Probability 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 Movement Group Results EB WB NB _ SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 33 1984 38 27 2082 49 i 65 43 12 16 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/In 1366 1672 474 673 1672 1215 1681 1022 1408 1215 Queue Service Time (gs), s 0.8 56.8 3.4 1 .4 61 .0 1 .6 3.8 4.0 0.8 1 .2 Cycle Queue Clearance Time (gc), s 0.8 56.8 3.4 1 .4 61 .0 1 .6 3.8 4.0 0.8 1 .2 Green Ratio (g/C) 0.66 0.61 0.61 0.66 0.61 0.61 0.05 0. 10 0.05 0. 10 Capacity (c), veh/h 140 2040 289 108 2040 741 84 102 70 122 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X) 0.232 0.972 0. 132 0.251 1 .020 0.066 0.776 0.425 0.170 0. 134 • Available Capacity (Ca), veh/h 140 2040 289 108 2040 741 84 102 70 122 Back of Queue (Q), veh/In (85th percentile) 0.8 25.4 0.5 0.7 30.7 0.6 3.9 1 .8 0.5 0.6 Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (85th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (di), s/veh 24.5 18.7 8.3 24.5 19.5 7.9 46.9 42.3 45.5 41 . 1 Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 13.9 0. 1 0.4 25.2 0.0 32.9 1 .0 0.4 1 0.2 Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 24.8 32.6 8.3 25.0 44.7 7.9 79.9 43.3 45.9 41 .2 Level of Service (LOS) CC A CF A E D D D Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 32.0 1 C _ 43.6 I D i 65.3 I E 43.2 I D Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 38.7 D Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.2 6 2.2 B 3.0 C 3.0 C Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 2.2 B 2.3 B 0.7 A 0.5 A Copyright Cd 2015 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010-m Streets Version 6.60 Generated: 8/4/2015 11 :01 11 AM HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information J4 A. + } l. Agency Duration, h 0.25 Analyst Analysis Date 7/27/2015 a. _ Area Type Other A. Jurisdiction Time Period AM PHF 0.92 * + Intersection US 34 - CR13 Analysis Year 2035 Analysis Period 1 > 7:00 " T File Name AM_task6.xus Project Description 1 t r -- r r Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand (v), veh/h 15 3090 115 95 2695 55 135 1 55 15 5 1 30 1 Signal Information r Cycle, s 150.0 Reference Phase 2 = • y ,�i,� � T. r jt disi l Offset, s 0 Reference Point Begin — - Green 5.0 90.0 1 .0 4.0 0.0t. Uncoordinated Yes , Simult. Gap E/W On Yellow 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 L., -- Ly. - - ,ki Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Red 2.0-_ 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 7 its I Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Case Number 1 .1 3.0 1 .1 3.0 1 . 1 3.0 1 . 1 3.0 Phase Duration, s 11 .0 96.0 11 .0 96.0 33.0 17.0 26.0 10.0 Change Period, (Y+Ro), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.9 3.2 2.9 3.2 Queue Clearance Time (gs), s 2.5 92.0 7.0 92.0 22.8 11 .2 3.2 5.0 Green Extension Time (ge), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phase Call Probability 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 Max Out Probability 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 0.21 1 .00 0.00 1 .00 Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 16 3359 125 103 2929 60 147 1 60 16 5 33 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/In 1757 1941 1088 1495 1941 1563 973 1900 1 931 1757 1845 1563 Queue Service Time (gs). s 0.5 90.0 4.3 5.0 90.0 1 .6 20.8 0. 1 9.2 1 .2 0.4 3.0 Cycle Queue Clearance Time (go), s 0.5 90.0 4.3 5.0 90.0 1 .6 20.8 0.1 9.2 1 .2 0.4 3.0 Green Ratio (g/C) 0.63 0.60 0.78 0.63 0.60 0.73 0.22 0.07 0. 11 0. 16 0.03 0.06 Capacity (c), veh/h 107 2329 849 98 2329 1146 241 139 99 319 49 94 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X) 0. 153 1 .442 0. 147 1 .055 1 .258 0.052 0.608 0.008 0.602 0.051 0. 110 0.348 Available Capacity (ca), veh/h 107 2329 849 98 2329 1146 241 139 99 319 49 94 Back of Queue (Q), veh/In (85th percentile) 0.6 143.2 1 .3 7.4 100.2 0.8 7.5 0. 1 3.9 0.9 0.4 2. 1 Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (85th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (di), s/veh 37.2 30.0 4. 1 44.3 30.0 5.5 53.8 64.4 64.0 53.4 71 .3 67.7 Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 201 .4 0.0 106.7 119.6 0.0 3.2 0.0 7. 1 0.0 0.4 0.8 Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' Control Delay (d), s/veh 37.4 231 .4 4. 1 151 .0 149.6 5.6 56.9 64.4 71 .0 53.4 71 .6 68.5 Level of Service (LOS) D F A F F A EEE D E E Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 222.4 ] F 146.9 1 F 61 .0 j E 64.3 [ E Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 182.2 F Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.4 I B 2.4 I B 3.0 C 3.0 C Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 3.4 C 3.0 C 0.8 A 0.6 A Copyright ': 2015 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS 20101" Streets Version 6.60 Generated: 7/31/2015 5: 14.40 PM HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information r 4 =• ' 1 $ I. Agency Duration, h i 0.25 Analyst ' Analysis Date 7/27/2015 Area Type Other .4 a. Jurisdiction Time Period PM PHF 0.92 1 c Intersection US 34 - CR13 _ Analysis Year 2035 Analysis Period 1 > 7:00 ' le r- Name PM_task6.xus Project Description 14 t + ti M r Demand Information EB B_ - WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L TR LT R L T R Demand (v), veh/h 45 2905 50 35 3045 70 85 10 60 15 1 25 Signal Information A Cycle, s 150.0 Reference Phase 2 r r'' Flit Offset, s 0 Reference Point Begin e — NYC f rale ' al), 3 ' g Green 5.0 90.0 20.0 1 .0 4.0 0.0 - • C Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap E/W On _ a, cip , 7 Yellow 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 , •Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Red 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 i $ 8 I Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Case Number 1 . 1 3.0 i 1 .1 3.0 1 . 1 3.0 1 . 1 3.0 Phase Duration, s 11 .0 96.0 11 .0 96.0 33.0 17.0 26.0 10.0 Change Period, ( Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 2.9 4 2.8 2.9 2.8 4 2.9 3. 1 2.9 3. 1 Queue Clearance Time (gs), s 3.6 92.0 3.7 92.0 10. 1 i 8.5 3.2 4.5 Green Extension Time (ge), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0. 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phase Call Probability 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 I 1 .00 Max Out Probability 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 0.00 1 .00 0.00 1 .00 Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R 1 Assigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 49 3158 54 38 3310 76 92 11 65 16 1 27 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/In 1757 1895 890 1265 1895 1563 1425 1845 1412 1757 1900 1563 Queue Service Time (gs), s 1 .6 90.0 2. 1 1 .7 90.0 s 2.0 8. 1 0.8 6.5 1 .2 0. 1 2.5 Cycle Queue Clearance Time (gc), s 1 .6 4 90.0 2. 1 1 .7 90.0 2.0 8. 1 0.8 6.5 1 .2 0. 1 2.5 Green Ratio (g/C) 0.63 0.60 0.78 0.63 0.60 0.73 0.22 0.07 0. 11 0. 16 0.03 0.06 Capacity (c), veh/h 107 4 2274 694 90 2274 1146 334 135 4 151 319 51 94 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X) 0.459 1 .389 0.078 0.422 1 .456 0.066 0.277 0.080 0.433 0.051 0.021 0.290 Available Capacity (ca), veh/h 107 2274 694 90 2274 1146 334 135 151 319 51 94 Back of Queue (Q), veh/In (85th percentile) 1 .9 127.5 0.5 1 .5 143. 1 1 .0 4.6 0.7 3.9 0.9 0. 1 1 .8 Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (85th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (di), s/veh 37.4 30.0 3.9 37.4 30.0 5.6 48.8 64.8 62.8 53.4 71 . 1 67.4 Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 4 1 . 1 177.7 0.0 1 .2 207.6 0.0 0.2 0. 1 4 0.7 0.0 0. 1 0.6 Initial Queue Delay (di), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 38.5 207.7 3.9 38.6 2.37.6 5.6 49.0 64.9 i 63.5 53.4 71 .2 4 68. 1 Level of Service (LOS) D F A D F AID E _ E D E E Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 201 .8 ] F 230.2 ] F 55.6 I E 62.8 I E Intersection Delay. s/veh / LOS 211 .4 F Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.4 B 2.4 B 3.0 C 3.0 C Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 3.2 C 3.3 C 0.8 A 0.6 A Copyright t 2015 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010 "" Streets Version 6.60 Generated: 7/31/2015 5: 15:33 PM CLR - 34 Neighborhoods Assn . "Citizens Working for Responsible Development " • Odor will emanate from various sources of Odoractivity on the site . • Asphalt fumes associated with the handling, storage, transfer and usage of the asphalt cement ( bitumen, "tar" ) . • Fumes associated with the large numbers of Mitigate : To make less severe or diesel- powered trucks traversing the site . intense; moderate or alleviate • Reportedly not toxic, always unpleasant M M IVI Plans • Impact: AC tank mods likely have some positive effect at reducing odor; odor rangers have no impact; odor will normally be present • Vertical asphalt tanks • Design standards : none included . Require 2: 1 • Condensers to capture dilution emissions from AC tanks • Enforcement : none. standard odor regulations will apply • Charcoal filters on AC tanks • Mitigation : none because only legal level is • " Odor ran ¢ e r " required. Reduce requirement from 7: 1 dilution to b California's 2: 1. CLR - 34 Neighborhoods Assn . "Citizens Working for Responsible Development " MMM existing sites : � Poor Housekeeping • Fencing broken and tangled mess • Trash/ Derelict vehicles • Weed growth not controlled Mitigate : To make less severe or • Lack of adhering to design standards • intense; moderate or alleviate Girard never completed landscaping - required on current USR . • Impact : numerous, continuous : MM M Actions - unsightly visual impact - unsafe • Repeatedly states they are - further erosion of property values . good neighbors • Design Standards : none . „ • Enforcement : none . Would require • Employs best practices community to police them . • Mitigation : none . Must rely on them to keep their word CLR - 34 Neighborhoods Assn . "Citizens Working for Responsible Development " • We are strong advocates of property rights . • 4111 Pro pe rt • You should be able to do anything you want to on Rights your pr operty as long as not one bit of it comes onto mine . • We all have the same property rights . • They should not be allowed to send contaminated water, air, noise, odor, dust on my property. Mitigate : To make less severe or • As a home owner I am not even allowed to direct intense; moderate or alleviate rainwater onto my neighbor's property. • The same should apply to them . • Impact : severe and continuous - MMM 's MM M Actions plant infringes on all surrounding owner's property rights . • Added buffer zone on • Design Standards : none . • Enforcement : none . NE corner • Mitigation : none . MMM must create large enough buffer zone on all sides to guarantee n o odor, dust, water, noise or other e missions from plant cross onto anyone e lse's property . • l��VLIV.I iI .Y P .1\YW — Ll.—..4VY.IIO. TSlasti'i •1.M1w0'.Aa-; r M\ YRII— CLR - 34 Neighborhoods Assn . "Citizens Working for Responsible Development " • Numerous statistical studies Property Values show clear loss of property value when facilities of this sort are sited near existing Mitigate : To make less severe or residential neighborhoods intense; moderate or alleviate - Effects extend as far as 5 miles • Common sense shows the same thing ! ! MMM Actions • Impact : Depending on distance , 5 -40% loss in market value is • Commissioned a " Paired projected ; loss in property tax Comparison " study by an appraiser revenue will follow — No qualifications for this type of • Design standards : none . analysis • Enforcement : none . • Currently, MMM denies that there • Mitigation : none . No mitigation is any issue ( ! ) or compensation is proffered CLR - 34 Neighborhoods Assn . "Citizens Working for Responsible Development " Traffic • Signal cycle times must be Hwy 34 Expressway lengthy to clear trucks and then allow Kelim frontage road access Mitigate : To make less severe or • Profit of one company will intense; moderate or alleviate cost Hwy34 motorists millions of dollars MMM Actions • Impact : Severe . Turns Hwy34 Expressway into Hwy 85 - like congested road . • Design Standards : none . • Install traffic signal • Enforcement : none . • Mitigation : MMM must pay to widen US34 to 6 lanes and install interchange . CLR - 34 Neighborhoods Assn . " Citizens Working for Responsible Development " Traffic • Two lane road — not built for constant WCR13 to WCR54 to I -25 heavy truck traffic • No shoulders and steep drop-offs • Narrow bridge • Extremely icy, hazardous in winter Mitigate : To make less severe or • Interchanges before 1 - 25 snarled due intense; moderate or alleviate to volume from Thompson River Ranch and truck traffic from Johnson 's Corner MMM Actions • Impact : severe at peak times . Traffic congestion and safety • Drivers get tired of hazard to commuters • Design Standards : none . waiting for access to Hwy • Enforcement : none . 34 and head South on • Mitigation : none . MMM states WCR13 to access I - 25 trucks will access I - 25 from Hwy 34 - will they enforce that ? CLR - 34 Neighborhoods Assn . "Citizens Working for Responsible Development " • Most surrounding neighbors Visual Impact will be continuously exposed to view of factories , aggregate piles , train activity, conveyor Mitigate : To make less severe or transport systems intense; moderate or alleviate • Several neighbors have no mitigation at all MM M Actions • Impact : Severe . Undesirable view of unpleasant activities • Low 10 - 20 ' berms with limited • Design standards : none . vegetation • Enforcement : none . • • Propose plantings on neighbors ' • Mitigation : Completely ineffective . properties Enclose asphalt and concrete operations . Lower tank heights . CLR - 34 Neighborhoods Assn . "Citizens Working for Responsible Development " Wildlife • LetterfromCSU I Letter from Ducks Mitigate : To make less severe or U n I i m ited intense; moderate or alleviate Impact : Largely unknown ; MMM Actions • Risk of long distance transport • Desktop study could affect eagle nesting , wetlands, rivers , etc . — No impact claimed • Design Standards : none . • Enforcement : none . • Mitigation : none . regulatory limits apply • August 10. 2015 RECEIVED Weld County Commissioners • Diana Aungst, AICP, CFM Planner 11 AUG 1 1 2015 EXHIBIT Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N . 17th Avenue WELD COUNTY re V Greeley, Colorado 80631 COMMISSIONERS 5(L��- 0oa- daungst@weldgov.com Re: Opposition to USR 15-0027 Martin Marietta Materials Hwy 34 Development Attention Diana Aungst & Weld County Planning Commissioners : We, Jesse and Kiki Martinez. adamantly oppose Martin Marietta's plan for an incompatible change in land use to build an asphalt plant along the western boundary of Weld County and eastern boundary of Larimer County near the junction of County Rd. 13 Highway 34. We appreciate the work done by the Weld County Planning Staff and agree to the resounding "no" provided by the Weld County Planning Staff`s Report based on their research and input from various entities, especially environmental subject matter experts, residents, agricultural residents, and from the appropriate existing commercial entities in the immediate vicinity and in the neighboring county. We are respectfully requesting the Planning Commission agree with the findings of their own Planning Staff and resoundingly decline the rezoning change in land use proposed by Martin Marietta and deny their request for a permit allowing them to destroy many aspects of our community and our well-being. As the Weld County Planning Staff has indicated, No amount of mitigation could be enough", to offset the amount of destruction the rezoning for the proposed asphalt plant would have on the community. It is important than to also consider that Citizens Against Asphalt Toxins. Fort Collins, Colorado have been seeking the permanent relocation of Martin Marietta' s Material. lnc.,Taft Hill Drum Asphalt Mix . The Citizens group is concerned that the heavy industry generated by Martin Marietta' s is polluting the air, water, property values, and quality of life. The citizens of Weld County are facing the same threat from Martin Marietta' s plan to industrialize the area. The information below is taken from the Citizens Against Asphalt Toxins. We would like the Weld County Planning Commissioners to take note of Martin Marietta's non-compliance of the Memorandum of Understanding that Martin Marietta signed with the City of Fort Collins, CO. : "June 9, 2015 - Martin Marietta Has Informed the City of Fort Collins That They Will Not Meet Four Important Conditions of their"Agreement" On March 3, 2015, Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (MMM ) signed a Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU ) with the City of Fort Collins outlining a series of actions that would be taken by both parties to improve the asphalt plant located at 1800 North Taft Hill Road, Fort Collins and reduce the toxic emissions. Unfortunately, when the City conducted its first quarterly site visit of the plant on May 22nd, they learned MMM would not be complying with four very important conditions of the MOU . They will not be installing vertical hot asphalt cement tanks that were presented as emission improvements nor a high efficiency hot oil heater. In addition, they stated they will not be paving the onsite haul roads to decrease dust, nor installing the agreed-upon landscape improvements and fence by June 30, 2015. See memo to city manager. " "The current asphalt cement tanks are horizontal and appear in rather poor condition. For several years, MMM has indicated they would be installing vertical asphalt tanks. Letter of Opposition to MMM Hwy 34 Development cont. Page 2 Now. with the requirement to re-grade the property and elevate the tanks, MMM has been informed the vertical tanks will exceed Larimer County height restrictions for the property. They will not be able to install the vertical tanks without a request for a variance, public hearing and special review by Larimer County zoning department. Rather than request a zoning variance and go through a public hearing and special review, MMM has decided to keep the old horizontal hot asphalt cement tanks and add some carbon filters that supposedly will improve emissions. . . CAAT is very concerned that the plant's operation continues to escalate beyond the original land use approval and the MOU seems to have only served to allow further investment in an already poorly located facility. When the plant was originally approved by the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners in March of 2009, the approval was for a batch asphalt plant. . . In reality, a larger-scale continuous flow drum asphalt plant was installed. Drum plants produce nearly twice the amount of asphalt as batch plants. . . large asphalt storage silos (over twice the height allowed on property zoned FA-Farming) were also approved under the condition that they would help decrease hours of operation. Unfortunately, the reality is that the operation of a continuous flow drum plant with its larger silos merely allows for more production, greater storage of asphalt cement and more truck traffic than ever intended under the special review. Today, the plant is a large-scale continuous flow drum asphalt plant operation . . . Martin Marietta's non-compliance of the NIOU has proven to the City of Fort Collins and Northern Colorado that they do not employ industry best practices. Further negative impacts by MM to the Northern Colorado environment and the community will continue if the proposed P P asphalt plant is allowed. A plant of this magnitude would be sure to cause all of the following an increase in air and dust pollution, which is sure to be above any de minimus threshold: an increase in noise pollution; an increase in traffic congestion. traffic hazards and infrastructure deterioration ; decreased property value and visual impacts; violation of environmental justice where health and safety and children are concerned: increased fragmentation of wildlife patterns: potential violation of Clean Water Act including deterioration of ground water and direct or indirect impacts to the nearby Little Thompson River: fragmentation of agricultural benefits to the community and the list goes on and on. Martin Marietta does not provide any formal State, Federal or Local environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement which actually provides evidence of how their asphalt plant proposal will provide mitigation to the very significant impacts which an asphalt plant is sure have on environment and people in the community and which would be in compliance with any mandatory environmental regulatory laws already set in place. Martin Marietta spokespersons indicates that this site at Hwy. 34 and CR 13 has several benefits for them without providing absolutely any tangible benefits for the local community that couldn 't be provide by future smart planning within the context of current zoning. In fact. under the current zoning framework, Weld County, Weld County residents. Larimer County and Larimer County residents would benefit much more with future realistic and beneficial entities within our community, to include additional estate homes. additional environmentally and visually appealing agricultural endeavors, and local and valuably enduring businesses which are compatible and make more sense under the current zoning structure. Please deny the MM application . Respectfully Submitted. Jesse & Kiki Martinez. 6819 Comanche Ct. Johnstown, CO 80534 Tisa Juanicorena From: Diana Aungst Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:02 PM To: Tisa Juanicorena Subject: FW: Martin Marietta Plant West Denver Attachments: FullSizeRender.jpg; FullSizeRender.jpg; FullSizeRender.jpg; FullSizeRender jpg; FullSizeRender.jpg; FullSizeRender.jpg More opposition to 3M Diana Aungst, AICP, CFM RECEIVED Planner II AUG 1 2 2015 Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue - Greeley, Colorado 80631 WELD COUNTY 970-353-6100 ext. 3524 COMMISSIONERS Fax: (970) 304-6498 daungst@weldgov.com www.weldgov.com Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. Original Message From: Michael Hall Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:00 PM To: Diana Aungst <daungst@co.weld.co.us> Subject: FW: Martin Marietta Plant West Denver EXHIBITMichael Hall . Planner I 1555 N 17th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 LIS(41 .pLaisAL„,1 (970) 353-6100 x 3528 mhall@co.weld.co.us Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return 1 e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. Original Message From: Gary Rath [mailto:gary.rath@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 3 :59 PM To: Michael Hall Subject: Martin Marietta Plant West Denver The Future Gateway to Greeley and Weld County? 2 rest. .,!- - - I • w 4'" ` , r:Fr -, 1 I- J1 -1 41141 yi I � }f `- \ `. 11, - t • f \ ' Ili . i•I 4 • ) 1 )1 t' v ' �Y , \ M ! I a. ,�� • IIYy •• , . � ' •l•4 44"'• 3 �� 4 fi `'/ r ' - -'.. •r 4.0$• • '5r fie ...L_Iin•I. •4 , . . 1i H _- 5. - --a . .. . ; •.,� .•. • •, , fir' i , -I 2 / - 5 --1 rs-;,i •. V 6 6 • MI .\) I I l� t..Ql \ 49 : ts• 1 �el 'v. ` -'� • , .l,V�`1 f - '� i. - M1\ - •A to!. ,' -4yq�I rr... w, . , .aA .. - , •'"Ii • '+ �F �Ttr.. .4„; t ki, gin--• r!�' . .y,� fit. a' 'r, .fit 'sap his a r. •+w w i''.•.1.. . ', Ohtlf- AO. c.41a o -. ,t fie; .• + it JlA .'� • ,•� r r_. ..... .ram-..i. �. �1t . .•. -any,..r A♦r: 'i ',}L �I I� M 4. iat • /(•{ P • •. ,w. A� t .. , . •� -! J, fr 4 atti 4 - '\ •.'. 4 �y 1/ 1• M1 i 1. 'r t~ ;1 ' ♦ �< , fi 1.t `7 4?: MI ) tic 4 f' ' . '5a ! �'•��'Iy a + • f�\\ 1. '�, • ! 1 1 ! •C- . 4 °' ..• . ydi ,• � .'4 ' e, t�;��`}: �-V ' • t� ' '1 D{' vv 1 �1 ,' I • IFi . •.F. .. . i es •.q ti.. ., 'ti �•K Jk.,�. �{' Z ��Pi 'V 1 et ,. ' w l •Y, yKi" ' /M1!�'�i ..�NStF II. f _r ,:7 ' ` '�� r•� ' " •- •� '1� " .. - • ,.y \' ~•''!g' 'i:..,..-�. { - I�'f1 • ..� :t N. 1•'� • •. < . ti ' _0' rl -I •i ar t!`;J.. ' I•� .:} i}.. • .� • ' - ^t • �i2 , Z is S •' . 's.' . _ r L. ', .� • •:k . i:; t' • • • ,• • •' 4'.7,,, 04-4 � .. L ♦N it 'W, �\ .•rA. •'^� l,', +• I. - f. ',•, - , I '.t-.�1 � •f.•, y • i. .' ,� y l 1 .•111. , }tS.,-.'. I • • ! • /-• '♦ - ' . - .. • " ice-l_ -Y it t 'a^ iii avot il_ - . - ` 4..fkrntAbi`.~+rrYss9Pi...-..-. - - --- ••-..r,,�[[ a—- _.:.,� . .•..a..,•..• 0,1 11 ' )$ Y► J� it • II:. yy'• D III ♦ 1'.ii ,,,, . I •l • - p A 1 ▪ 1 �, c tit ! �� * ` 1 '4 i f '.‘ i 'N Iii %.14 I\ ' 1 r f r 4, A • ;re t i IS / e_ Hiliarnboomniiimips. , _ . . /,tat, 4 , f , � �I S i • �� • • ' '`I, P1s e. _ ...4. 114\ i_sais oil .i.icitiii . I tit \� , A Iit All . .. . 1 iilli I id .0. _ . 0 . 4. o; • t _ J • es ___ .. / / . • ve .: .... . i. ..... . Il 1 kill‘N it k', ►� �: . .._. - 4 A.r ri IP . r _ ks At `ilt > , , ,k • .- i At • • I: ...of" k `, s • , L 'X .. •v -1 r r• bk tea. _ �i .}'• -_ "", .. .\ _ y‘t41% 7 ` ,lti� , ` r �{ 4�? 1 _y esillO I.♦t -pp '•y� ' - � ' r * ♦ , C . : lk • 1 •`; ; /L% _ a �r� ., � l . '' • r/ :Y •S)T s,i,, ., C .1 • ►�•' ' .. b.Y • •• v Ce •.ltt� '•t' '• 1110r \ l {- . % . ,..,1•f• ..e .'• •>< 'let !,.' .'tt S . . , iv) ` . 7 "/ l -2,,,-. r re .\ •rlt Q\ll'.r ,�1.'.�.\•\ '• �1".\"•1.� i{ - .� .1\ 1 ),\ ti•' �,;'1•y. ! i - v. i.i (r ar. •J :-/•:.,/ .l �'. > ,.Y R' 24a' ' ‘"1 . :1 'V ... •♦ .1 . Y,, ) �, tit 1 'St , • . .\ r�li + L♦. _. J' . /,1 •'•y ,,' *I •-,,,1',h,. .5, ! ,• , • . % .t . ,,• '1•' , 'Y' \ ,1 I •. / > . • • r' a 7 •"� •r .,:i r.",C 4 `, r I`' • ` ^' / '.• 's., •• ' • `, ,•tq _ • � / .\ 1,,1; '., as: . . • '� • ,,t 4.• ., r • ` I. ) • �( Sp * . V7i •' .1:1 .' �' -:� '� ( •j't/ •/r .. m� ' ' �, �11 • -.�••-. ayy'4� . . -y Y'-• . ( I , , L �l•f, I'f� S.V � 1 .)•• ••,'' yy`.♦ �[� r. '../ T/ • rlfV , ♦ i .. ,'. . ^. • . ! _./ .'Y•a ��p(� �{ 1��,,�, \ . S. "-\I. /'.'1 ti(.'. . 1 • •'ti. Y. isle!, •v_ !• I' '/' '\. r 1 , 1 �I:'' , .i r % �i .{�.4:•, . 1&.4r•y.,L , •,/ r 0..C S,l',: :�:•/ • • r ', '5.•'S.A '')'.lt .\ _ 'I �`r� • •[r_p44_- •_'Si k1044. . . !�3� •�k.�' 1i►` i }. • 1 / 11. ' a i♦•G' 1 ~ • r a . . 1 x - al.• v t r 3e J 'i • .'e-'Y. _•s "S �� ' � � -,.� ,• '�• .`'fir �, +' ' t. �F 1- '!� y��iy��'�� . s .,i-. . . M l' 6 �Cf� ��jr1, r . ` _i TAdi 1 _ rye •` `: .`R ,' . - r .fir -4i - t G: /_,l _ .1. _ �►` (y,�iF;• _r..T �` • "� �1 .. i� �{,/ �.s• S ' �Q�� .•df, • �drlrrl• i 14 r•a. • '} 1 ' • , • %, 4.. ^ • } •► ^i1;��t '( y� t�r :` 1• t1 lte.,?"..s.,tothlifitcrgi.ill 1` ',1i ' ll. y 1r . JI1 . .i I �[ J Y r l i1' • IR rs s' A,• .%,, �i • 'I '1 ' ,:L '_ It /1 / '4�. a l •. It:•, , W '+ la Y'. ,• •jY't y` S1 Jt� ; ;, • / �t ,Ii J11. , •}1•'rj .. ;Q 1 rP.A I � 1r Jt',• y �' ,£ t , , _ • • 1 '; j /• '1I , .J • IR• .1�" til ' r . ::a1l .{4► ,+ § 1f••.�, t• ! •♦�.' ` \ - Ir +' • � :�; , 7▪ /. .rV ��( � •� r f�} i '• � � q/ / I, 1 ''\ ! '" I .` . i ,, J ,� `a t ,\ • ! 11/ � ��,'y,�� t' Iy, 1'.� v � // ' 'f� i�e. !1 T/'� - , e^ ,. - • /, .r t r f / 1• {• � S Y •if 6 , % / 4 v`f: J 'Al FF ,. •i ]�/�jft i . . •r.�'/ �'1>)t' `ir -• ,,/'• I • r .�' r� ,• , -i S ,� / •. ! I ! ! � ' f, i 1� l • r 1. u . . / �� !Y a it • , i r 1 • --_-.�_��/.• 1 /'. � • �j A^':N -.3.�`I• ' wlc•1 J or ,/...1.--4,f� '!'. _ r./ i. II . '/ / t'•, (.' r i 1• I ' t ' . 1 �' r J 1 •'i�� ier , 'T. 'rte", 1• I+�tt '7' � . . ! a • ! �'l ' �•, /i rlr :��.r.•- / < r' it FJ. �'• 1 .' /. r'. ', ' f ' Y,t d yy• ,1r _ yr f r ;.. +ti � 'I Y,, • ) 1 I. / / Ir 1 i • l .1� } `t •/!1 Y,' aY!S1 , . 7'. r :._ •ayr�j,/ fir! y. ,1- "- . k '-� 't ••l4t --� ,' ! :,1 ,. � 1 •F'.. T1 1 J''" � �•,�;` ,l ' ...-.41 e.• };ii." `:K / - � ••L. • � ' • L• • �I • ' • �i r I, 4 �..�• .,I.+�.••t 11 i,1 ' J •I '• ♦ , "I •. - } . - J..�'i . `lr a ' . Y e ' y. . • i � rI!... 7 ..� tit ` 't _ •� `,lI ` � r' ! 1 /I • i .C ,• ' •am, I 1•• J • ) / /( t ', /- `i. _. ( • t- , 7 �• '. r. i �4"f r , i ' I' f . 1 . /• l; • , e• "6 .f J • •{ . ~; ( r- ,, •v� ':•-� I A1 . �. ,' ��/. .i'' • . — / /1 ' ,f. • (:,•1 .11" - � '. .t },, •.df�• ri 4'. e • ' ' •rl!• . , I I • f. � •' , , A . • /. y f ' � ' -_ • K r .•1 '! 4, 4" t ..J15 si ' ' 3 f' r....� ,� ''/ • r, ! I !' 1 .f r:r I r i i /'1 r! i ..,• S ., I .1 ♦t. • • 1 c: '1 J '♦. 4tl, I. .lt y'� ,i 'I_ ; •, .f/.\ ..... t Y'•' • ' � '' y -ti,T'. :1 J' 6 • t !I•. . ,1� ! •} / / / 1• ' ,; , ! �r / • • t� /` �� •. . y , '1 es 1.! d i 1/44 1 r r ' 1 ,' r s it •, , ! , ' !^ ✓, ?' I .•►" 11 1. 1r . il�.� L �• ', ;CFA . y 17. Ate t ,14 ' Ilk ' �1{,( /4 (, ' ` • • 14. � 4. r« 1 t.\ 1. , ! ; i 1: / ; I ,� / ,: / ; ' ' • .-... r rt • I. -* T '- Ink It ' • *JL -1 ' If a7.}, .i. Il:'r` 51-.J' 4 •' 1• I' '•r' . � .n �.. 1 I', ! '1 Fi 'r ./ - •' ' 4 1. . r 1 , __----4-n - - t / .- •• • rani' ^ • _ _ •_‘; idea! / 111% il ---- \ 00 . 1.0-:--; , __� f �� r- to 1 - r- r._ - •�- . rirt . .- • • • kr. r N• i. . Jr Y r •• ____ . . . ..__:„. . .. , , r • .. \ -7 .4. ,.............___ . 5 ti- • lla \ k itt t 4: ' •r \ 1 r r pi' . _a I -1••• . i 4. —-CP.a:, _.:46 _ , A j t >. rC. I - 1 :: - . 0 se, li. , , II ----.H.L. _ __ 1. .. 1��triathedillag '� � 'J ..Marra•u.+.Lw. - �' • .,r �.,yr. :il: a 1- '� ' '1 It: �� Aio.,„ a...., - /Fir 1 1/4 Ai • am' timulharamilawa-. ( f ' 1;4... .1 • 41-, + .AIMl5 .: �ltl"l'[" Y:' ... r '^T.• •• I- 'J6^t - 11\ !�' ,J �•• , I. . '. •1. I r^ r)� t 4"7" at .r-ky 1 • .r r i + �. ^ T r r • Nil, " . r • MI I. >/My�p C. .r•y� '+ M►� 1+ 11 ..f tS �� > •I• � � Y. ` N '� V 4. iglialati f�.. • .--� .� J . . 'i• i Y . - �. •..4 • . t +rte ` y � • •: r 1. illir'J.►_•tif✓ ,j07,:,„*„.43;dl .dnF M.ase l•' • �.; �. / .a - a ] - 7Y'. I i A i , i 1.‘ _ . IIIIIIIIrelle..):\' • y •, ` \ . . Y k �'•d' __..+. d .. ._ may - ` •1. �.e M4'• _ i1 .j _ i Y " - ••••• i r - • Ai a•• �•- f. •.J rte\ _ _ _ - ,-- t • •W - L • • •' _ •.rte _ .� f'. �. - ./Illira/ Y $ . NI DO NOT N O . . R ` y Gi -c. y lb•Irs • lit •y�� c ;_ _ . . x . h. "jiff . 6 ; :,,.; :,� - _� , ENTIRP, ► AtU ‘�. ,`1 %.:1, OW E i.40, / 4,....; ..,^ t 0.; . 1-:;.; 0 1 • • •'4'• , - .• )- 4 ./4\s 't;*-ti •, .. . .- ,_riv "101 .,. .eoac" - it, ,,. • is,: ...• • ._. ,. .. - tel 4 t4. , ti, ... i _ -- • • .1 •• .4* ' i 41:,,,, . 0 Ski . .. CI •. 3,"'J..? si-' 47:::: ...ir i ` ' ,..,�• *l. ,• .,1. if* • Tliki. ‘7N.- 'Cr -., 1, •:'�;� y�.�,�t BUMPING •�1 t. ,�, . .!-� s,F'a"- - •�� r._ v i 7 . At ♦:!�• \ _ // 0 tt •4''i • .! 0414 I e. itil 31_ IS_• j � ,. -. w� • •'�- / • •� , ; •.," r, . . ,. •. ). < � -+ � \` ' '• • 41. ill � 'y f r . r`R`f.•�/' V * / 1 � `li,_'�• \lit A 0.17011 • • . •• ., •4•/ •1r•,, `• ' I�� '' 1 1t ' ` ri! `t. , �'' •rT` {i; , � 1\� .� • `/I ; \ . .` r. 1 ��w, },. I. far\r •, \ a1 !,•• ,+, A.Pt. r! " / `, ,• • r . N • 1 '1VY.• - .•' w M'ySJs• �i+ - `� �.. .ac l _Q� �i :;. •► \ 1 f � �V •`"-4r,-.., ' 4 � ,J 1 l/� ; ' w ', ,, 1 �'!\ {fir '4a.. Y_�" sr `' .As-.Wt' ,- * . i. cam•f' ', ' �� c`' y M' `` A '` • 'A.-. - .-.. ' r . ... 1:11 . : 4:?ICI;.1 . ..-.:•:.1.4:-Cr;31,-.. .1 iiiiiiiiii •+.. r, 'irk-- • '1 - T " _ • -- -� •.- - • • x�.. - `--.... ,- -t sowelV % — -----1----...__01.1friiirgliiit 411 Ij / rr�- ....C........1....:1411**14. a / / , ° ° kg _ }} i • 1 \I 1 - F°1111; riallat: Tr- int ` r •� ! j Aa. . ter r yl .. \I / X61"'•1 rr •ti a 4..." v 44/ ,,,i e ....... 4 el-rte . 4 _ r •p ... ` it -t .. ti 44 SCI < %.'•1 \ .7 11 . .. ♦ k 341• I I Y .,. ..,'�t E - � 4 �' '} r I ' r • ti ---,a, ► 1 �- �7 C•• v„& it j �� - ;. ,� !f - f .J } /. . '.'i rl�� .� es. ear-- - r "In • r. ''� � /• !� r / .�� •fir ,\ `4 r F y 'Y- �•,}y � A• �r �( _lail. L. 04 . r * - r r' �• •_ 1 � ' �� t. � . .�:+^ `il`•• �'! '. .r..Q.''/��! � .a. 1•', ' �• c;Q . ' ♦ 1� , 'F fir` • _. �1 '?"9�• ! _ •� •r: _ - -- i f`r . '`.- -J '1 p'dti t .s•r' �(�.�/��y�p�J�'��Y I� r'f 'I 5• .1 - L.. ,-lam: i-' r.' �) . iti. ,t e.,„,.,,,: :.45, ►V �� rt J1krof h•� ^.f j." 1'►rs' i �'.✓.iir:,4 �ASV& . ., L 0- 'et..- - - • r - - '•nit •rY!•�r�r,'... .(. I/_:-1,"!. A. K,� .: c.9� Yt • '•44 . ,�BI • C • MI . OK , . r_. ��- 1. `$L /t •r I '‘...AN I• .• ) 1 i i , �t ^° a , + .A •I I,;:t � •7{,,f k' ` qtr ,A. 1 i� aye j'vA J r Ic _, Illi -. ^y y .,, +t - 1 ) 1 - ems • . _ ..iss . . . r- gill ....... si Isat'l ai r§T/i..; . . ,. • ,-,-42046 *•i ".r fir ••• % r 7 • 4 • i ;•r".• y 14 ill awl poi • - �y fit- \ -.. � _ '. ! 1 l + r}!• 1�"� MI I -' f-'..- `L�`.�. , r Q• ` l 1.•�r ` j•Y .�..aa !-> . 11Li • ' 1�• C�- �rY1i _ •' y - 'aa, .... f;F • 'r�•'1\ �' .4 . ' �>E. 1 eds.1• • '-I 'I. � Si a •'fA:/11,1 1 O • L .`'',+• .••. .r .v.•y�. _ - 4 yir .�i „ !! , :{.. •A��`. `v.' .t,�7 . ,�, a. ... �• a¢ of •r..• +a , ,,rl 'Y:r r...� 1y]R �• 1J,�i"O "Skirl• - , I. ..•Ili:' # :� 4 W rite_ L. :,,• � ♦i ,.• I,,'-•... r. ., Y •' i. y! A 1 • , `r ^7� t -u, � .• jM YI \r; r U. v.' ,itr• f Z" •� •• •L 4• •`, OZ. , , , - /• . ..�` L 1. lt•�• i'.Titr•��7` * . ' ".. h`. • .►� •.�}.`1�,•f. ,ay +l t' .r. \. • e I� .. \ •14,.—4, i. ..{%; Y '•. 71' `,, �. - �.t 4.:,1%.- ,.• t Ill 1 ``.r{. c s�' .,/', C ? `t ` f \ _.n lc'R • :r.- , . , �.. , ,�' r . 1.• 1� ��. •• �, .•. r. lr ,. , ..r Y . 'r • \' • . o- , F' � '. " • � • ' r'Th . gi . • •�'•. r' .•. •194.:4-,, .t. y` 1 , 1 y. r '2S�� , ` l '1_, ! - µ -‘ �RFt1+`. � 4- 1ih�4 ♦ 'l - - .,It ,•1` rwy . A1C�. ti "iME�!w♦rfM7Mi 1D a'i Ir le vs'+rv.d•1."1.c 0-.ringiaK..`.,o,r . Tisa Juanicorena From: Diana Aungst Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:02 PM To: Tisa Juanicorena Subject: FW: Martin Marietta Plant West Denver Attachments: IMG_2844.MOV; ATT00001.txt Movie - 3M opposition. RECEIVED Diana Aungst, AICP, CFM Planner II AUG 1 2 2015 WELD COUNTY Weld County Department of Planning Services COMMISSIONERS 1555 N . 17th Avenue - Greeley, Colorado 80631 970-353-6100 ext. 3524 Fax: (970) 304-6498 daungst@weldgov.com www.weldgov.com Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. Original Message From: Michael Hall Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 3:58 PM To: Diana Aungst <daungst@co.weld.co.us> Subject: FW: Martin Marietta Plant West Denver Hi Diana, I had a POC call and email from Mr. Roth about Martin Marietta and he is upset about the chance of approval . He wants to appeal or recall BOCC if approved and thinks there should be no zoning if approved . I spoke with him and then he sent this email with a video he took of a MM plant in Denver. Don't know what to do with this so I am sending it to you. Michael Hall EXHIBIT Planner I 1555 N 17th Ave X Greeley, CO 80631 (970) 353-6100 x 3528 mhall@co.weld.co.us 1 1 Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. Original Message From: Gary Rath [mailto:gary.rath@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 3 :54 PM To: Michael Hall Subject: Martin Marietta Plant West Denver Welcome to the Future of Weld County? 2 r Tisa Juanicorena From: cris garcia < crisgarcia3386@hotmail.com > Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:20 PM To: Tisa Juanicorena Subject: Martin Marietta asphalt plant This letter is in part of the residents living on 1253 N. County line road Johnstown,CO 80534. When we purchased this house, we were never told of any type of plant or construction such as this. The people that sold us the house did not mention it. We have only been living in this house since late august. We do not want to have to move again due to late warning of the asphalt plant being built. This plant is not going to help the surrounding residents at all and we do not need this plant being built at all. Sincerely, Rafael Garcia SAeCEP\\1 °)4 Gold" as WE• -°s5014e G0N1M EXHIBIT )1:5 \< Tisa Juanicorena From: modelasculpture < modelasculpture@gmail.com > Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 5:20 PM To: Tisa Juanicorena Subject: Weld County Commissioners From: Lori Horn/ Dale Horn family trust Sent: Aug 11th 4:48 pm aproximatly To: daungst@co.weld.co.us <mailto:daungst@co.weld.co.us> Subject: Planning Application COZ15-0001, Weld34 LLC Rezoning Request - FOR PUBLIC RECORD Aug 11th 2015 Lori Horn RECEIVED 900 N. Grant / 1-74 Poplar ave AUG 1 2 2015 WELD COUNTY Johnstown CO 80534 'COMMISSIONERS Weld County Commissioners c/o Diana Aungst, AICP CFM Planner II EXHIBIT Weld County Department of of county commissioners. 1555 N . 17th Ave. ' — a+g1 Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Planning Application COZ15-0001, Weld34 LLC Rezoning Request Weld County Commissioners: If you will please take into consideration the negative impact this has already had on folks who live in this area as well as friends and family. Please put yourself in our shoes. After reviewing the MM proposal, a heart sinking feeling. After realizing the magnitude and consider protesting it the David and Goliath complex a sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach. Then after MM knows we do not want this and it's not compatible, they still press on talking of being good neighbors. MM already ignoring our concerns and desires for the 34 corridor, residents and all the others it will affect is greatly concerning. 1 Imagine if this does go through the dreaded thoughts, logistics, money, time and effort of finding a new home. This is for the folks with the mean to move somewhere else. What about folks that can't afford it, economically, physically nor phsycologically? This area is nearly literally in my Fathers own backyard. My parents bought this property nearly 30 yrs ago. My folks being from acreages on cty. rd 12 and 29 in Loveland this property is perfect for the farm/ acreage life style they are accustomed too. Room for Livestock and gardens. We all worked hard to upgrade/ fix this older home to be comfortable for my folks to live out the end of their days. They both worked hard all of their lives and deserve to have the quiet country retirement they dreamed of. My father worked for Flatiron paving and is well aware of all the true issues that go along with that industry. Up to and including his long term health issues. He has done his time in the gravel pit. It has been very stressful to have to fight for him to have the home and retirement he deserves. At 78 he is not fit enough to start over, can't afford the acreage he has here in another location that is still close to lifelong friends and family. We have lived in Loveland since 1970. It will affect him tremendously if he has to get rid of his livestock he trains them and feeds them by hand. He raises our cows with no hormones additives etc. that he has sold to our friends. This will also negatively affect the animals and be an adjustment for them. Would you eat the meat of a cow with the possible contaminates and stress that these poor creatures will endure? If he has to give up our family home he shared with his wife of 64 yrs, his livestock and quality of life it may very well be a less fulfilling and shorter life for my father. My Father is the closest living relative that I have here in Loveland. Even at 51 I can't imagine moving from the home I have owned in Loveland since 1987. MM is not being thorough with its research. Please look up the specifics on any industrial acoustic block web sight yes a firm will detour a small amount of noise, and with out a noise barterer/ wall it will not mitigate it nearly enough. And to put trucks and trains on top of the firm only adds to the Noise. there are no ways for us to ensure and enforce the noise, smell and pollution will be addressed if violated. Even if they are fined they are more than solvent enough to pay those pesky fines. The safety, noise, smell and pollution go far beyond the 138 acre sight ! It will negatively affect nearly everyone who travels why 34 and 125. It would be beneficial to leave the current and existing use of the 34. More retail and other businesses will create far more jobs in the long run. It will further the areas tourist, shopping and community goals for our beautiful front range. Please keep this incompatible use far away from our neighbors and our properties. Work with the local communities of Windsor, Johnstown, and Greeley on a shared vision for compatible uses, not incompatible ones. 2 Industrial use = incompatible to homes and adjacent neighborhoods. Undisclosed industrial use = an unwarranted blank check to business interests in blatant disregard to a number of long term Weld County residents and voters. I, and my neighbors, therefore ask that you deny this application. Respectfully submitted, Lori Horn 970- <tel:970-589-1845> 405-2188 3 Tisa Juanicorena From: Joshua Moe <joshua.b.moe@gmail.com > J 9 Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 10:34 PM To: Tisa Juanicorena RECEIVEDSubject: Martin Marietta Asphalt Plant AUu 12 2('15 Dear Ms. Juanicorena, , WELD COUN-I- MMISSIONERs, My name is Josh Moe and I live on one of the pieces of property adjacent to the proposed Martin Marietta Asphalt plant. My parents purchased this land when I was just a child, and I have spent many years enjoying all the pleasures this specific area has to offer. My brother and I would ride our bikes from dawn until dusk on Weld County Road 13, stopping only occasionally to fish crawdads out of the various ditches that criss-cross the farmland. When we were old enough, we began spending our summers working on our neighbor's farm, laying irrigation tubes, cleaning ditches or just pulling weeds. As a young man, ours was the house where my friends would gather, if for no other reason than the peace and quiet that can be found in this area. I fell in love with the woman that is now my wife under the cottonwood tree that shades our red-brick ranch home. I can think of few things that have had a larger impact on shaping the man I have become than this little piece of land I have had the privilege of calling home. I realize that this is not a life I could offer my future children if they were to grow up on this piece of land . Development is coming to this area, everyone who live here knows it, but that growth has to make sense. The growth to our west has been largely residential and some retail. If Martin Marietta were proposing to build a few hundred homes and a Starbucks, I would not be writing you this letter, but they are not proposing something as innocuous as a community. They want to build a massive aggregate/cement/asphalt plant. This plant would run 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. At a recent meeting with Martin Marietta officials, the presenter said the noise coming from the plant would be akin to the sound of a somewhat loud television in a living room. Imagine yourself walking out your front door tomorrow and the sound you hear is an aggregate facility as loud as a television in living room . Now realize that that television cannot be turned off and no matter where you go on your little piece of land, the sound of Martin Marietta will be ever present. This is just one of the many problems Martin Marietta wants to force onto the people who love living out here. The large increase in traffic, the unrelenting diesel fumes, an increase in train traffic and the unpleasant smell of asphalt are not something that I want added to my community. If you haven't already, please drive out here and look around and see if this proposed plant fits into our community. My guess is that you could only conclude that it makes no sense to build in an area that does not have a history of these sorts of facilities. Please help make sure this project does not go through. It would destroy the way of life our little communities values so much. Thank you for your time. Josh Moe EXHIBIT C,, A ! � es op 1 Applicant PowerPoint submitted 8/ 12 / 15 at the BOCC Hearing Duplicate of Exhibit BT EXHIBIT Dave Kisker PowerPoint submitted 8/ 12 / 15 at the BOCC Hearing Duplicate of Exhibit Z EXHIBIT L-CL - r Tisa Juanicorena From: Ben Poppel < Ben.Poppel@libertyfrac.com > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 9:31 AM To: Esther Gesick Cc: billjerke@aol.com; Tisa Juanicorena Subject: Re: Letter of Support - USR15-0027 Thank you ! Sent from my iPhone On Aug 12, 2015, at 9:25 AM, Esther Gesick <egesick@co.weld.co.us <mailto:egesick@co.weld.co.us> > wrote: Thank you for your submittal. I have printed your correspondence and it will be provided to the County Attorney to include in the file as an Exhibit. Esther E. Gesick Clerk to the Board 1150 O Street I P.O. Box 7581 Greeley, CO 80632 tel: (970) 336-7215 X4226 <image001.jpg> Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Ben Poppel [mailto:Ben.Poppel@libertyfrac.com] EXHIBIT Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 9:07 AM To: Esther Gesick Cc: billjerke@aol.com <mailto:billjerke@aol.com> Subject: Letter of Support - USR15-0027 usb4 ' R Esther, 1 Please find the enclosed letter of support for USR15-0027. Ben Poppel Engineering Manager Liberty Oilfield Services 950 17th Street, Suite 2000 Denver, CO 80202 303-842-5685 Cell 303-515-2816 Office ben.poppel@libertyfrac.com <mailto:ben.poppel@libertyfrac.com> <image004.jpg> 2 IPP Cm. LIBERTY OILFIELD SERVICES August 12, 2015 Weld County Board of Commissioners c/o Diana Aungst (USR l 5-0027) Weld County Planning 1555 N. 17`h Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Commissioners: Liberty Oilfield Services strongly urges you to approve the proposed Martin Marietta plant project that is under consideration. We feel that for the continued growth of both the State and county, this project will be critical. Upgrades and maintenance of Weld County roads and those of surrounding areas will be essential for both the economic growth in the area as well as the continued improvements for current and future residents' standard of living. Projects of this nature are important to keep costs down to stretch transportation funds farther, as I am sure the Commissioners are aware. Martin Marietta has done a superb job in both site selection and engineering to mitigate the impact of the facility on the surrounding neighborhoods and the Weld County community as a whole. We believe that Martin Marietta will be an exemplary neighbor now and in the future and will live up to its promises. We also feel that if issues should arise in the future that they will be dealt with in a manner suitable to the community. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Sincerely, Ben Poppel Engineering Manager Liberty Oilfield Services F. Robert Lamb 1356 - 57 Ave Ct. Greeley, Colorado 80634 August 12, 2015 To hom It May Concern : I am writing this letter in regards to the Martin Marietta aggregate project in western Weld County . I was born and have lived in Greeley, Colorado most of my life except for the 5 years when I lived in southern California. I am a third generation that has worked and been involved in the transportation industry. The five years I lived in southern California I worked as a heavy highway construction estimator. During my time in the San Diego area I watched as California grew very quickly. Highways were designed to last ten years; however the traffic counts doubled reducing the life expectancy of the highways in half I see the same things happening here in Weld County. This increased need for new highways, to maintain current highways, and for the oil industry will result in a huge demand for aggregate. Supplies are already low and limited in Northeastern Colorado . If we do not create new supplies the costs for roads, housing, and business development will also rise. The site Martin Marietta has chosen is strategically located to facilitate delivery of all the aggregate needs. Their chosen site is consistent with aggregate producers north of Denver along I-25 . Their import of crushed aggregate by rail to their site for processing into asphalt, concrete, and road base eliminates the need for creating a huge open pit mining and land use. By using the rail service it eliminates truck traffic and is a much safer way to deliver materials. EXHIBIT CE u . t5 �ooa F. Robert Lamb 1356 - 57 Ave Ct. Greeley, Colorado 80634 One only has to visit a current Martin Marietta aggregate facility to see how they operate. They are a very professional and well run organization. Weld County should be proud to have such a company want to be a part of our community. This project will create new well paying jobs, supply the growing needs for aggregate products in northeastern Colorado, and produce tax revenue for Weld County. It would be a great injustice to the people of Weld County to see this project be relocated out of our county . I support this project in its entirety. Thank you for you time . Sincerely, F. Robert Lamb Dave Kisker CD submitted 8 / 12 / 15 at the BOCC Hearing EXHIBIT LC: 1AS6Z15 - boa- Public Safety and Housekeeping MMM does no ` meet the standards or conditions of Subsection A and Section 23-2-240 and 23-2-250. # 7 . That there is adequate provision for the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the NEIGHBORHOOD and the COUNTY. Most barbed wire fences, while sufficient to discourage cattle, are passable by humans who can simply climb over the fence, or through the fence by stretching the gaps between the wires using non-barbed sections of the wire as hand holds . * EXHIBIT CC Z S-to 1 Attractive Nuisance • In the law of torts, the attractive nuisance doctrine states that a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by a hazardous object or condition on the land that is likely to attract children who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object or condition . 111 The doctrine has been applied to hold landowners liable for injuries caused by abandoned cars, piles of lumber or sand, trampolines, and swimming pools . However, it can be applied to virtually anything on the property of the landowner. * x '!.•� +�- - _.ter- - _ ( ( A ','1 - - ,- ' `,0 . 1, k, T1 tk _ . , e._ ....1.sire.4. ..es, -..4 A 1 2;441 4,-!,,iorslt;itititiot:4..4 -0,.,4 .<:<,440Hei.- : .t.,- . . , mar In Greeley i �,,-.... , f .. f _ Mcfetta . . D. • ;F. _ —�: _- .._ _� - 4 r ; L _ , a • f Ai'.- • r- : 4\40, 4 wr :_ , - ail k, ? - . .--- . .‘ 4tEtriir a 7 4,,,,„„ii East fence along roadway MMM Greeley . ..„- 4 i a ' .& 'J . • '•,, r sal ?I'� r - yT' ' i • - :• .ta h ..a vM ,r t `•:_. , .� 1. � jr; i ,,•9 r7Yl t. w ' ,i • _ ..r' , r - • _ L. t '! �. bilk• `♦ tr. • 'Yr'i its: I rill Q :.e., 3i ' -rq- % ='ltdit, -:}T .* eL�C - ts' down _ sZ. :.,e ' / al T ' Y; A. ` _ .(y r \'LL� A fir• I r a,.. - ',if. n 1r 1Y •r •:a1 ..' .��/ .r, a �t �. .,4 ` ` ' • 1 S j 1/4 ' a • t ..,, etle • .4, _.. • • �'• y, �'{{�j 11• y.v a at 'e.�.*.`�� A LksY A 1S1', �r:t• ��I •� ', i.�� •.. •`\• } r •r,�- .- + • f r sly s y k rt. 'I•, ' 1, X :. • Fence rrnypoor conditionta, �.. r . • /.� �)�) south along 35�I Y \ ti ar .ice R � C. • 3 r , ,�T mai N , w7R ;oVti1S it• 41;•.'" • ; . • /Ms .1. • b.,„se ..„..lt 0 • v‘ ‘ • * ' ' l'gbi'b 4, b' *we . ksid: . , .41 Ill• . tii iiiii 1P y r, •• '. It 1l •4 II i-1 li il } -4--4.... Rte. . -�.. 6 s. - - �. `, Aliit,-f � , \ ,,,,,t •,\, , ence ig ;t afiivvi fog pudic ic'c/ ')�,, a - ; ' , st of tie reeley 1114 n • ftce I. - 4 x s : . 1 Use of trailers to screen equipment Greeley � = - .. . ....... �r`..M • .ter -.- ♦ . .,, _,....„,„sfi • .IP .yam - yam. - -, «+ „ever I i 11.4•10W 44 Yale S. :.Y-,. '' 4. 'i .411.. _ _p - _ { 41111k* ' Y.r V Vii_ 4 I ooking south along 35th Ave . Greeley .... _ , . . • t_... .. : . , Alt", .:I; . . . - �4 '7V/ ;� r �.w • •-t� : . . .„se.Z `rC . ...Si.i• •11, / A ' � I •, 44 y 1 � a , .te .sy. • I. l0 04 •'. • M t, r' • A t 4 , „I. --.#a Weeds are higher than the fence Greeley . . • • •_ _ _ _ . . . . . , .... Y ..•- � - .... . - „. {-„,.,„ ., . /. .. r•4; r r •� t ' l l �•,��!•�� ,F y tot '( r s< ,,' i s„, ,.*(4.'4.,ti S yr � 4 - 1 i� . F`� . x r • •r � ,,. • •v 1 M' f• aLY• , t i • J .),. r •• 5 MMM Taft Hill site Fort Collins - Dust Abatement "Best management practices will be used to maintain good housekeeping practices" Self-monitoring failure! a MMM Pecos Plant • Graffiti on building and trees growing in very old recycle pile Y - Y ..1 _ .. .p - ry sib ' e -.is 6 Aggregate Industries fencing and security near Centennial Airport • 4 • • • • Aggregate Industries Fencing and Security "There is adequate provision for the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the Neighborhood and the County" is r. • • 7 Visualizations of the MMM proposed p from Indianhead Estates Homes . _ , . Y z• 1' ,� a !- • fS I • 2 .511 I . ` � - - - - `. .44'� I a * . %S\6\ .-.\-ilx: ,44; Cs 3' °� •bm.A. n . 6 d i) 4 . i , ' •'� .• Worrell Home ✓o Y� 1'� ' : Meuech Home v t. la: <0.4sb - ,'NiA • \ ,. .i ' lw L. 0 I ', .Icy .4.4; % 1 gar. ' ,. r.i ,r Long Home Wallace Home • rf .r* /\\ • /. o . � • ,rte_ J \ 1 " ,\ s I '�'� -� 111/4 .; r N EXHA. IBIT HIBf'T • 0,4 i �/ 1 Visualization images in this brochure were produced by combining Google Earth images of a 3-D plant model with p o ographs and then rendered by an artist for realistic colorization, brightness and shadowing. This method produces realistic, correctly oriented and scaled images from any viewpoint set by the Google Earth operator. Photographs were taken at a 50 mm focal length to help create a 'natural' perspective and then scaled to achieve a believable resolution of image detail . Modelling of the plant used wherever possible information made available from the Applicant's documentation, photographs of local plant design as well as statements made by MMM representatives. - John Wallace I•• ""•�� - • ... T •r ...JO e• ..� -�,tf•• ,1r.- • 111.644119-1/44"____-_______N___ C •1. '�� "" �T t . •. ..` �• �. �' ___It•._-- ` .' �j-tl�'� ';•� .� � � ��a �^�'�• �'�' .• .r w. f , . 1 f J rr • S , ftk t , •M:•.t tor's1+1, tesep • w ' ' . - , .7• IMF , • - .•AS '11 .14 le ' INfifigt4t'At • 1 • \ ,�' ,{' _ _ i ` ..l***Ire!.� tv r J 'i •� 1�1.''t •t 4 , '' `�ist t '►Q_ .K. •1.1 � t ' Y a {r Fij. 1 h l , ft1 1''^r1', yLI!.1 fq�,� .i.'I�cP1 1 t t •i 171 , + i• . •�. ' /. 4,( •, t•-\ 1 , .1 , .t1. r ..1t ,'" t.1 .� ;'. , r 7 ,1. 1 !` f~ • _ !i {' "l rj„ 1 "�'•l � 1i J / �L�, f1't 1.. ..1 �•� : ! ' XNat r , r • ••. ! tt t., • . , ' it • ' • • �/. r ;; .,I1yr '\'. :1 \ �/. f.. . 1. 1.. „�' T',, . ,. ,b..t , J . • ./lam . ftit /{t 1 tirl `MT; tr rt J'� r{" .Y /�.� . .� P..'. t- • wt::,'; 's T. • "� Y ! t i�' 40 I;r) . / t .,. ., ',1 A • l�� .� i-, `+ :� t I Y , .1: f ; • 1 ly �M��'�� I • v ,/.. • /i �,' ;.Ik` ,.' � ' •- . r• \ 3 v.. r 14 :i c w44, �r.. .(' j1. t i%!+ 1 t * Ri'` ,j 1 tro, '� ,, - k . .. F ' � 1_S . /• , ' ,'+1•.• f 1t ��1. •�'•� �.�.• / • J • ,. t' _ I ., - i. .�•Y' .1 , ,q 1 MJ' 1 � '11 11• l }�•.Pg . 1 ,f 4. �• " �' A.4 I, J{t�I._ f' _ 1 .•�'�., 1 .• I . 1 •.,. • . , yl • YID 'a } rt 'r f. ,"■ . . .fs '4. •• �I i t • tI _ • .,S . � � �Y 1 4..Nyi ly� Q' \� t�� v` il• ,J tr• ' 1 '�.• • t r .�' . • if 1 \ l ) J wil ''1f 1S• Ili /i ^: {' I / i, t . 1 ,I I , Ir I. �fi�r ! t I n�i , , : Y lr , .' C ' L. ` , 1 �+. f •l l Y - p:' r• / 1 1 l�K ,W� / �r II "'�: I t '�y �• , y ` •��. 1 1 'if> 1 '�i t: f •, I. r /. 1 , •.i , 11• ."gip , t. ,• tr /, . ./ • • 1I Ire ,r JLti:. ' 1. i3t , - .y , - .f 1'• . . Y ` -'t - • •1 1• 41 , , rl j , , R �'•'Jrl • ��i. J 4i •1••,7 : • f ? ) ..• •1 - � . d `` '• , r ' i•. .'pi iit ,z� -•fit.}, II '} • ,IS ,1 .t • f ` .•, ) ; 'I' r `cjt S' •, 4 r t f4 r . - t I q' t • 1 t • '�. •l,� r r 1. ' Y� 11 • as i' • .j M f ^� :, 1 . + ,it I) rti ii d1. � , 't, l r ' � t.1 ;}�. cYy4 , • It t' ' 1 ' ' " -!••' t 1 A. ,1, � • 1 T{{li , .,S . ; ' ' ' , yi r •y ,i. ' r 4 •1. �, • � 1` 1, A. ''' }• 1 t! 'rl r' � 1C), I • 'I i,' '',r li 'ij .. \ 1 :1.,1��t 1` • .� � , t . J. •�; 11� •}'frt.'; ''. • 4 ' 1�'.. ' r 1 r•I , ' 1' t . .-�411ji�iYl:ul: a,f'Y,JhI� A� •1 ' , ~ 1 j f ' �'' e • ter r: '. . r 1 .r i ansallissas r_— `rrrsamtr p -��r1\=. . •IlleIaar'._a _a .....a.wr o .>r gee - - —^' t 1 ^r= : '1L'a•r - . ,. '••-Af •i.�"' • r. .. .♦ v'�'� ti •''}•. • , •'.r1 �• .t ,• r".• `�_JJJ�� 1' b '' �' �. )q',d - a. �.�LtQka �'1i •� a� S �f w1"� .� i ♦- . -- 1 • I ' - 4 t . . ': -.��.{�r.� I 'Js •�. r •'1 4��r�l'_ ✓ Yf ,yy . .. , 1 • 'a ✓, y �.. '• ,•.`111*,• ' � J. i•'� ..ter • _ a- , • A_ ' . • tt �1• .. ♦•1•. P I._' 41. r'A ' f ', rt .. •, r y t,.r. l.! d';' •4' s �. , ntt.�, t�' .3; , s r •t 1/f If'�,{� ,J S. •t. . - Y' •t d < '•1. Y �• t. ? ✓'f' , • r. t, 1 f v} .1. {(Q -'t'. ,1 a� �r ;1' y P. r',� � J. , tits. .1., 1y ,- ., ti,' l,. • t ,,;. � ,, , ', t.` �'. . �(,1h,[ j . ;T `� .r ' {, ` , •'� .1. ?.)!yy R ; '`dpi •f , �r� ',. . ; q ; .; t 1 . • i. • . + 0}0;../.- rf' r •d, k_.r i4 t .�' Jr ! . ._, �� '..'R.'T IfJa n .. r b'1, •'.h��• f 14�..'%� •,r .r:. t• 'l'f• t :U,f ! �1 if • s :J' !� {, '' . ''�.•+_ r{ ? ra�• v• t •'• %{• •rt Y •.y , , J +" , ,!' j.'i. : . ';' • �. .i ' t. , � • f�•1 ` 14 '• j�4��([,. . 1'. �' '• '• 4- ,• y` ' l ,t . .. , •.'1 . • �a'7• 1t. 1 . , 1 1 ( , �(`� 1� ,�' . •!tt y L }1 � .r .M�•: . � .b !�.. _•. '4"w 1 .. I • 1 �� } _ • •..Yr ,t .. r -4e 7. 4 . • .. ' � • y� "1- ,(� •1` • 4414.11 y}p;��j f' • ., •{ _ r1 �ei 1 � J/i a �. ^'L' tirI -^RR+iti ••j•• . I .'* •' -r, (y. ‘...P.••4 •1 ` 1. 7, .]f' yam}' 'd y C - �• ' • � i{ r i P . • �6 tf �1� I. � . .� •r u _l, l .. 'ilf .k 1.' .r; Nf., 1 - e ', - rt,t_ ', '•r v.. P tt, 4. 1 q �.`C5.- 3••'�• • h f'T•(' ,� •'1 �F ' ,�': .'w.y l. ' .I M J• .yJ • ,• '. • fiqr r i •.1••• ' f L .� �. .j . •I. •' II w �• '�' 'j •a J i I {t ' �.r .t. - (ir .�I1 �t�� ' �• ilre ' t • . i !r . 1 1. l r t• � t '.t. •�• J �� •. ; r :1 J�,r a.rL.'�,�' •�1J yY ) iY 'h. -�t d 77[�l'�� f '.'. y.: " R ,1•. .1 + -� : •'� a,. a•✓. , ,S,^, .t� , ;Y/. d�` - . r -..� „t i 1.,0 A l �, r•.. .1 _ ... .fr. • lr • - a R I J /)tea' t s • Y3 { y •r .t. „-4, .' I• ..• ..� V rr .• r yf�i .y`> - u'i L,st'/.+n`�'� , ,.� . r� •, •. r' • .,S .� ♦ , n. ' ., "� � , r• ,�rl.�. \ I,•� ' _ F 'jj "1.j.:i{ •� �. { � �'� _ • pf�f% I•. 4IJ L f" ^ tf ,•yr. » 4, .y ,. lank. ',.. •.t ,,,? • . .'5V )•.,S�,_.j, a.. L_ •'..,. 4_y. :, sl . ,.y-}•. ,�. 'ct �•. •Y7y !'.. f1.1 + 1 , J'c• r� •777. • :::"'lll . '� �'!. . `? is• 7'r t/r ai ` �, ��-�� { a .•.• fib , ~w1 • 1� ..i '1' G - •If�YA •ti, �I.� .. � � •. •• •'L. ., "f- E, • • ... 4 • Y . �y ' •:y; •�• - I.. r L • . . .t 11 f�1 Z i;�4r� �'..,7,: a• I' ' 4r `s .. _ 1• t •' � • ... ..sat . "':.� • t•�'X' • 1 _ r • .;:k•/7. ..' •� r, , ' t f • i ( w•f • 't • -f•`V �►• •fir l p • ittt 4. •. . f•J I; . ro/tYri4471'e r 4 l ' •t r;y lit i 1' '1 1" I . r / • /: 'II y 1 f • t ,. 'I i . r l :+ te if , . . ` I� h„ .. 1 • tl. I' si`t.-• ••� .1 _ 'Ii I �1 {' ?I, 1:.' 4,•r %'J, • r: '�101 ~ r , ' - f �• I i, •'� /Pi I, 1 ' , 1 ! 1 � I . it i Is • f.j •ttoJ , 1t. tti. � y k, ,,.., ,,, ,.r, I •I ` , 1 t rky • ,�i ,. I.y i, - 1. ++ f :1 � aS% a 1+ � ! ;I ' F. :v' f '.1 C` •V • •. �+1 •T `1\ 4i, '�t: t R+1 • it 1. ` � .. . FI e.-. f .4 i .. r' it: ;; •.l'�. �* �.. Y • .I' r. {t '•.' 1 1, 7i{�• J' �.. � 1�t 4.�i.• f� '.11,� NII t •r�a� ��1 I '`A� 1.4, •41 r �t 1�• r't� • •ur 11:-'re' � , . i A 1 �� •, r l f ' il 1 a ► i 11 3t t, �. JC/i1 • t� l +�1(f' . 1 �� Mt r •1 " • + i '►�l4 j( f ]Li r1. r l ' • }1' } .�tl 1� ,�, is 1 • ;4 •Y �' ,1 r .IJ,` S ' '/�.yll.�lr + j�I'.1 � ,�M .1ik .•1� 1 �f1. . , A r • • � , +' :~ 91 � ' C1 lea I � I! Trl {r . f: 11Y i ip. stn i1 ��1' 1 t is 1 A(. Y}! _ ./`J t it; ,ii iiiifn .. , .. i �tj ' i.,,., 1 t' r �•�� .'1•t � „ �♦I 4tfl/'1pp,r, c 'i T� i, �l ,'�wY.t r i � i ',r , ''�' '�7 .�` lei • I • Y • -�.. -. - i .4Ir "? . ;=,. • rte"' •: 7• ' . . . '� . .r' :•.:- .e....-.e....-.40' e....- es,r ripmpor r. WI?: __._ gill-n..4 . '- .• • .0.- I • . _'fir ` • i ' - 4 -s P .i.. :::::.. b:..i • eilite 1 1 1 4 ..... _ . , ....„ r- ,. . 1, a � �'_ _ tI. I. �'�`. Z • • * . ' e.•• .4, 110 tea*-4 s;6it.T.47..a.:1146....1.:404;. ...r.. I„:14:41:1St: 1 .4,. .. ' ill elk NI 11 Nyly. .... 6 . „ , .# ; • ' 1 i • • . : if X y it • •••• . .... • • ..- 4 • . • . # 1 • - , •4!) ! 0 9140,1 . .4) , _. IS .....100ijile.drentileeigni (14. te` {:C > err ' Z a *b.. • ..•• • • . Log - -1.4)11 1 • ♦ 1 , illgeSalijll -93 11, _ y _�_ _._ At _ - _ — •_ - i .• I. - . . -, a Mr 4 le AL= • el• d _ - a _ _ - _ . _ � _ -� -1� i �4= � .t�� ''� .L yen • lit ,R • r�r.11r�A - - ._ �_ — a .— ♦ _. "- T- _mss---T•- -� - .p. •• 7� • r yr♦ _ • a 1 .I in. •• r>" r 0 4 , .v. ,...._Or I aLCI 7 sti • . • St .__,A ..4 • • • • • bp: : I Ter's* si.c. ,cergetv.; , .. • ► Y --� y i 4 ` `r f} fig • . • - E r A �i r lia • .et • • • t1 • ♦ \•� •.•I-it- ,. a • - w 1 _ \ ,. ' • t 'moipoydrizti . - ego - cti •.•IC. :. t� �. ._��, :/�•" ;_% - AfterM M � r. i --• te V 1 �• - mat - • dar ,a •' _+ _ , _.•-r -.ri'••• uY- r44.8 - iF"v - .a (' f _t ---�^trew sip* .t:..ter+' •it - .r 3 - __.�_�..r_ ___ aIha•.T►ir.1.- r;; as ,µ - - 16'' . »'"',6"14. f 666•••••6•,64141470;14.1 - •+Y�., • .a..*�-lint..•r�: .. - - .'Ye • SNOW- �,,..//.• • = r.-�- s ; ,- f ,•r�••r • � Aft x shy ••� �,/[ .�?• k _ �K '�h .,.y .._ .... i-/•IdI' l •t I�ar � q; I b '. e.illr' w ••• J , ' �y - • •1ks^44 �r.aiil1i i M .� I.' (r1.�S[yi1 • i 2 t.- ,r`�.1•. _ •/• • • p- , 71 If Xi, • I- k•%b. tv.• • - . ' 4- 0. ..:‘... iter11.4,____: ". , it Jai •• tt • •„J ! r• J • r r ,� r - ( • i.t 1p4 i`+rl 'i ��`I��.,o� r."J- .-.fit - • +f'� - 1 Adtit.. ., _ •.• t 11 AY! r r, •• � . -- It ' rt. �. • •k,r.• •f' r"ia ,• �'If. r.. r•� •�'•r r!i r 1,. FF PI 14 ,1 r ) 'S l•li ,`1 ..• .� r -0 ;f'1 1,1 t. t 't' ,• 1 ,, r '•tit -1'C1. • 't / • L y 4'l ? ( .. ...A. ".1 't . Y4\.. t.4.: f, .. \�, !r -.) .�� .kM1 •• •r a �.1 ., a,r I <•< fAll `. 'r. .•I, •r. .c t ,� l+ ;n.t a • . 1 4..• •r I 1,_ }�'1'\v%1 V. r .• •.!. , ,' ^ • ` l `,', i. r ..I . • \ i t •11 1 1 •t I!A r ' ... / Y.•, l • I. d - . V. � I • , .j ;rivot a • ,+'' i' S•" i .' .i - ' .4)_ •1 . ,;., • 1i i * •! �p! •\t r1 ••,.• . rr• �.-11 ef t*t: dvI •, • ' •i • ♦. f '. 1 � IM• ' ,• 0. • �.i ,�.� aY 1` .+ '1 '� ; 1 ! 1 b �1 • �` rrtei r w 14• 1' .w lrt - ' iii "`. . p � I I • y. T 'i 1. t„(t• 11. ` ¢ '' .. 1 �. I JI� 1 1 ♦ � *. ' • fi .i-• '� i i t •.i�� 'i. • • "it 1 J r r� 'f.� �. ' i flphii' II' rt. • _t, V • ;b,:•;,•• �s. • t v •r • 1. i y,`, t.` - • i t AS ! . f , •• •,..„51r. ` Iw If J' rr.,r a ! /lir •I • ,. • • • :Ai , + ` 1~ 1,F ' l� - •,~ 1 , . ` r ^ ^ I ' • \ 1. 1 41 + '' yIt St 1 e,.. r rr [ l\I 1 1 f r �1 I I �i;� T : • .I ` �• ' ,1� ic' 4k ) .(/.•�. A =T 'lip :/ I '� •p� }', ♦ .I 1, •y t. r'I!••t � �•�' 1 .q7M+ r ,• t \� Ole- • •• �' • • • I'e lY �lr 11 �..Mi y •Pw• .t i w ,♦ 41/41/24 i -, �' '!• y/rl r .. I /�,`i •o }. 11 •41J . .'t"` •1 •pf{ ,'t, , i4 Flju rr , >. 1 , `fir S 9 • _(� ! ` l 1 r- i� .r i t., P A , ,< . r 'al. , fii ,?►_ .. L ,i ,-� e •' • ?.•A ', \ .� n 11.,1%,:.t 1" t} - ! - '. . - `A` t o .,t tn, •(. ♦ >�1.�' �1 ; . �t ,�f ^N •-7 r �� y�,1. .. Th.I l) r t�. r •.Jr �v 1 x'11 1' F J ,� •. /i1 c.: . (, Y I '�' !•/ I'M.' r %.4-:ii .el.i lt(t� � ,, .,d '< • ,i 4Fi •rr! N •' '/'1 r • •4 )rF .r ��/. 1 ,(�1 A ,. 1 1' `4.s �'1 r ` 'y• ' , , •r-�, EI . r$1 Y 'i 1 • '1 �- �!•~' , 4.ir � i n1P. r • ' t . I 4'. 1 • + ' t T - i '� 1 1 Iii, ' f, • .�.. t �Y r r� �, P I'. J, I M It •J11! 1 , r .: + 7 +.' r ,� f • t /� 'Alit F' 'y!r t r �Y',� . ,11• ` ♦. 1 i � `� }.'. , i.ih\�., r �1 d ,t� [, . • � ��••f } ,, f.� 1` l\ , ,y r•II: • ,'�r��Ip' • .�r y I 111 �,,1• � �' /.\I, ' f `. h ./�, + rr •"'`r ' :1'•i r 4• tom/,, -• ..- a �. I , , 4 r ti, VI;''A Y 1, .%I .{,. •.f j 1 r,,\\I ^ .•'`• i1 / 1, 0 it, •• d, ( i! . l� • ' ,� A• IA�1� '4 f • ��.: _4. . I�� 1 der r r i% f t•f /. + r.{y.'. 1'' 'tt r ��l 'VI�'��1 141 1 ••` w' >ft. Y .'�. / ^ ''T'•r i 1 l 1 %/a ‘•' ' �' ,lit ',1.4t ,ri 44 C1 �. '�• .' ` ) P e,A( j....i' �� •1.�. ry ; ," 1.�` .1A l' i ' • r/ IA / � 1\ ' `•. ♦ Y r_I. r �'1"�QV 1 ' . I r�1' , �`� a r . f �1 l '_r t•� `\ 1 ..Y� + r •':1 • t' .'1� Co . a , • k` rQ!'r, ti 1Z t • ,, `•. y F,r �,� �1 1 ..•t'�• 'I •J Yt : . /+ I ,9 5• '\. 11 }d ! f ) - (n•�L,� •NyJ .F. I• '.,a\r... r'" 'IL1� ' r' \t _,_ • } \ , il�/', ,1 �• r I .1$Ili. . i\', r .t • ' � k 1 � t '\,. . y . `. + ..f,l • T. . I,.,I1\• , ( n """"� _r rl 1 1 , + y i, � � • .%.dam • , (jn.. .�. ��. _4 tI tl I 1 t. _ � � • �.rte• 4 t� yt t /•Y �: ,1 i. l' .r ••'��I�TT •r /'at 4.:-..-- - )) '.414.' �r •=llISIOe _ 1 . L blItlk ; i -• rte,,- , .,) .• • - .. .. �• • ... 11 t - _ .: « - ►• ♦ - � ' - - - - iii •. . .• •' •.' Y•. • -_ � -'. -S - ` A,• �+-•. _ .h >r -w�� • - • - ` Tyr i �� r:�� k! _ _ w - .w.w•p-..r-a.•.w�•• -+h.MG- . i • n:...wta • � . i ..r.'..s ry - - <•• ,„1,5i,' t .? •.. .4C a 0• `'• J F V t • s ' -- '!/•iimwawr- -s•-.vs. 9,0- --ate--Ow :••••-.: a` :•r.c.�_y•w..--"Y_. _ *VAS.. - - s r -'?.a'� 11- Telt''( . - T , • ,yam •• _ • _ , •+k `�`i,t• ^ _.yS. •. ,may r••, I'�` r •s. • - !' T' :+��.,// 1 . ••. 1 a• _ , r • • .i:` r . . . _ • • -e.6 ii• s \I• •: •j tyl x r.' �:.•y J T ^ -3�^.•flit�• ' rAM'/ t• _. 11. r' s• �._.t�< -it / p . r •.. ` I., +1 ii J •� IV !„A, AAi . Yt 1 9.L•., ,i �: ':" ' i' •Ali 1•!. t ' kg• ., .( ' . * Y ��",• 'h , : 11� n'J' f •..f _ • A te. ',.,� L•:.:.�' - + .Y (• ,1 �• r * ' 1/ .r :Y ' _1 . • •a • - , • '. f , \ r • t'5 `• 1 r r y f ti. - •1 • is - _ I .1 •� • I ♦. I. 43 I r; . ili .Y. 444 Ft• +V? 1' I. i `• i i • ) i:' • • i r . • • . - 1 ,1. • 1 _ t it F\ • fI. },1' ♦ •..--, + r•••e , ' AW.` r 1. t.• •9 • 3 St •\ -..y . • ,, / �'.'. `IL.;\ 1•y 1 .4 Vii ~ •' .\ ' '� 4,• S y SI, ?IC elifil ii" - . tr. • .• - 4. t.' : �+ i ; 1 - t,' f vr- n • rr• •,ygj ten, I, r 1 f t / ' r j 1'1y 0•4147, �T -f -'lam • . / �' , t„` , .\$�4 -• 4' •� rJ,o ` , •4• 147 �. \ ✓ v 'L.144 • ‘' r . r.1�'1 r" N • / / ), . i•l, , 4 1 • ' • . IIli •,,... a I 'r it: y,� J�• .� -• le I '`.. 4,1 , ,±4 • ; �,� � i nl�► ' 4 � �/ �, I 9 • t 1 1 IliI Y�) • /t\ t� . . f'i • i\, . `,w�ylp _ „ r i '�' --t, . l , . • r i• .Y./ ^ ' . t • !. •• '1 S.Y :-Fr ',,.. • !/. I) A`,4 c ,• '_i •�':•Y, 'It1f , j •�J 1A`,: .'✓. ' 1 ',,, ~`. 1 ~• \ ' •.f-' .4•L . .� .�. _ 11�11 / ;Jr; t�{1�{�,.•,K\ Y _lift • \ a J. ��. sk��: r ?I!,,'/, �i ir ''�St .� ✓� Itt\�} y 1 ' `�j. - �!• .S' 7.i Fr '•j `�� i.:0; . ..•<- 7 1ti '. T9 • t I ti• • . .; 4.1 ti ` 1 , )t•l 1 .4.yi . (k'rt �' i• ir is el % � ' / % 1 . � <., r r r r. a. iIiI ` 1t' �1�1 to ( �� + N ' 1 ill. - \; • M NI . � _K •• *-.fj' r�W". .,r r �. �. •y. �I • .,• ,/ IK •'�! 1 A � Ai _ a•-• Y. • , 1 , .K'�t J -^� '- f S• , , •� 1 t+ , S ;1 \ . p • ? • / �, � . �� y, fpl./6 • P '1 `, ii t ; 11 , t li ` fi �/ ' fig.', . r vim . ' •0 1` '� 1 • 1 .A IA. , 1 • d•� allyE II • i 4i � t'/ .� • !1` • ' � . I d •r1. -/� i• �. f. ` / lY Pj;. •t \ 1�., y� t,•�+•,. \ ..S �)yr�[i��/ • '�'. I ` I� 1 'i 1 y .''r 'S 1/, ,r '� .,� 1 .1, •, a • r/ r, 1• ,� r_� �\ . \, C ` i } 'V wAril, •/f, ,- `t1 � r� j'1' \ ' 7�'■•f \ k 1 QILLT►1� lift'_ t 1-n1•1, •. i + y / 0 it . '` I�I1.. it 0 • • • '� /. ' / t t:IIA - A • • 1 I• 41.11a4rigs { �� cob 41 • • rMlir►. '�' •,........ -i r _ eir . . - - _ IIIMISIMI - _ _ _.->�•• • — • �,. �. �. •afi r- '-; ♦• r r -1,. .. �:�---vr"fi.v� s►- J - i T t. • . "Irglitiit i .f' •» ..1,[ II,t ,• ' 1. 4 �• . ., fSi ` . ' -t..! 3. ff; . y { z••I . .4 .4Yy' .��. .y ' ` -, • p: , . _a, '•1...•1t`.• .- . [ . jti aj„ tif'••• As)i1S. r'6gi'p •A!• ,• ai r, � + • •-.110•1 • • �1..'�fii y;'�' ��! • .1 . r 044 •y, N �y�`ti. :r -7 + S at,.j, y - �'•! .. = � �z . ♦ _ �' •�, •R.- ♦� ./' • y f� ! T>T' �' vh .t _. f '� . •��1��y��T� like •i �•a; _{� u V ti- -4r tail* --' y„w ,^ _ �� " •.J ,I �• , •t{k .f ,;s:,_f ;` .� r - l. . �. ..y�.•�/Y.f e Wit _ � '' 7 {.]._• 46 ,.ate 3i M • N .. .aI • • e • �� !t -,..life-l- A' "S.P- *� f ,Wt ' 1 T ` . 1 �. •ri •i�: <-� .�C /7� aM{•.� L, .' z J / ` :` ' ,, + L yy ! q� t �- V••�f'P- _. � f• '� ��S -• q ~ , w • �• lk' . CIf �lr �,r s • • • ) ♦ • _ {n r► [I.1�^ 7Q�,$ , Qk- •. .. , ter ./ ' J' • „rif!e .. �..-. kP `!•1 '�"'�MV�F` awe'.• ail, ► • ' l, V r. �.�_, '-7tI Y "4j ' %.� . •� •[ "� .`.i i_ is:-.7.... "� • .r � �► L� iv A , 11S • •. ` •t ♦? ' •-:...kw J r ,�, r• •• �;I r.,.� �( • it 1 ''�. �t ..� :Ifr ` `� J It • 7 4 p •yt� �'l+• Z rt• .IFk ]! •�P�'• _• - afSIIt .. • r Ack..ti-.441 )»/e144Ile•rt ..�it,�►,i...* i •{ .4 �` . a,A ' araI4 , • • / R?�v. ` \ y�� tM1` "' K } , �IT f tarp( a �1',••t* '. ' r~ 1 •xia,�,J. :i1 •� { ,' '" k '�.•S� '" • ,i -t �t�� .� i r• � -! •• ..... ` -• E "Ii' W.. . A. I. w 1 •r' r i �}•.,j�� ••• .it'Z` ". Poi { „ :� V / , 4 ;3 *.e. !- . 7 � I ^,v • 33 ,y -s < , :' .� f�' .•S'� 'TR` i. J • :i J /+' • 1 i 1:g ♦ ♦ l f• f V^. . - i t"/ Y J 41., pi ,41f � �r` t 1 ,A:4 , [j�,�, • \(1j� r.:1'' 1 } { i j� 1 ' /. r,. k_d. d . _ vy .'� T �. n• ' .ff Y. -� • t• mod.,. ' f,: yAM { � •� -ti.. yl k. "K► t 0. -j . j1. ` 1 „ t �=. +l- • Y ,?rT .,� _�. f,/.4) •1T ,a 1. 4 .Y �y • ��• d/K r •S. l' .►'SIB t -*if . • i /rY . -1(... .7 ,� , . •, ' A '.�i. 0.�_t - . ^ • •+� i �'tiI i.u• I •LT. ,1 �. • *-4- , . ..i.,.1t' ,•Y at ;co,.I- 4,;:t< aC [' •YS .; •' r f (( e - , !- j.� ,} - ,•` i1/;'1 � /' l .Yj'* 4. . r.'. la". ��'/• 1, .`, RDk - s •�:. ,ty. '♦..,:•^ - i ti. l�� • is �� ` •i / , -•.14,4.1-4—x. "{...'rent*a�• � ;f.,• ,,{ i S' i •"7"le:/ _ 4 • ; r.'-�. •^ �r .• '�•� t'. . .II .L •s 67.i i •{ 7•�"{y� ,�1� ♦ •.�y. } sy.� � 'l. .w `I k \� �• ». j" • • it:el .r7 ��!! .._ r{ ., I-. r. �P Y�• y� • i ' 'y ' A1� �' `JZ:...V + . ' .`. S. / i .}. "y'•1�.�{tl�'� j'Sl J'. "�!� ... •• 5 :\ '', 1f i '� j1 f . •. ... • 1 /. » • wf_,.._ ,.» �:r. L. .-..! Via. .•T!f.a�i:rr�S:)i+d .' J e-.. �•c'G�: a-• -• r ( . . i �' / : Y !., ;.. Z . • .rya: ► Ai w. _� • ... .. . . • Pr", • .a i t � , a.',1 .— .• , —,- . �'a. . .... +`Ij�..,..` 'r�..�• - ..- - .ti+y+�j - .y a',-. - )-. . -V' I :11...'. t:,. 'sers-. . • q . mom— - alb� 7..-,... �1w,ee1�• r - -nook e �'� 4 _ why �� .� .✓.. ` j ..�S 1 • / '� f •• • r C. ♦Or q� . • • 4.-... ,• :Y ` ' 1i17•�°T •* -\ ' .�{♦ r. � �}7R., 1• `• '` I •, �41. _• dr- _- S S -.. +f• • �' •• • • fait .t. • Sys •� 'tr � t!I IN r• T+w�-•J• �� f.,• fJlt,� a'L.,• __i • .,1 ,�. -• •;. • •/1•.� :1 K-_• r .. 'J' l� T•r 11�• `1 J � fK�•f t ► le" ` '• •$.ti� i, } ••••. - - r - • s �,, .16 v`•�: f r !.. `t <... lit -� .4..... •I •A:.l. �� .- . �`� ., Jal.4 Al! •{f. �a s .•tom 7 ' Jr�r` � ,%;.- . I. 'l. ♦ .t �••,1' : +�_ �., + -'l -� - l Tw • "7� [ ,. I s.. Arfer �IA`L. _ Z• � 5,, v..., Ire. • f• it aw •@ l } '• �af.4 • _~ • - •Fare •A4;. .. i �..\. �� _ • _ - - e • •i'/Y� i.. . O • MrNe II{' -r 'r?ni ti 1r .y s ‘.n•.♦� r +^ } • S, ! t r •i` • . ^,ti✓�6^' .i 4�i�,• • I`�,t.,v �/ t r .'ST1 . :-.. viz , Jt' •�ap tom•• • 7 wr• �'I�•• � f •r�t • l , -J • •» •'i R'. . I{.•• I -r +!i►,P.� .I�► 4�,• J' , _ .wl , r• lt ' ZTti • rSsail • •• • at ♦ • .1., • ' , .." •c .. i ,may =.1 .9 ' _rte; Y..",l • ' .� 2;d r ' `�.v► •It� .J t 7 t .'firm , el.., 1 . .0: i1 • ', • •,r• Jib r'. , ' •� .,. • --• .1. yce.•.- ti -tu, 1 mil: 4' 91 41%9: ..? .r .�. ` � i { h ,;r" 1 c7- Y"- Y ?,:�dy r, i K ' - �.f .4: ( _ r /. s.. y i• ut t{ � a<- • •��•,�+ice. M' .` }♦.' I7!i .: _. ••�. • - r r . , 4 l' I I s• . J', ♦••` �`, I �. ..� (4/0:4 L !1 tf - l Lt .f 'C• ♦fit.At •?4i' 1:f+ : i.. S ,.I. • . �.' i{ ••~• � 1� �� rOr '.J,•- 7 �.'i. ,'-s ' +C ST �• " l' , • ; rr 1 1 ..• - - yir 4.: : ''' j 'a'i=1 1 •;{�Mt.l ` . .r� ��' •♦ .t• . /e.• .?`l II.' , . 7 .. •, r. .t . ' . !_ Y I �,,.1,.• �t ��♦ r t• - t R. -.r 4• n. P ��]j'' • '` •.•...-. - .- ..t^ . s-.:• ..+rr• -+v .--'�r^e•- �wr -;v.+. :-�c:'}rt- "t:4TS'1 .a9caY'.�SS, f'td'• o • . a[ @'r& Xt !:�+:•#'c'G"cr'•�_.-y..._ ��-'SC-.mss . : _ ♦i . . fir eW I . / (Z., 9VrtiZterenet7c.,ef-44Vie • After MMM This information was taken from the American Cancer Society webpage, very insightful . http://www.cancer.orgicancerkancercausesiothercaranogensipollution/dtesel-exhaust What expert agencies say Several national and international agencies study substances in the environment to determine if they can cause cancer. The American Cancer Society looks to these organizations to evaluate the risks based on evidence from laboratory, animal, and human research studies. Some of these expert agencies have classified diesel exhaust as to whether it can cause cancer, based largely on the possible link to lung cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC) is part of the World Health Organization (WHO) . Its major goal is to identify causes of cancer. IARC classifies diesel engine exhaust as "carcinogenic to humans," based on sufficient evidence that it is linked to an increased risk of lung cancer, as well as limited evidence linking it to an increased risk of bladaer cancer. the National Toxicology Program ( NTP) is formed from parts of several different US government agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The NTP has classified exposure to diesel exhaust particulates as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen," based on limited evidence from studies in humans and supporting evidence from lab studies. The US Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) maintains the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), an electronic database that contains information on human health effects from exposure to various substances in the environment. The EPA classifies diesel exhaust as "likely to be carcinogenic to humans . " The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health ( NIOSH ) is part of the CDC that studies exposures in the workplace. NIOSH has determined that diesel exhaust is a "potential occupational carcinogen . " Does diesel exhaust cause any other health problems? Diesel exhaust is a major part of outdoor air pollution. Diesel exhaust is believed to play a role in other health problems, such as eye irritation, headache, asthma and other lung diseases, heart disease, and possibly immune system problems. Can I reduce my exposure to diesel exhaust? Diesel exhaust can cause several health problems and can most likely increase the risk of lung cancer (and possibly other cancers), so it makes sense to lower your exposure to it whenever possible. However, since most people's exposure comes from exhaust near highways and other roads, government regulations may be more effective in limiting exposure than individual choices. EXHIBIT �� lS-g• . I Motherlove Herbal Company , . . . - Is opposed to the Martin Marietta Materials proposed Weld County Asphalt Plant We area certified organic manufacturer of herbal supplements •N - A � . and bod care for re nanc breastfeedin birth and bab )11;11 ,J �t r * ., • 11. '7 . "1 . 'ir At ' ilei. r .r..., - es; " 1" " 1, :4, '-'44(tifrt,' 2, A .tit .. Many of our high quality medicinal herbs are grown at our t , } ' - } ` • - ..C7-: leased 120 acre certified organic farm near the proposed site. ,� .� r'; Our concerns are : ; A . ' at/ i -. tat Ara, , ,IL - i a • The known harmful chemicals, heavy metals and pollutants associated with the asphalt production • That our organic certifications could be jeopardized for both our farm and manufacturing processes . 4 • That heavy metal contaminants could affect our products tp .. ._ for California Proposition 65 ( known chemicals in the firmrstnrc„: :-zsel , ;,r ,i� • ^_ , - y ,� ai ,: L. state of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other . • -� ,,;• �4000 ' .'s41"`• _ � \ reproductive harm ) .P I. • Lead ,.,r .. . As, f -t , • : rlli. w ' . • Arsenic EXHIBIT ..._ _...,44ciiir: _. t. t. . �. . • �., IA i �ti . • 7*-•H • �,� Cadmium SUi _ _ • 11 J 1. �� -• • -� `'` a � Chromium - a• Ai .. • Benzene t • . w 1t ' .. �` . , # T ., • The quality of life and health of our neighbors, Ai it ; p. - 0 " � ;,, , .•,, t employees of the farm and community members visiting eiS!' ,�, .1 • i' the education center. ,., I _, • A • A • i,-. 4., \ 471 . , ' •.. *Steint. : ' • , s' "ilc '� '9 % • The potential for contamination of our crops, soil and •, ., . " 1490 '_ ' , i 1. s .„4, t ,'.7 water with toxic pollutants. t i yl BIG Day, My Big Day, LLC 8/8/ 1 5 Christine K. Forster, Owner 6422 Sea Gull Cir. Loveland, CO 80538 970-613-1455 MyBigDayEvenrs@outlook.com RE: 6943 CR 56, Johnstown, CO 80534 To whom it may concern, As a small business owner based in Northern Colorado for over 9 years, our event company has worked with every kind of event facility available. From corporate retreats, to large birthday parties, to weddings, to holiday parties — My Big Day plans it all. As such, we are always looking for event venues that can hold a substantial number of people. We also try to find our clients a variety of venue options. When we learned about the new ranch venue coming to CR 56, we were very intrigued. `Barn' or `Ranch' venues are in high demand and hard to find in Northern Colorado. The plan submitted by Chris at 6943 CR 56 is exactly what many of our clients are looking for. I personally drove out to the property to see the current layout, location to major roads, and of course, the views. A lake and mountain view is a huge selling point for this property! It is a very promising future venue - and the owner has done a substantial amount of work, and has put tons of thought into the facility. Unfortunately, while the venue is much needed and has the perfect view, when I heard about the proposed gravel pit and it's location, it completely changed what the landscape of this venue would look and feel like. None of our clients would appreciate the sound of loud trains coming and going while speeches and toasts are being made, the factory smells mingling with their fine catered food, or the large amount of traffic driving by the background of their memorable photos. If a gravel pit were to be approved, I can't imagine this venue would survive with the gravel pit as a next door neighbor. ehbisdate irglOa Event Planner EXHIBIT I www.MyBigDayCompany.com �ZIS_ - � , , Moon A 0 ne Agency August 1 . 2015 Weld County Commissioners Greeley. Colorado RE : Martin Marietta Asphalt Plant To Whom It May Concern: As an experienced event planner, I am very aware of what location . location, location means for an event site. I recently visited Chris Friede, and toured her incredible location for a wedding venue for Northern Colorado. She has researched and put in a lot of time for plans to create a very unique and much needed event space. I am so impressed and excited to have this amazing space. However. the proposal from Martin Marietta to construct an asphalt facility across the lake from this event venue will significantly hurt the sell-ability of this venue. I have worked in the hospitality and event industry for more than 15 years in various capacities from travel to hotel to event manager to business owner. Before I started my event planning business. Tula Event Productions. in 2007, I was the event planner on staff at CSU in the Extension 4-H Office for 5 years. Tula did go through a branding and name change in 2014 and we are now MoonStone Agency and we specialize in helping people find venues for their events. Through the years, I have learned how important location is for an event and how critical finding a great location for an event can be for the success of the conference, meeting , wedding party, or gathering . I am very careful to look at the area around each location to make sure it is conducive for the type of event I am managing . I was married 8 years to an a man who worked in asphalt construction and I am aware of the size of this proposed facility, noise from construction to running the facility. the large trucks and equipment traveling the roads. and the smell created from this proposed plant. This location is beautiful and there are nice homes a potential for a great community. And Chris' wedding venue is a fantastic addition to the area. However, this asphalt plant will bring NOTHING good to this space and area and should this proposal be approved , it will significantly hurt Chris' business. Besides all the factors I just listed , the fact that this plant will create a big eye soar in the beautiful backdrop will make it VERY difficult to sell this space. As a result, the impact for Chris and her venue will be devastating . I strongly recommend , for the sake of this approved event venue and for the homes and community around this space, the Weld County Commissioners vote to decline this proposal from Martin Marietta . Respectfully Submitted .0Me issa D . Barton , Owner MoonStone Agency PO Box 272742, Fort Collins, CO 80527 moonstoneagency.com 970-213-0899 FAX: 888-815-3439 Elegant Events by Linda August 10, 2015 To whom it may concern , My name is Linda O'Hare with Elegant Events by Linda. I have been an Event Planner for more than 15 years and a wedding planner in Northern Colorado for 5 years. I average about 35 weddings a year (from May — Oct) , about 80% of my business is in the Berthoud/Loveland/Boulder area and 20% in the Mountains such as Estes Park, Red Feather Lakes, and Grand Lake. First of all I want to thank Ms Chris Friede for allowing me to take a look at her private property, Rockin' S Ranch , and asking me for my opinion about a new wedding location/venue that has the potential of being very popular. The property is very peaceful and calm. With some attention to details and a little lush garden for picture opportunities this property could possibly be the Hit for 2016/17 wedding season. I was able to take a look at Ms Friede's power point presentation for her property plans and it blew me away how fabulous this will look when completed ! For the right price and for the perfect wedding venue Brides drive to locations that at times are hard to get to. But Rockin ' S Ranch didn't have this problem , my GPS took me to her property without any problems and it only took me 20 min. from Berthoud . Ms Friede is looking at possibly 40-50 weddings in 2016 and even more in 2017 with the right advertising (which I am sure Ms Friede knows well how to market her place) . Once a wedding/event venue is known, it can take off very easily. In today's market, a Bride spends on average , close to $40k for her wedding . Everything has to be perfect. And it is so with pictures! Rockin' S Ranch already has beautiful spots for some amazing pictures. With Ms Friede's project it can only get better. Now, in regards to the possible Asphalt Plant coming into place, it will destroy the peacefulness that a Bride is looking for with her wedding day (as a wedding is already stressful enough) and it will destroy the picturesque backdrop for which a Bride is spending close to $2000 for a good photographer on average. Lately, • r gh.y i • / ! as: Elegant Events by Linda August 10, 2015 To whom it may concern . My name is Linda O' Hare with Elegant Events by Linda. I have been an Event Planner for more than 15 years and a wedding planner in Northern Colorado for 5 years . I average about 35 weddings a year (from May — Oct) , about 80% of my business is in the Berthoud/Loveland/Boulder area and 20% in the Mountains such as Estes Park, Red Feather Lakes , and Grand Lake. First of all I want to thank Ms Chris Friede for allowing me to take a look at her private property, Rockin ' S Ranch , and asking me for my opinion about a new wedding location/venue that has the potential of being very popular. The property is very peaceful and calm. With some attention to details and a little lush garden for picture opportunities this property could possibly be the Hit for 2016/17 wedding season . I was able to take a look at Ms Friede's power point presentation for her property plans and it blew me away how fabulous this will look when completed ! For the right price and for the perfect wedding venue Brides drive to locations that at times are hard to get to . But Rockin ' S Ranch didn't have this problem , my GPS took me to her property without any problems and it only took me 20 min . from Berthoud . Ms Friede is looking at possibly 40-50 weddings in 2016 and even more in 2017 with the right advertising (which I am sure Ms Friede knows well how to market her place) . Once a wedding/event venue is known , it can take off very easily. In today's market, a Bride spends on average , close to $40k for her wedding . Everything has to be perfect. And it is so with pictures! Rockin' S Ranch already has beautiful spots for some amazing pictures. With Ms Friede's project it can only get better. Now, in regards to the possible Asphalt Plant coming into place, it will destroy the peacefulness that a Bride is looking for with her wedding day (as a wedding is already stressful enough ) and it will destroy the picturesque backdrop for which a Bride is spending close to $2000 for a good photographer on average . Lately, many Brides are hiring Videographers to capture their "I do's" and party on film as well . Who would want an Asphalt Plant as their backdrop for their most memorable day? As I have said , I have worked at many venues in Colorado . If there is too much highway noise, most venues have planted big Spruce trees to dampen the noise of the highway and/or built a water feature. But with an Asphalt Plant how can Ms Friede dampen the smell of asphalt or plant gigantic trees to hide the silos so they wouldn't be in a backdrop? ! In my opinion the approval of an asphalt plant will destroy Ms Friede's dream of owning her own business ! A potential new wedding venue will help many small local business owners to create more income ! I hope and pray that Ms Friede's dreams will be fulfilled and that she will be able to create her long desired project. I do want to mention , that I am not related to, or befriended with Ms Friede . Wishing Ms Friede the best of luck in her fulfillment of her dream ! Sincerely, Linda O' Hare Elegant Events by Linda 970.308 .4643 From : casey@apinkdiamondevent .com To : cfriede@msn .com Subject: RE : Rockin S Wedding Venue Date : Fri, 31 Jul 2015 20:33 :49 -0600 Hi Chris, Thank you for sending this too me ! It looks like a very unique and interesting venue. I would love to check it out when you have it up and running ! With regards to the venue, I think you will definitely get lots of business at this location . The "rustic" and "barn" weddings are very popular right now and I foresee this venue attracting lots of clients from Northern Colorado and Wyoming. In addition, the recent trends I have seen is that wedding guests lists are getting larger, much larger since the recession . I see many wedding with 200+ guests. Since there are not many venues (other than hotel ballrooms) that can accommodate this many guests, I think your venue has a lot of potential to capture these large weddings. With regards to the location of the asphalt plant, I think if this gets approved, it will have a huge negative impact on your business. The views from the lake will be reduced from gorgeous uninterrupted mountains views to a direct view of the plant. Unfortunately, in my opinion, this will deter a lot of potential clients from booking your venue . Having planned weddings in Northern Colorado for over 6 years, I know there is a lack of wedding venues in this area. I really would love to see your business take off and not be eliminated due to the asphalt plant. Pink Diamond Events www.apinkdiamondevent.com 970-692-16450970-692-1645 Best of the Knot- 2015, 2013, 2012 Wedding Wire Best of Weddings- 2015, 2014, 2013, 2013 Statement From : Hawley Vining (hawley@viningevents.com) Sent: Wed 8/05/ 15 10:24 PM To: chris friede (cfriede@msn.com) To whom it may concern , I am writing this email on behalf of Chris Friede. She sought my opinion as a wedding and events planner. I have worked in the events industry for the last 15 years in Colorado, Vermont, and Oregon . I had the opportunity to walk around Ms. Friede's property, Rockin S Ranch, last week. Her historical dairy farm is unique and has such charm ! During my time there I was able to review her business plan and visualize the huge potential her property has as a high end outdoor events venue. I believe that it would be a well sought out establishment for weddings and other events . Ms . Friede discussed the future plans for the property west of hers. She mentioned that Martin Marietta Asphalt, Aggregate, Et Concrete Recycling Plant was looking to build there. Ms. Friede asked my opinion, as an event planner, about whether or not a plant of this magnitude would affect her business. I believe there would be a huge negative impact on her business and the desire to hold an event, especially a wedding, at Rockin S Ranch . When clients consider an outdoor venue- they not only consider the property amenities but also the entire surrounds (view, sounds, and smell) . The location of the asphalt plant would impede the view of the mountains . Its close proximity, business sounds and smells would surely be shared and unwanted by wedding and event guests. The beautiful peacefulness, and calming nature many look for in a wedding site, which Rockin S Ranch currently has, will be disrupted by cylos and trains. At this moment- Rockin S Ranch has the potential to be a high end wedding and events venue. If the surrounding landscape changes, in my opinion, the potential would not be the same . Hawley Vining Hawley Vining Wedding Et Event Planner Vining Events 970.624.7591 www.viningevents.com hawley@viningevents_com DRAFT RESOLUTION RE: APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT, USR15-0027 (FORMERLY KNOWN AS USR-1584) FOR ANY USE PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT, ACCESSORY USE, OR USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW IN THE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICTS (CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS WITH TWO SHOP BUILDINGS, OFFICE BUILDINGS, AND OUTDOOR STORAGE) PROVIDED THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT A LOT IN AN APPROVED OR RECORDED SUBDIVISION PLAT OR PART OF A MAP OR PLAN FILED PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF ANY REGULATIONS CONTROLLING SUBDIVISIONS TO INCLUDE A MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FACILITY, INCLUDING ASPHALT AND CONCRETE BATCH PLANTS (MATERIALS PROCESSING) AND TRANSLOADING IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT - WELD LV, LLC, AND GERRARD INVESTMENTS, LLC, C/O MARTIN MARIETTA WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado. and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on the 12th day of August, 2015, at the hour of 9 : 00 a. m . , in the Chambers of the Board , for the purpose of hearing the application of Weld LV, LLC , 3821 Debry Trail, Round Rock, TX 78681 , and Gerrard Investments, LLC, 27486 CR 13, Loveland, CO 80534, c/o Martin Marietta, 10170 Church Ranch Way, Suite 201 , Westminster, CO 80021 , for an Amendment to a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit, USR15-0027 (formerly known as USR- 1584) for any Use permitted as a Use by Right. Accessory Use, or Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (construction business with two shop buildings, office buildings, and outdoor storage) provided that the property is not a lot in an approved or recorded subdivision plat or part of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions to include a Mineral Resource Development Facility, including asphalt and concrete batch plants (materials processing) and transloading in the A (Agricultural) Zone District, on the following described real estate, being more particularly described as follows: Lot B of Recorded Exemption , RE-2803; being part of the SW1 /4 and SE1 /4, and a tract being part of the SW1 /4, all in Section 18, Township 5 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P. M . , Weld County, Colorado WHEREAS, at said hearing , the applicant was present, and WHEREAS, Section 23-2-230 of the Weld County Code provides standards for review of said Use by Special Review Permit, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners heard all of the testimony and statements of those present, studied the request of the applicant and the unfavorable recommendation of the Weld County Planning Commission and all of the exhibits and evidence presented in this matter and, having been fully informed, finds that this request shall be approved for the following reasons: EXHIBIT 2015-2491 PL2360 016276\0027\1-2585369 212585369.3 SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT (USR15-0027) - WELD LV, LLC, AND GERRARD INVESTMENTS, LLC, C/O MARTIN MARIETTA PAGE 2 - DRAFT 1 . The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 23-2-260 of the Weld County Code. 2 . It is the opinion of the Board of County Commissioners that the applicant has shown compliance with Section 23-2-230. B of the Weld County Code as follows: **TO BE DETERMINED BY THE BOARD** - Due to a recommendation of Denial from the Planning Commission . if approved , the Board will need to specify the appropriate Code Sections below to justify the approval . A. Section 23-2-230. B. 1 -- The proposed use is consistent with Chapter 22 and any other applicable Code provisions or ordinances in effect. B. Section 23-2-230. B.2 -- The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the A (Agricultural) Zone District. C. Section 23-2-230. B.3 -- The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses. D . Section 23-2-230. B.4 -- The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with future development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the future development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code, and any other applicable code provisions or ordinances in effect, or the adopted Master Plans of affected municipalities. E. Section 23-2-230. B. 5 -- The site does not lie within any Overlay Districts. F. Section 23-2-230. B. 6 -- The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve prime agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use. G . Section 23-2-230. B.7 -- The Design Standards (Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code) , Operation Standards (Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code) , Conditions of Approval , and Development Standards ensure that there are adequate provisions for the protection of the health . safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the application of Weld LV, LLC , and Gerrard Investments, LLC, c/o Martin Marietta, for an Amendment to a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit, USR15-0027 (formerly known as USR- 1584) for any Use permitted as a Use by Right, Accessory Use, or Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (construction business with two shop buildings, office buildings, and outdoor storage) provided that the property is not a lot in an approved or recorded subdivision plat or part of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions to include a Mineral Resource 2015-2491 PL2360 016276\0027\12585369.212585369.3 SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT ( USR15-0027) - WELD LV, LLC , AND GERRARD INVESTMENTS, LLC, C/O MARTIN MARIETTA PAGE 3 - DRAFT Development Facility, including asphalt and concrete batch plants (materials processing) and transloading in the A (Agricultural) Zone District, on the parcel of land described above be, and hereby is, granted subject to the following conditions: 1 . Prior to recording the map : A. An Improvements and Road Maintenance Agreement is required for off-site improvements at this location . Road maintenance including dust control , damage repair, specified haul routes and future traffic triggers for improvements will be included. B. A Final Drainage Report and Certification of Compliance. stamped and signed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Colorado, is required. C. The Traffic Study should be updated to address the comments from CDOT, Larimer County, and Public Works. The study should include information pertaining to tie accitiona train traffic anc Giscusv oca traffic impacts that may be created by additional train traffic. (*OR the following as proposed by staff) C. Union Pacific shall apply for a railroad diagnostic for the crossings of CR 13, CR 54. CR 52 , and CR 17. The railroad diagnostic will determine if there is a safety issue with the increase of train traffic at these locations that would require the installation of crossing arms or signals. If any improvements are required at any of these locations as a direct result of the additional trains visiting the Highway 34 Development Martin Marietta will be responsible for the local portion (Weld County) of the project cost. D . The applicant shall address the requirements (concerns) of CDOT, as stated in the referral response dated July 6 . 2015. Evidence of such shall be submitted , in writing , to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. E. The applicant shall address the requiroments (concerns) of the Weld County Department of Pub is Works, as statec in tie referra response dated July 6, 2015. Evidence of such shall be submitted, in writing, to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (*OR the following as proposed by staff) E. The applicant shall address the requirements (concerns) of the Weld County Department of Public Works, as stated in the referral response dated July 6, 2015. Evidence of such shall be submitted, in writing . to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. The applicant is required to construct the following roadway improvements. 1 . Installation of a southbound left deceleration lane at the facility entrance. 2015-2491 PL2360 016276\0027\12585369.212585369.3 SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT ( USR15-0027) - WELD LV, LLC , AND GERRARD INVESTMENTS, LLC . C/O MARTIN MARIETTA PAGE 4 - DRAFT 2 . Installation of a northbound right acceleration lane at the facility entrance. 3. Installation of a northbound right deceleration lane at the facility Y entrance. 4. Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of CR 13 and U . S . Highway 34. 5 . Upgrade of the existing auxiliary turn lanes on U .S . Highway 34. p9 9 Y The turn lanes will be brought up to standard for length, taper, and storage, unless waived by CDOT. 6. Upgrade and pavement of CR 13 from CR 50 to CR 54. 7. Auxi ia-ry Turn Lanes at ho intersection o- CR 5/ a-nc CR ' 3. F. The applicant shall address the requirements (concerns) of the Weld County Department of Building Inspection , as stated in the referral response dated June 4, 2015. Evidence of such shall be submitted , in writing , to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. G . The applicant shall attempt to address the concerns of Larimer County, as stated in the referral responses dated June 16, 2015, and July 1 , 2015. Evidence of such shall be submitted, in writing, to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. H . The applicant shall attempt to address the concerns of the Town of Windsor, as stated in the referral response dated May 27, 2015. Evidence of such shall be submitted , in writing, to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. The applicant shall attempt to address the concerns of the City of Greeley, as stated in the referral response dated May 27, 2015. Evidence of such shall be submitted , in writing, to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. J . The applicant shall attempt to address the concerns of the Hill and Brush Ditch Company, as stated in the referral response dated May 20. 2015 . Evidence of such shall be submitted, in writing , to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. K . The applicant shall attempt to address the concerns of the Reorganized Farmers Ditch Company, as stated in the referral response dated May 18, 2015 . Evidence of such shall be submitted . in writing , to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. 2015-2491 PL2360 016276\0027\12545369.212585369.3 SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT (USR15-0027) - WELD LV, LLC. AND GERRARD INVESTMENTS, LLC, C/O MARTIN MARIETTA PAGE 5 - DRAFT L. The applicant shall attempt to address the concerns of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, as stated in the referral response dated May 1 , 2015. Evidence of such shall be submitted, in writing , to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. M . The map shall be amended to delineate the following : 1 ) All sheets of the map shall be labeled USR15-0027. 2) The attached Development Standards. 3) The map shall be prepared per Section 23-2-260. D of the Weld County Code. 4) The applicant shall delineate the trash collection areas. Section 23-3-350. H of the Weld County Code addresses the issue of trash collection areas. 5) Delineate the approved landscaping/screening . 6) Delineate the lighting for the site and reflect that all lightpooles are limi :ed 'o a maximum of 25 fee; in height. 7) The parking areas shall adhere to Appendices 23-A and 23-B of the Weld County Code . 8) Show and label the approved access(es) , turning radii , and access permit number(s) . 9) Show and label the entrance gate setback a minimum of 100 feet from the edge of shoulder. 10) Show and label all off-site auxiliary lane improvements at the access location . 11 ; Add a note that all structures must be painted an earth:one color. 2 . Upon completion of Condition of Approval # 1 above , the applicant shall submit one ( 1 ) paper copy or one ( 1 ) electronic copy ( . pdf) of the map for preliminary approval to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. Upon approval of the map the applicant shall submit a Mylar map along with all other documentation required as Conditions of Approval . The Mylar map shall be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder by the Department of Planning Services. The map shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 23-2-260. D of the Weld County Code . The Mylar map and additional requirements shall be 2015-2491 PL2360 016276\0027\12585369.2125853693 SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT ( USR15-0027) - WELD LV, LLC , AND GERRARD INVESTMENTS, LLC . C/O MARTIN MARIETTA PAGE 6 - DRAFT submitted within one hundred twenty ( 120) days from the date of the Board of County Commissioners Resolution . The applicant shall be responsible for paying the recording fee. 3. In accordance with Weld County Code Ordinance #2012-3, approved April 30 , 2012 , should the map not be recorded within the required one hundred twenty ( 120) days from the date of the Board of County Commissioners Resolution , a $50 . 00 recording continuance charge shall added for each additional three (3) month period . 4. The Department of Planning Services respectfully requests a digital copy of this Use by Special Review, as appropriate. Acceptable CAD formats are .dwg , .dxf, and .dgn (Microstation) ; acceptable GIS formats are ArcView shapefiles or ArcGIS Personal GeoDataBase (MDB) . The preferred format for Images is .tif (Group 4) . (Group 6 is not acceptable) . This digital file may be sent to maps@co.weld.co. us. 5 . Prior to Construction : A. If more than one ( 1 ) acre is to be disturbed, a Weld County Grading Permit will be required. 6 . Prior to Operation : A. Accepted construction drawings and construction of the off-site roadway improvements are required prior to operation . 7. The Use by Special Review activity shall not occur, nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the property, until the Use by Special Review map is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder or the applicant has been approved for an early release agreement. 2015-2491 PL2360 016276\0027\12585369.21.2585369.3 SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT (USR15-0027) - WELD LV, LLC, AND GERRARD INVESTMENTS, LLC, O/O MARTIN MARIETTA PAGE 2 - DRAFT The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded , adopted by the following vote on the 12th day of August, A. D . , 2015. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY . COLORADO ATTEST: Barbara Kirkmeyer, Chair Weld County Clerk to the Board Mike Freeman , Pro-Tem BY: Deputy Clerk to the Board Sean P. Conway APPROVED AS TO FORM : Julie A. Cozad County Attorney Steve Moreno Date of signature : 2015-2491 PL2360 016276\0027\1258.5369:212585369 3 DRAFT SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WELD LV, LLC, AND GERRARD INVESTMENTS, LLC, C/O MARTIN MARIETTA USR15-0027 1 . An Amendment to a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit, USR15-0027 (formerly known as USR- 1584) , for any Use permitted as a Use by Right, Accessory Use , or Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (construction business with two shop buildings, office buildings, and outdoor storage) provided that the property is not a lot in an approved or recorded subdivision plat or part of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions to include a Mineral Resource Development Facility, including asphalt and concrete batch plants (materials processing) and transloading in the A (Agricultural) Zone District, subject to the Development Standards stated hereon . 2 . Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8- 10 of the Weld County Code . 3. The number of on-site employees for Gerrard Construction shall be 36, as stated by the applicant. 4. The number of on-site employees for Martin Marietta shall be 75 full-time employees, 50 truck drivers, and 30 field construction workers, as stated by the applicant. 5. The hours of operation for Gerrard Construction shall be 6 :00 a. m . to 6:30 p . m . , Monday through Friday, and 7:00 a. m . to 12 :00 p. m . . Saturday, as stated by the applicant. 6. The hours of operation for Martin Marietta shall be 24 hours a day, seven (7) days a week; however. Martin Marietta will operate under the following restrictions: A. Hours of Operation for Asphalt: 1 ) The plant will typically only operate Monday through Saturday. 2) The standard hours of plant operation will be limited to one hour before sunrise to one hour after sunset. 3 ) Load-out from storage silos will be limited to one hour before sunrise to one hour after sunset. 4) When the plant is operating at night, it will only occur when material is requested by cities, counties, or CDOT, for night paving projects. Operations will be considered "night operations," when they take place between the hours of one hour after sundown to one hour before sunrise. Depending on the request of the jurisdiction purchasing the asphalt, night operations could occur seven days per week. When Martin Marietta 20 1 -2491 PL2360 016276\0027\1-2585369.212585369.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (USR 15-0027) - WELD LV, LLC, AND GERRARD INVESTMENTS, LLC, CIO MARTIN MARIETTA PAGE 2 - DRAFT becomes aware of projects that require night operations, they will email the Weld County Planning Director to let him/her know about the plans to operate outside of daylight hours, who the project is for, how long it will be occurring , and where the materials are being delivered . B. Hours of Operation for Ready Mix Concrete: 1 ) The Ready Mix Concrete Plant will only operate Monday through Saturday. 2) Actual operating hours of the Ready Mix Concrete Plant will vary depending on weather and business levels. The plant will generally not begin operating until daylight. Occasionally, it may need to operate earlier to accommodate daily business demands: however, in no instance will the plant ever operate before 3:00 a. m . 3) The plant will not operate more than 16 hours per day. 4) Ready Mix trucks will generally operate during plant operations, but may return to the plant after plant shutdown to be cleaned and parked. C . Hours of Operation for Aggregate and Recycling : 1 ) Aggregate sales and recycling operations will only occur Monday through Saturday. 2) Aggregate washing and recycling operations will only occur during daylight hours (dawn to dusk or 6:30 a.m . to 6:00 p. m . during the winter) , actual operating hours will vary dependent on weather and business levels. 3) Train unloading operations during the summer will only take place between the hours of 6: 00 a. m . and 8 :00 p.m . , actual hours will be dependent on the time the train arrives at the site . 4) Train unloading operations during the winter will only take place during daylight hours, actual hours will be dependent on the time the train arrives at the site. 7. The parking area on the site shall be maintained . 8 . All signs shall adhere to Chapter 23, Article IV. Division 2 and Appendices 23-C . 23-D and 23- E of the Weld County Code. 9. The landscaping/screening on the site shall be maintained . 10. Should noxious weeds exist on the property or become established as a result of the proposed development, the applicant/landowner shall be responsible for controlling the noxious weeds, pursuant to Chapter 15, Articles I and II , of the Weld County Code . 2015-2491 PL2360 016276\0027\1-2-585369.212585369.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ( USR 1 .5-0027) - WELD LV, LLC, AND GERRARD INVESTMENTS, LLC, C/O MARTIN MARIETTA PAGE 3 - DRAFT 11 . There shall be no tracking of dirt or debris from the site onto publically maintained roads. The applicant is responsible for mitigation of any off-site tracking and maintaining on-site tracking control devices. 12. There shall be no parking or staging of vehicles on public roads. On-site parking shall be utilized. 13. The historical flow patterns and runoff amounts will be maintained on the site . 14. Weld County is not responsible for the maintenance of on-site drainage related features. 15. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, Section 30-20- 100.5, C . R. S. ) shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects against surface and groundwater contamination . 16 . No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include those wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, Section 30-20- 100. 5, C. R .S. 17. Waste materials shall be handled , stored, and disposed of in a manner that controls fugitive dust, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. The applicant shall operate in accordance with the accepted Waste Handling Plan , at all times. The facility shall operate in accordance with Chapter 14, Article 1 of the Weld County Code . 18. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions should be controlled on this site . The facility shall be operated in accordance with the accepted Dust Abatement Plan , at all times. Uses on the property should comply with the Colorado Air Quality Commission's air quality regulations. 19. Adequate drinking , handwashing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees and patrons of the facility. at all times. For employees or contractors on-site for less than two (2) consecutive hours a day, portable toilets and bottled water are acceptable. Records of maintenance and proper disposal for portable toilets shall be retained on a quarterly basis and available for review by the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment. Portable toilets shall be serviced by a cleaner licensed in Weld County and shall contain hand sanitizers. 20 . If applicable , the applicant shall obtain a Stormwater Discharge Permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division . 21 . Any septic system located on the property must comply with all provisions of the Weld County Code, pertaining to On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems. A permanent, adequate water supply shall be provided for drinking and sanitary purposes, as needed. The facility shall utilize the public water supply. 2015-2491 PL2360 016276\0027\12585369.212585_369.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ( USR 15-0027) - WELD LV, LLC, AND GERRARD INVESTMENTS, LLC, C/O MARTIN MARIETTA PAGE 4 - DRAFT 22. All potentially hazardous chemicals must be handled in a safe manner in accordance with product labeling and in a manner that minimizes the release of Hazardous Air Pollutants ( HAPs) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) . All chemicals must be stored securely, on an impervious surface, and in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. 23. A Spill Prevention , Control and Countermeasure Plan , prepared in accordance with the applicable provisions of 40 CFR , Part 112 , shall be available on-site . 24. This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Industrial Zone as delineated in Section 14-9-30 of the Weld County Code . 25. The facility shall comply with all provisions of the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Oil and Public Safety, Underground and Above Ground Tank Regulations, as applicable . 26. Any washing areas shall capture all effluent and prevent discharges in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Water Quality Control Commission , and the Environmental Protection Agency. 27. Process wastewater (such as floor drain and laboratory wastes) shall be captured in a watertight vault/container and hauled off for proper disposal . Records of installation , maintenance, and proper disposal shall be retained. 28. The facility shall comply with the Air Pollution Emission Notice (A. P . E . N .) permit pY requirements as stipulated by the Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 29. Material being recycled shall be separated by material type or use. Incoming loads shall have all non-concrete, non-asphalt and non-rebar material removed from concrete and asphalt materials within thirty (30) calendar days. Non-concrete , non-asphalt and non-rebar material shall not exceed 10% of the total material onsite by weight or volume. 30. Odors detected off-site shall not exceed the level of seven-to-one dilution threshold, as measured pursuant to Regulation 2 of the Colorado Air Pollution Control Regulations. 31 . The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of state and federal agencies and the Weld County Code . 32 . Sources of light shall be shielded so that light rays will not shine directly onto adjacent properties where such would cause a nuisance or interfere with the use on the adjacent properties in accordance with the plan . Neither the direct, nor reflected, light from any light source may create a traffic hazard to operators of motor vehicles on public or private streets. No colored lights may be used which may be confused with , or construed as, traffic control devices. 33. A building permit may be required per Section 29-3- 10 of the Weld County Code. Currently the following have been adopted by Weld County: 2012 International Codes. 2006 2015-2491 PL2360 016276\0027\12585369.212585369.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (USR 15-0027) - WELD LV . LLC, AND GERRARD INVESTMENTS, LLC, C/O MARTIN MARIETTA PAGE 5 - DRAFT International Energy Code , and the 2014 National Electrical Code. A building permit application must be completed and two (2) complete sets of engineered plans bearing the wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect or engineer must be submitted for review. A geotechnical engineering report performed by a registered State of Colorado engineer shall be required or an open hole inspection . 34. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design and Operation Standards of Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code. 35. Necessary personnel from the Weld County Departments of Planning Services , Public Works, and Public Health and Environment shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations. 36. The Use by Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing standards and all applicable Weld County regulations . Substantial changes from the plans or Development Standards, as shown or stated, shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or Development Standards are permitted . Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the Department of Planning Services. 37. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners. 38. The Weld County Right to Farm Statement. as it appears in Section 22-2-20 .J .2 of the Weld County Code , shall be placed on the map and recognized at all times. Martin Marietta wil estab ish and operate a Community Workgroup which wi be comprised of a representative group of surrounding neighbors, Martin Marietta officia s and a third party member appointed by We d County. In addition, Martin Marietta wi set up a $100,000 andscaping fund to be managed by the Community Workgroup to fund landscaping for instal ation on the ots of adjacent lot owners with views of the faci ity. Martin Marietta wil estab ish and operate a noise-monitoring program as described in the Noise Monitoring P an on record with the We d County Department of Public Health and Environment. Martin Marietta wi insta acoustica barriers around the asphalt burner. Martin Marietta wil instal sound wal s on the west side of the site if needed to comply with We d County noise regu ations. Martin Marie-ta's asphalt p ant wi operate with vertica iquid AC storage tanks. carbon 2015-2491 PL2360 016276\0027\12585369.212585369.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (USR 15-0027) - WELD LV, LLC, AND GERRARD INVESTMENTS, LLC, C/O MARTIN MARIETTA PAGE 6 - DRAFT filters, and an emission capturing system . Martin Marietta must have a certified nasal ranger at the site while the asphalt plant is operating. 2015-2491 PL2360 016276\0027\12585369.212585369.3 Document comparison by Workshare Compare on Monday, August 10 , 2015 10:44 :41 PM Input: Document 1 ID interwovenSite ://DMS/ACTIVE/12585369/2 Description # 12585369v2<ACTIVE> - draft Resolution Document 2 ID interwovenSite ://DMS/ACTIVE/12585369/3 Description # 12585369v3<ACTIVE> - draft Resolution Rendering set BHFS Standard Legend : Insertion Deletion Moved from Moved to Style change Format change O-v-et-kit! let-full Inserted cell Deleted cell Moved cell Split/Merged cell Padding cell Statistics: Count Insertions 13 Deletions 7 Moved from 0 Moved to 0 Style change 0 Format changed 0 Total changes 20 FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY LLC August 11 , 2015 Mr. James Sham Director of Natural Resources Rocky Mountain Division Martin Marietta 10170 Church Ranch Way, Suite 201 Westminster, Colorado 80021 RE: Weld County 34 - Rebuttal to Public Comment on Real Estate Values Dear Mr. Sham: As requested, I am submitting a rebuttal letter to address public comments made at the July 21 , 2015 Weld County Planning Commission meeting regarding the credibility of my paired sales analysis and future real estate values in proximity to the planned Martin Marietta Weld County 34 project. The report was completed in compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) and the Code of Professional Ethics of the Appraisal Institute to ensure a competent, ethical, and non-biased opinion. The public presentation and public comments at the planning commission meeting came from Dr. Ellen Kisker, an economist who resides in the Indianhead Subdivision. Dr. Kisker failed to provide any credentials as to her real estate expertise, and furthermore is not likely bound by any regulatory body that would require adherence to ethics, competence, or non-biased approaches to her presentation and comments. Relying on published articles as a basis for a value opinion is not a recognized appraisal technique. More importantly, Dr. Kisker failed to present any data to refute the results of the diminution study I prepared. The type of statistical hedonic analysis recommended by Dr. Kister to estimate whether there is any value diminution would require a large amount of relevant sales data to provide reliable results. The geographically dispersed sales data required would reduce the reliability of a statistical hedonic approach as it relates to this rural Weld County project. Therefore, I determined the paired sales analysis, which is more widely used in the appraisal profession, to be a more W. West Foster, MAI, CRE, SR/WA • Sue Anne Foster, MAI, SRA Jon M. Vaughan, MAI, SR/WA • Michael Smith, MAI • Christine Antonio, SR/WA EXHIBIT Certified General Real Estate Appraisers • 910 54th Avenue, Suite 210, Greeley, Colorado 80634 Phone (970) 352-1117 • FAX (970) 323-2753 CYO c.c.s- LC- (a"7 Mr. James Sham Page 2 August 11 , 2015 appropriate analysis technique considering the unique Martin Marietta project as it relates to the Indianhead Subdivision in this rural Weld County location. As to analysis the comments regarding the selection and analysis of data, each sale was carefully chosen after considering all the available data. General market area and demographic data, supply and demand factors, and a comprehensive list of every active asphalt and concrete batch plants in the state, and a comprehensive list of every sale within each subdivision were analyzed in the selection of comparable sales. All notable differences in each paired sale transaction were considered in the analysis including, property rights conveyed, financing terms, conditions of sale, market conditions (time), and location. In addition, the physical characteristics considered when matching the paired sets included, but were not limited to, differences in building size, quality of construction, age, condition, architectural style, contributory value of the site, desirability of site or view, or any other potential physical difference. Finally, each sale was confirmed with market participants, which increased the reliability of the data used in the analysis. The Addenda to this letter contains the following three exhibits with selected relevant excerpts highlighted in yellow that further support the reasoning and credibility of the report: Exhibit A: Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate, 14th ed. (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2013), 214 - 215. Exhibit B : Jackson, Thomas O., PhD, MAI, "Methods and Techniques for Contaminated Property Valuation", The Appraisal Journal, (October 2003): 315-316. Exhibit C: Wilson Albert R., CRE, "Proximity Stigma: Testing the Hypothesis " The Appraisal Journal, (Summer 2004): 255 . Mr. James Sham Page 3 August 11 , 2015 Regression models including trending and resale analysis were analyzed with the limited available data and are maintained in the appraiser's work file. However, the paired sales analysis is one of the most widely recognized and accepted valuation approaches and is considered more reliable and appropriate for the value diminution study completed for the Martin Marietta project. As previously mentioned, Dr. Kisker failed to produce any data that could refute the results of the diminution study. I firmly stand behind the credibility and reliability of the value diminution study provided to Martin Marietta officials. Respectively submitted, Michael A. Smi h, MAI CO Certification #CG 100036005 ADDENDA EXHIBIT A I �k r - tion lifecycle" as of the date of value. The effect of contamination andenvironmental risk on property prices and values changes over tune. it typically decreases as a site works its way through the discovery and investigation, remediation, and post-remediation stages. Contamination may also be mitigated by natural attenuation even in cases where no actual remediation efforts have been undertaken. Fourth, the appra�er must consider the cost, use, and risk effects as of the relevant da te and point in that remediation lifecycle as they relate to the type of proper (source, non-source, adjacent, or proximate sites). Fifth, and finally,the appraiser estimates the impaired ("as is") value. In most assignments the appraiser Is also asked to compare the impaired value to the unim- paired value under the hypothetical condition that the contamination is not present. The initial focus in the 1980s and 199Os was on techniques for apt praising source sites, for example, contaminated or remediated former steel mills or manufacturing plants with on-site contamination and Specialized Methods and Techniques for Determining the Effects of Environmental Contamination on Prices and Values Over the past 25 years, the appraisal profession has developed a set of recognized and generally accepted = specialized techniques for estimating the effect of contamination and environmental risks on prices. markets, t and values as discussed in the peer-reviewed appraisal literature and courses of the appraisal profession.All of these specialized methods are based on the three traditional approaches to value (sales comparison approach, • income capitalization approach, and cost approach).These methods involve one or more of the following 1 . Paired data analysis of sales of impacted or potentially impacted properties 2. Analysis of environmental case studies 4. 3. Multiple regression analysis of property sales in a potentially impacted area or in proximity to a source site 4. Adjustment of income and yield capitalization rates on income-producing properties to reflect environ- mental risk premiums estimated through market research In paired data analysis, prices paid for properties that sold in an impacted area are compared to prices paid for otherwise similar properties that sold outside the impacted area in order to estimate the effect of the location on the sale price. Of course, no two properties are exactly alike, so market-supported adjust- ments may have to be made for differences between the properties other than location. More than one par- ing is typically necessary to understand the effect of the location in the impacted area on the prices paid. Environmental case studies are typically useful when a source site is being appraised or in a situation involving an impacted neighborhood or area where there are insufficient sales to understand the effect of the environmental issue on prices and values. Sales in another case study location involving a similar environ- mental situation are studied to estimate how the marketplace there responded to similar environmental is- sues.Typically that involves comparing sale prices in the impacted case study area to sale prices in a nearby similar, but unaffected. control area. The case study environmental situation is then compared to that of the impacted area using the relevant property characteristics identified in A0-9. Great care must be exercised when using paired data, case studies, and interviews because of the special conditions and characteristics of contaminated properties. Also, surveys need to be properly developed. When properly specified and developed, a multiple regression model can be used to determine if the environmental situation is affecting sale prices. The model can be designed to interpret the effect of issues such as remediation status, location in a contaminated area, distance from a source site, and other factors. Of course, model specification must also include the nonenvironmental independent variable factors (efg site size, age of improvements. date of sale, zoning, school district) that influence sale prices. Having a data base that includes a sufficient number of sales to make the outcome of the model statistically signitwcant 214 The Appraisal of Real Estate ttamination and actual or potential off-site migration due to surface water runoff, con- laminated groundwater, or even windblown dust and vapor. Finding urges over time; to discovery and comparable sales of such source properties (sometimes called brnwn- Contamination fields) was often difficult because many significantly contaminated cases where no source sites did not sell until investigation had been completed, parties th, the appraiser legally responsible for remediation costs had been identified, remedia- 1 elevant date and Lion plans had been approved by environmental agencies, and cleanup type of property costs had been determined with some degree of accuracy. Today, sales h, and finally, the ofsourct sites can be found and analyzed more readily. There may also lost assignments be indemnification obligations by one or more parties. alue to the unim- In recent years, attention has turned to techniques for estimating the is contamination value of non-source, adjacent, and proximate sites. Sales of these types of properties can be found in large numbers by researching markets echniyues for ap- around sites involved in documented state or federal environmental ;mediated former investigations and approved remediation programs. These transactions mtamination and will usually provide sufficient basis for valuing or analyzing a site that Environmental especially important. If the regression modeling is done as part of a mass appraisal assignment, the regres- sion modeling must comply with Standard 6 of USPAP. Sale prices for income-producing properties can be studied to estimate if their direct capitalization or Generally accepted yield capitalization rates have been affected by the contamination investigation, remediation, or post-reme- on prices, markets, diction circumstances, and any appropriate upward adjustment can be made to the unimpaired rate for the raisal profession. MI of property being appraised. comparison approach, Given the remediation lifecycle recognized by A0-9, gathering and analyzing market data that matches of the following: up well with the appraised property's remediation lifecycle stage on the date of value is critical because the effect of the contamination situation on prices and values can change as the investigation, remediation, and post-remediation monitoring move forward. Paired data analysis, case studies, or market studies of capitalization and yield rates developed by oth- •oximity to a source site ers and found in published appraisal literature can be a useful starting point in such an analysis. However, 's to reflect environ- i relying on published articles as a basis for a value opinion is not a recognized appraisal technique in the absence of independent investigation and verification of the accuracy of the market data and conclusions. Informal or formal surveys of buyers, sellers, lenders, brokers, appraisers, and others involved in actual e compared to prices sales of property affected by contamination and environmental risk may also provide useful information. ?stimate the effect of For further information, see the following references: at-supported adjust- )n. • Thomas 0. Jackson, 'Appraisal Standards and Contaminated Property Valuation" The Appraisal Journal More than one pair- !a on the prices paid. (April 2003): 127-133. sed or in a situation • Thomas 0. Jackson, "Methods and Techniques for Contaminated Property Valuation; The Appraisal Journal ferstand the effect of the (October 2003): 311 -320. ving a similar environ- • Thomas Jackson and Randall Bell, "The Analysis of Environmental Case Studies" The Appraisal Journal miler environmental is- (January 2002): 86-95. o sale prices in a nearby • James Flynn, Donald G. MacGregor, Wayne Hunsperger, C.K. Mertz, and Stephen M. Johnson, "A Survey compared to that of the Approach for Demonstrating Stigma Effects in Property Value Litigation" The Appraisal Journal (Winter are must be exercised 2004): 35.44. ons and characteristics • Randall Bell, "Chapter 8: Environmental and Biomedical Conditions" in Real Estate Damages:Applied Economics and Detrimental Conditions, 2nd ed. (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2008): 147-181. d toet determine if the Richard J. Roddewig, editor, Valuing Contaminated Property: An Appraisal Institute Anthology (Chicago: p:e site, the effect d of factors. actor Appraisal Institute, 2002) and the forthcoming new volume of that publication. :e site, and other facaors The seminar it variable factors (e.g. Analyzing the Effects of Environmental Contamination on Real Property (Chicago: Appraisal ale prices. Having a data Institute, 2010). statistically significant is Land and Site Description 215 k, EXHIBIT B • I I I II • and the appraiser Methods and Techniques for Contaminated Property Valuation by Thomas 0. Jackson, PhD, MAI A noted in the previous edition of "Environ- methods and techniques can generally be described ment and the Appraiser," ' assignments involving con- as follows: taminated properties, or properties that may be im- • analysis of environmental case studies pacted by environmental contamination, often require • paired sales analysis of potentially impacted specialized valuation methods and techniques. The Appraisal Standards Board provides guidance on this properties issue in Advisory Opinion 9 (AO-9), "The Appraisal • multiple regression analysis of potentially im- of Real Property That May Be Impacted by Environ- pacted neighborhood areas or properties in prox- mental Contamination," which states that imity to a contamination source [e]stimating the effects of environmental contamination • use of market interviews to collect data and in- on real property value usually involves the application of formation used in other approaches or to sup- one or more specialized valuation methods (AO-9, Lines port and supplement the results of other analyses 182-184). Like all methods for valuing real property, * adjustment of income and yield capitalization these methods and techniques must be derived from rates to reflect environmental risk premiums in or based upon one or more of the three approaches to an income capitalization analysis value: sales comparison approach, income capitaliza- Other methods may emerge over time, but as yet tion approach, and cost approach. have not achieved general acceptance in the appraisal Over time, appraisers who specialize in analyz- profession or do not have the required linkage to one ing the impacts of environmental contamination on of the three traditional approaches to value. real property interests have developed specialized methods and techniques that adapt standard ap- Appraisal Standards Requirements and praisal approaches to these assignments. These meth- Guidance ods are discussed in the peer-reviewed literature in Prior to undertaking assignments requiring special- the field and elsewhere. Since many assignments ized met hods and techniques for the valuation of involving contaminated properties are for litigation, contaminated properties, the Uniform Standards of it is important to utilize methods and techniques Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) admonishes that have gained general acceptance in the appraisal appraisers to be aware of, understand, and correctly profession, or at least in that segment of the profes- employ those recognized methods and techniques that sion that specializes in contaminated property valu- are necessary to produce a credible appraisal (USPAP, ation. The purpose of this article is to provide an Standards Rule 1-1 (a), Lines 511-512). Further, an overview of professionally accepted methods and appraiser must have competence in the required techniques for valuing contaminated properties or methods and techniques and their application in the estimating the effects of environmental contamina- field of contaminated property valuation. Advisory tion on the market value of real property. These Opinion 9 states that an appraiser must have the req- 1 . Thomas O. Jackson, "Appraisal Standards and Contaminated Property Valuation," The Appraisal Journal(April 2003): 127-133. 2. Appraisal Standards Board, Advisory Opinion 9, "The Appraisal of Real Property That May Be Impacted by Environmental Contamination," 2003, Lines 1-191. T le Appraisa bow nd . 0tuober 1003 311 environment and the appraiser uisite knowledge about appropriate methods (AO-9, Board 1997), Iowa (Bockeloo v. Board of Review of City Line 57) and that fain appraiser who lacks knowledge of Clinton, 1995), Massachusetts (Reliable Electric Fin- and experience in analyzing the impact of environmen- ishing Co. v. Board of Assessors, 1991 ) and Ohio tal contamination on the value of real property must (i/olpelgesang v. CESOS International Inc., 1993) have take steps necessary to complete the assignment compe- all held that the mere allegation of unmarketability is tently (AO-9, Lines 58-60). The Competency Rule not enough. Loss or diminution of value must be of USPAP3 sets forth three steps that appraisers must proven by market data (emphasis added). take in such situations: (1) disclose the lack of knowl- Accordingly, it is unacceptable practice to as- edge and/or experience to the client before accepting the sume that environmental contamination will reduce assignment; (2) take all steps necessary or appropriate the value of a property without adequate support to complete the assignment competently; and (3) de- derived from information in the relevant real estate scribe the lack of knowledge and/or experience and the market. Further, such information must be perti- steps taken to complete the assignment competently in nent to a professionally acceptable method or tech- the report (USPAP, Lines 364-368). Similarly, the nique for valuing contaminated properties. Appraisal Institute's Guide Note 6, "Consideration of Hazardous Substances in the Appraisal Process,"4 Perspectives from the Literature notes that an appraiser who does not have the re- In 1991 , the Appraisal Institute sponsored a sympo- quired knowledge and experience in this special field sium entitled "Measuring the Effects of Hazardous may accept such an assignment provided the appraiser Materials Contamination on Real Estate Values: Tech- discloses such lack of knowledge and experience to the niques and Applications,"6 organized by the late Wil- client prior to acceptance ofthe assignment, arranges to Liam N. Kinnard, Jr. At that time, Kinnard discussed complete the assignment competently, and describes the the difficulties with traditional appraisal methods such lack of knowledge or experience and the steps taken to as "comparable sales analysis" and "paired sales or sale- competently complete the assignment in the report. resale analysis," which he termed "valuation by anal- As in all valuation assignments involving con- ogy," as ideals that can usually not be employed in taminated properties, opinions regarding property valuing contaminated properties.' Kinnard and other value diminution must be based on real estate mar- symposium participants pointed out the difficulties ket data such as verifiable sales transactions. As stated of finding sales of comparable properties with similar in AO-9, ftJhe analysis of the effects of increased envi- environmental issues as the subject property and the ronmental risk and uncertainty on property value (en- time and effort required to collect information on a vironmental stigma) must be based on market data, potentially comparable property's environmental his- rather than unsupported opinion or judgment tory. This perspective was echoed in the early writ- (AO-9, Lines 178-180. Emphasis added). This point ings of Patchin, Wilson, Mundy, and others who also is reinforced in the "Standard on the Valuation of participated in the 1991 symposium. Indeed, Kinnard Property Affected by Environmental Contamina- lamented the lack of knowledge and information to Lion,"5 of the International Association of Assessing quantify uncertainty "about both market and regula- Officers, which states: tory response"8 to a contaminated property, attribut- able today to perceived environmental risk or stigma.`' Courts in Florida (Finkelstein v. Dept. of Transportation, Nevertheless, Kinnard's paper for this symposium 1995), Georgia (Hammond v. City of Warner Robbins, 1997), Illinois (Techalloy Co., Inc. v. Property Tax Appeal discusses the use of multiple regression analysis as a 3. The Appraisal Foundation, Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, 2003, "Competency Rule," Lines 360-368. 4. Appraisal Institute, Guide Notes to the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute, 2003, Guide Note 6, "Consideration of Hazardous Substances in the Appraisal Process," 17-24, 18. S. International Association of Assessing Officers, "Standard on the Valuation of Property Affected by Environmental Contamination," Section 4—Specific Factors Influencing Value (Chicago: International Association of Assessing Officers, 2001): 14. 6. Appraisal Institute, Measuring the Effects of Hazardous Materials Contamination on Real Estate Values: Techniques and Applications, proceedings of October 1991 symposium (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 1992). 7. William N. Kinnard, Jr., "Measuring the Effects of Contamination on Property Values: The Focus of the Symposium in the Context of Current Knowledge," in symposium r i p oceed ngs, Measuring the Effects of Hazardous Materials Contamination on Real Estate Values: Techniques and Applications (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 1992), 4. 8. Ibid. 9. See definitions in AO.9, Lines 81-82 and 90-91. 31? -he Appraisa ourna , 0(mber 2003 environment and the appraiser "method of measuring reduced property values."10 but in many cases were based on "judgment." Ac- This method can be used when there are "sales trans- cording to proponents of this approach, and as noted action data in large quantities," for measuring price in the 1991 symposium, this was because few or no differences in different locations or "distance zones." comparable sales of contaminated properties existed This technique would have applicability in perform- at that time. By 1994, Patchin had concluded that: ing a proximity analysis or an analysis comparing a The market is slowly becoming accustomed to deal- potentially impacted area with an otherwise similar but unimpacted control area, as will be discussed in ing with contaminated property. Properties formerly the next section. Kinnard also discusses "survey re- sell, to be unmarketable are now beginning to sell, usually with a great deal of difficulty and with search techniques," but warns that they must be care- severe discounts. Proper analysis of this steadily in- fully designed and implemented. Interestingly, creasing flow of market data can give appraisers an- Kinnard notes that "the results from survey analyses other tool in the measurement of the losses in value must be tempered with the knowledge that the ex- caused by contamination." pectation of events is almost invariably more nega- tive and more sharply delineated, at least when [the Patchin posits that this sales information should events], are expected to affect oneself negatively, than be analyzed though a case studies approach. In gen- is realized when the events occur (emphasis eral, case studies are useful when appropriate sales added)." This observation—and warning—from cannot be located in the same local market area as the this seminal thinker su i:ests that analysis and con- subject property, but can be found in other areas. Case elusions drawn from abstract techniques, such as con- studies will be discussed in the following section. tingent valuation surveys, could overstate any adverse In 1999, Kinnard and Worzala published the impacts of environmental contamination on prop- results of a survey of North American appraisers as erty values. to how they value contaminated properties.15 Based Lastly, Kinnard decries what he refers to as "the on 86 usable survey responses (out of 192 delivered), judgmental model in the abstract," based on "a se- Kinnard and Worzala found that 80% of the ap- ries of logical assumptions" rather than "actual, veri- praisers used the sales comparison approach when fled, bona fide market data," such as "cost, rental or valuing contaminated properties, while 79% used operating expense data, as well as market sales trans- the income capitalization approach. Obviously, action data."12 As previously noted, AO-9 and other many of the respondents used both approaches. sources state that the analysis of the effects of con- Within the income capitalization approach, direct tamination on market value "must be based on mar- capitalization was preferred to discounted cash flow ket data, rather than unsupported opinion or judg- analysis. The most frequently mentioned adjustment ment" (AO-9, Lines 179-180). No matter how com- within the income capitalization approach was to pelling or logical the argument, the reliable mea- increase the capitalization rate to reflect the increased surement of the effects of contamination on market risk associated with the property's environmental value must be based on market data. A credible valu- condition. When asked about the basis for risk ad- ation opinion cannot be produced in the abstract justments for environmental stigma, most (83%) without clear, direct market support and evidence. indicated "market sales data," but a significant num- Patchin13 was an early advocate of the use of the ber (51 %) still relied on "judgment." Many also used income capitalization approach with risk adjust- buyer/seller/broker "opinions," either alone or as ments to capitalization rates as the appropriate tech- supplements to an approach based on sales data. nique for measuring the effect of contamination on In 2002, the Appraisal Institute and The Cen- market value. These environmental risk adjustments, tre for Advanced Property Economics sponsored a however, were not extracted from comparable sales, symposium entitled "Environmental & Property 10. Kinnard, 4-5. 11 . Ibid., 5. 12. Ibid. 13. Peter J. Patchin, "Valuation of Contaminated Properties," The Appraisal Journal(January 1988): 7-16. 14. Peter J. Patchin, "Contaminated Properties and the Sales Comparison Approach," The Appraisal Journal(July 1994): 402-409, 402. 15. William N. Kinnard,Jr.,and Elaine M.Worzala, "l-tow North American Appraisers Value Contaminated Property and Associated Stigma," The Appraisal Journal(July 1999): 269-279. App rand ,011111d . October 1003 35 environment and the appraiser Damages: Standards, Due Diligence, Valuation and Property value diminution = Cost effects Strategy."1GThis symposium included presentations (remediation and related costs) on a variety of reporting, methodological, and ap- + Use effects (effects on site usability) praisal standards issues. The framework presented + Risk effects (environmental risk/stigma) in this article is consistent with that presented at the 2002 symposium and with AO-9. This conceptual These formulas are consistent with the guidance framework and related methods and techniques have provided by AO-9 with respect to the application of a foundation in the professional literature on the USPAP standards to the valuation and analysis of topic.'' contaminated properties. In the first formula, the unimpaired value of a Methods and Techniques contaminated property can usually be estimated us- Valuation Framework ing a traditional sales comparison approach, income As explained in AO-9, the effects of environmental capitalization approach, or cost approach to value. contamination on the value of real property can be The appraiser estimating this unimpaired value must categorized as follows: be careful to qualify it as hypothetical and as neces- sary• cost effects, or deductions for costs to remediate for the intended use of the assignment results. a contaminated property to appropriate regula- In contrast, the impaired value of a contaminated tory standards, recognizing that not all costs are property, or property that may be impacted by en- vironmental contamination, can rarely be estimated recognized by the market as having an effect on value; through one of the traditional approaches to value due to data limitations and other factors; thus, al- • use effects, or limitations on the highest and best ternative methods must be utilized. However, these use of properties that may be impacted by envi- methods must be based on relevant market data and ronmental contamination, recognizing that these must be consistent with the applicable requirements effects would be meaningful only if they lim- of USPAP for appraisal development. ited the use of the site or property that would In measuring the three potential effects on value be the highest and best use without the effect of (cost, use, and risk), cost effects are derived from the contamination, and would otherwise meet remediation costs, which typically are estimated by the four highest and best use criteria (physically environmental specialists. Assuming the market rec.- possible, legally permissible, financially feasible ognizes these costs, the appraiser can usually deduct and maximally productive); and them as a lump sum from the unimpaired value in a • risk effects, or the effects on value due to increased similar manner to a capital expenditure for deferred perceptions of environmental risk by relevant maintenance. When a discounted cash flow analysis market participants (AO-9, Lines 170-180). is used, the anticipated costs can be deducted from These factors influence the value of a potentially the projected cash flows in the periods in which they impacted site according to the following formula: are projected to occur. Uncertainty regarding cost estimates, projection, and timing would be reflected Impaired value = Unimpaired value in the environmental risk premium added to the un- - Cost effects (remediation and related costs) impaired property or equity yield rate (risk effect). — Use effects (effects on site usability) high- - tY Use effects can be analyzed by estimating the Risk effects (environmental risk/stigma) est and best use of the subject contaminated prop- Further, since property value diminution is the prop- erty in an impaired and unimpaired condition. If difference between the impaired and unimpaired the conclusions of the two highest and best use analy- values'R the following formula can be derived: ses are the same, then there are no use effects on value. If th ey ey differ, then the unimpaired and im- 16. "Environmental and Property Damages: Standards, Due Diligence, Valuation & Strategy," co-sponsored by The Centre for Advanced Property Economics and the Appraisal Institute, Toronto (April 4-7, 2002). 17. Additional reviews and compilations of literature in this field can be found in Thomas O. Jackson, "The Effects of Environmental Contamination on Real Estate: A Literature Review," Journal of Real Estate Literature (2001) 9, no. 2: 93-116, and Richard J. Roddewig, ed., Valuing Contaminated Properties: An Appraisal Institute Anthology(Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2002). 18. See Jackson, "Appraisal Standards and Contaminated Property Valuation," and AO-9. 314 Appraisa ournal October 1001 environment and the appraiser paired values would be estimated for different uses those of the subject property. Relative comparison and compared. Risk effects, on the other hand, are analysis is similar to paired data analysis, but quanti- derived from the perceived environmental risk and tative adjustments are not derived.20 uncertainty related to a property's environmental When a relative comparison analysis is used in a condition. Measuring this element usually requires paired sales analysis of properties with potential en- more sophisticated and less direct techniques; these vironmental impacts, the unimpaired comparables methods and techniques are discussed below. are given a composite ranking as inferior, superior, Paired Sales Analysis or similar to the impaired subject, based on indi- Paired sales analysis can be used to estimate the ef- vidual comparisons of nonenvironmental elements fects of contamination when there are fairly recent such as size, age, etc. If the prices of the unimpaired sales of properties in a similar environmental condi- comparables are consistent with or "bracket" the don as the subject of the analysis within the market impaired sale, then there would be no indicated area, or the area of alleged impacts. For example, property value diminution due to the impaired this can occur when industrial properties in an in- property's environmental condition. On the other dustrial district are potentially impacted by the same hand, if the impaired property's sale price falls be- contamination source. In a paired sales analysis, sales low the unimpaired comparables that ranked infe- of properties in the impacted area are paired with rior on the nonenvironmental elements of compari- sales of otherwise similar properties located outside son, then the indication of the impact of contami- nation is otherwise. In this situation, a range of in- the impacted area in order to determine the effects, if any, of contamination on properties within the dicated diminution could be derived and possibly impacted area. With a sufficient number of paired reconciled to a point estimate. Of course, this pro- sales, the impact of the adverse environmental con- cedure is dependent on identifying impaired sales dition on the subject property or properties can be with the same environmental condition as the estimated. However, the appraiser must also con- appraiser's subject, as well as identifying unimpaired sider the effects of nonenvironmental differences be- comparables that are reasonably similar to the im- tween the paired sales properties in the analysis. Such paired sales except for their environmental condi- differences might arise from locational attributes un- tion at the time of sale. Jacksoe characterizes this related to any environmental issues, as well as physi- a two-step procedure. cal differences in the properties. Bell also discusses the use of paired sales analysis The use of paired sales analysis (paired data in analyzing the impact of environmental contami- analysis) is discussed in The Appraisal of Real Estate,19 nation on property value. Bell describes paired sales analysis as "one of the most useful applications of where it is described as "a theoretically sound method," and as "helpful and persuasive" even "when the subject property, or similarly impacted proper- this approach (sales comparison approach)," where limited data are available." However, the use ofquan- " titative adjustments in a paired sales analysis or any ties, termed test areas, and unimpaired properties, other form of the sales comparison approach should termed control areas" are compared and "if a legiti- not go beyond the available data. In situations where mate detrimental condition exists, there will likely quantitative adjustments are not possible or appro- be a measurable (and clearly discernable) and con- priate, a relative comparison analysis may be per- sistent difference between the two sets of market formed. Relative comparison analysis is defined in The data; if not, there will likely be no significant differ- Appraisal of Real Estate as follows: ence between the two sets of data. This process in- volves the study of a group of sales with a detrimen- A qualitative technique for analyzing comparable sales; tal condition, which are then compared with a group used to determine whether the characteristics of corn- of otherwise similar market data without the detri- parable property are inferior, superior, or similar to mental condition."23 19. Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate, 12th S. (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2001), 438. 20. Ibid., 445. 21. Thomas O. lackson, "The Effect of Previous Environmental Contamination on Industrial Real Estate Prices," The Appraisal Journal(April 2001): 200-210 22. Randall Bell, Red Estate Damages:An Analysis of Detrimental Conditions(Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 1999). 23. Ibid., 19-20. e Appraisa aura . October 1003 315 • environment and the appraiser Analysis of Environmental Case Studies then compares, analyzes, and reconciles the contami- The additional elements affecting the value of con- nation-related impacts derived for each case study taminated properties may make it difficult to iden- to the subject property. The appraiser should also tify and research sales of properties in a similar envi- consider differences in general market conditions, ronmental condition and in the same market area as property type, and date of sale between the subject the subject property. In this situation, the appraiser and the case studies so that effects are not incor- may need to analyze comparable impaired sales from rectly attributed to nonenvironmental influences. outside the subject property's market area. These sales Jackson and Be1124 present an in-depth discussion of and the environmental circumstances surrounding the factors and elements that should be considered them are referred to as case studies. The environ- in case studies analysis. mental condition of the case study properties should be similar to the environmental condition of the Multiple Regression Analysis subject property. Among the elements to be consid- When properly developed, a multiple regression ered are those listed as "Relevant Property Charac- model can be used to analyze the impact of envi- teristics" in AO-9. Relevant property characteristics ronmental contamination on the sale prices of prop- may include, but are not limited to: erties in an allegedly impacted area. Multivariate sta- 1 . whether the contamination discharge was acci- tistical models can test for the significance of any dental or permitted; impacts, after controlling for other influences on 2. the status of the property withrespect to re value that are unrelated to the potentially adverse tY u- P Pregu- environmental condition. The results of such analy- latory compliance requirements; Pses can indicate whether there is any statistically 3. the remediation lifecycle stage (before, during, discernable (significant) effect on sale prices that may or after cleanup) of the property as of the date be attributable to the environmental condition of of value; the impaired properties relative to an otherwise simi- 4. the contamination constituents (petroleum hy- lar group of properties in an unimpaired condition. drocarbons, chlorinated solvents, etc.); Care should be taken in making inferences from 5. the contamination conveyance (air, groundwa- regression analyses of groups of properties to indi- ter, soil, etc.); vidual properties. Regression models can be used to 6. whether the property is a source, non-source, construct estimates of average (mean) impacts for adjacent, or proximate site; the category of properties being analyzed. However, 7. the cost and timing of any site remediation plans; individual property impacts may differ substantially 8. the liabilities and potential liabilities for site from average impacts. In addition, in areas with cleanup; multiple, adverse influences and/or diverse submarkets and property types, it may not be pos- 9. the potential limitations on the use of the prop- sible to reliably estimate the effect of a single con- erty due to the contamination and its tamination source through regression analysis. In remediation; and developing or using a regression model, the appraiser 10. the potential or actual of site impacts due to should explain why the selected variables were cho- contaminant migration (for source sites) (AO- sen and how the model was constructed. Data used 9, Lines 114-126). in the analysis should be retained in the appraiser's Once this information has been assembled, the workfile, consistent with the Record Keeping sec- selected case study properties are then matched with tion of the Ethics Rule (USPAP, Lines 325-336). otherwise similar but uncontaminated comparables One possible and relatively simple specification in their market area in order to determine any ad- of a multiple regression model for analyzing the ef- verse effects attributable to the environmental con- feet of environmental contamination on sale price dition of the case study properties. The appraiser is as follows: 24. Thomas O. Jackson and Randall Bell, "The Analysis of Environmental Case Studies," The Appraisal Journal(January 2002): 86-95. 316 1e Appals() _nurna October 1003 environment and the appraiser P = Po + (3 X + . . . + [3nX + Rn + /ENV/ analysis. In a proximity analysis, the regression model + . . . + (3a + / +pEN V + ei is usually specified so that one of the independent where: variables or a set (vector) of independent variables P = the sale price of the property, reflects the distance of each of the sale properties to adjusted for remediation costs for the source of the environmental contamination. unremediated contaminated These variables can be specified as continuous dis- properties (to focus the analysis tance from the contamination source or as discrete on environmental risk effects) distance bands, or concentric bands, around the = a constant term source. X/. . .X = a vector of continuous Before drawing conclusions from such an analy- nonenvironmental property sis, the appraiser should consider the possibility of characteristics such as building multiple adverse influences on sale price that might size, age, lot size, etc. exist in areas with a number of contamination ENV . . .ENV = a vector of discrete variables sources or other disamenities. In such situations, it i• indicating the environmental may be difficult or impossible to sort out the rela- condition of the property at the tive influence of any one source as distinct from the time of sale (the base would be others. Another limitation on this type of analysis uncontaminated properties) involves the general tendency for residential prop- el = a random error term erties that are closer to older industrial facilities and landfills to sell for less than otherwise similar prop- An example of this model specification in the erties located further away, regardless ofwhether the analysis of contaminated industrial properties is pro- facilities have released any environmental contami- vided by Jackson.25 In this model, the risk effects of nation. Thus, lower sale prices closer to an indus- the properties' environmental condition on sale price trial facility or landfill would not be due to hazard- were analyzed before, during, and after remediation. ous environmental contaminates. Induded in the sales analyzed were unimpaired corn- A multiple regression control area analysis can parable properties, so that the impacts on sale price be used to analyze the effects of contamination on due to environmental condition were relative to oth- properties in a neighborhood area where it is claimed erwise similar but uncontaminated properties. that property values have been diminished because In a multiple regression analysis, the model specie of environmental stigma. In this type of analysis, fication should include the nonenvironmental fac- sale prices of properties in the potentially impacted tors that influence sale price as independent, or pre- area (the subject area) are compared to prices ofsimi- dictor, variables in the equation. In this way, the lar properties in a comparable neighborhood (the variation in sale price explained by the control area) having the same characteristics, but nonenvironmental variables (size, age, etc.) would without the adverse environmental condition un- not be attributed incorrectly to the environmental der study. In many such analyses, the locational in- condition variables being tested in the model (dis- fluences of the subject and control areas are com- tance from contamination source, remediation sta- pared before and after a contamination event. Such tus, location in contaminated neighborhood, etc.). events could be the actual release of the contamina- An analysis of the statistical significance of the envi- tion or a public announcement of the release. Typi- ronmental condition variables would indicate tally, such events are publicized in the media. whether there was adequate statistical evidence to Issues in developing a reliable control area analy- conclude that there were significant environmental sis involve potential time and area interactions and impacts on value. the influence of confounding nonenvironmental fac- Two other types of multiple regression analyses tors. In comparing two or more areas, even well- used to estimate the impacts of environmental con- matched areas can be influenced by differing mar- tamination are proximity analysis and control area ket and locational conditions over time, 26 and these 25. Jackson, "The Effect of Previous Environmental Contamination on Industrial Real Estate Prices," and Thomas O. Jackson, "Environmental Contamination and Industrial Real Estate Prices," Journal of Real Estate Research 23, no. 1/2 (2002): 179-199. 26. Warren Rogers, "Enron in Hedonic Modeling Regressions: Compound Indicator Variables and Omitted Variables," The Appraisal Journal(April 2000): 208-213. le Appraiaa Guild , Ouo'er 1003 311 environment and the appraiser differing influences may be incorrectly attributed to the subject property in an unimpaired condition and the adverse environmental condition under study. in its impaired, contaminated condition. Differences However, the subject and control areas do not need between the two sets of responses will then reflect to be identical, but should be influenced by the same the effects of the property's environmental condi- general market conditions over time so that changes tion. Detailed notes and/or transcripts of interviews, in relative pricing can be appropriately attributed. as well as all information provided to interviewees, Thus, the initial selection of the control areas is a should be retained in the appraiser's workfile, con- critical step in this type of analysis. Control area se- sistent with the Record Keeping section of the Eth- lection criteria and procedures will be discussed in a ics Rule (USPAP, Lines 325-336). future edition of this column. Market participants need not have perfect knowl- edge of environmental contamination to the extent Market Interviews expected from a qualified environmental engineer who Market interviews are not methods or techniques has performed detailed testing of a contamination for valuing contaminated properties, but are useful source. A real estate market that has become knowl- for collecting and understanding the data and in- edgeable of environmental influences on properties formation necessary to apply the other methods and in an area will either react or not react in its pricing techniques discussed herein. The results of market decisions based on its perception of the risk and po- interviews can be used to supplement a sales-based tential impact of the contamination. All situations of analysis, as previously discussed, and/or to provide environmental contamination do not inexorably lead information useful for understanding the market's to a reduction in the pricing and value of real prop- requirements for environmental risk premiums in erty, An appraiser must not assume that the market an income capitalization analysis, as discussed be- will react in a certain way to environmental contami- low. These requirements can be expressed as required nation when the assumed reaction has not been dearly rates of return or as return premiums over unim- demonstrated in observed market transaction data. paired rates. However, market interviews cannot Such opinions and conclusions are nothing more than stand alone as an appropriate or credible valuation speculation and should be avoided. It is important to method or technique. remember Kinnard's observation from twelve years In planning and conducting market interviews, ago that "the results from survey analyses must be care should be taken not to introduce bias into the tempered with the knowledge that the expectation of results. Important in this regard are: events is almost invariably more negative and more • selection of market participants to be inter- sharply delineated, at least when [the events] are ex- viewed; pected to affect oneself negatively, than is realized • development of unbiased information about the when the events occur."" subject property and its environmental condi- Income Capitalization Analysis lion; and As noted, Kinnard and Worzala28 surveyed apprais- e construction of a structured questionnaire and ers and found that 79% use the income capitaliza- interview protocol that can be replicated. tion approach when valuing contaminated proper- Potential bias can be introduced whenever the ties. Further, the most frequently mentioned adjust- information provided or questions asked are not ob- ment made to account for the effects of contamina- jectively developed and presented. Individuals to be tion was to increase the income capitalization rate interviewed should be representative of typical mar- (R& in a direct capitalization model. Absent any ket participants. In addition, the environmental and effect on income, the adjusted rate (adj. Ro) would other information provided should be consistent produce an estimate of property value diminution with what is considered typical or normal market due to environmental risk effects through the fol- knowledge. Interviewees should be asked to assess lowing equations: 27. Kinnard, 5. 28. Kinnard and Worzala. 318 - e Appiaisa Janina Jade{de{ M03 environment and the appraiser Unimpaired value (VO) = Net operating income (Id investment technique, or discounted cash flow analy- Ro sis could be employed to adjust the mortgage and Adjusted Ro = Unimpaired overall equity components of the overall income or yield income capitalization capitalization rates. In addition to overall equity and rate (Ro) mortgage risk premium adjustments, the loan-to- + Environmental risk value ratio and other capitalization rate components premium might be adjusted to account for any increased en- ii Impaired value = Net operating income (Id vironmental risk. Jackson29 presents a framework for Adjusted Ro the application of mortgage-equity analysis in con- Property value taminated property valuation. diminution (risk effects) = Unimpaired value (V 0) — Impaired value Conclusion Property value In selecting an appropriate method and technique diminution (risk effects) = ((Net operating income for valuing a contaminated property or for estimat- (Io) + Ro) ing the effect of contamination on real property — (Net operating income value, appraisers should consider their level of ex- (I O) + Adjusted Ro)) pertise and competency with a particular method or technique, the type of property under study (resi- The adjustment of the income capitalization rate dential, income producing, etc.), whether the issue should be based on data that reflects the market's prompting the analysis involves a single property or perception of the increased environmental risk due an area, and the availability of appropriate sales and to the specific environmental condition of the prop- data. The availability of appropriate sales erty and/or in market under study. The appraiser property Y PP and property data is frequently mentioned as a pri- should avoid making judgmental rate adjustments. mary concern by appraisers. However daunting the One method of determining an appropriate envi- data collection effort may seem, a persistent effort ronmental risk premium would be to extract it from can usually uncover appropriate and comparable paired sales data. In this method, sales of otherwise sales information to use with one or more of the comparable, but unimpaired, income-producing methods and techniques discussed in this column. property are paired with sales of impaired income- Modern real estate appraisal recognizes the impor- producing properties with similar environmental tance of the sale price and transaction data as reflec- issues to the subject, with differences in income capi- tive of the full mix of positive and negative external talization rates attributable to the impaired property's influences, including environmental disamenities, environmental condition. Prior to estimating the rate potentially affecting market value. differential and risk premium, the sale price from In rare situations, there may not be any market which the capitalization rate is calculated should be data with which to construct a credible analysis. In adjusted for anticipated remediation costs to be as- such cases, the appraiser should avoid espousing un- sumed by the buyer, so as not to mix cost and risk supported opinions and conclusions that are not effects in the risk premium. The environmental risk based upon adequate and appropriate market evi- premium can also be gauged through lender and dence and data. The appraiser should also avoid investor survey data via the market interview tech- speculating on possible future effects that have not nique previously discussed. occurred or are not derived from clear and convinc- Where the income capitalization analysis ap- ing market data and credible analyses of the types proach is used, a mortgage-equity analysis, band of 29. Thomas 0. Jackson, "Mortgage-Equity Analysis in Contaminated Property Valuation," The Appraisal journal(January 1998): 46-55. _keApprdfid ournd .0(tober 1003 319 environment and the appraiser discussed. Appraisers must focus on analysis of ob- servable market data. Reliable opinions concerning Thomas 0. Jackson, PhD, MA1, CRE is the the impacts of environmental contamination on the president of Real Property Analytics, Inc. in College market value of real property are dependent on the Station, Texas, where he specializes in analyzing ethical behavior and unbiased analysis of competent real property damages due to environmental appraisers who understand and use appropriate contamination and other sources. He also teaches methods and techniques and also recognize their real property valuation and other courses in the limitations. Future editions of "Environment and Land Economics and Real Estate Program at Texas the Appraiser" will continue to explore the methods A&M University. He is a former member of the and techniques introduced here, with detailed ex- Appraisal Standards Board. Contact: T 979-690-1755; amples of their use and application. E-mail: tomjackson@real-analytics.com; Web site: www.real-analytics.com 3/0 -he Apprdisd ourna , MOIRE /00M EXHIBIT C features Proximity Stigma: Testingthe Flypothesis by Albert R. Wilson abstract Missing from much of the literature on proximity stigma is an explicit test of the null hypothesis of "no eginning with the 1967 article by Ridker and Henning,' a common as- effect on value" among sumption in the literature on detrimental condition impacts on market values homes likely to be has been that the presence of certain conditions—such as ground water contami- influenced by a detrimen- nation, leaking underground storage tanks, high voltage power lines, landfills, tal condition. This article radioactive waste disposal, superfund sites and air pollution—result in a diminu- P P reports the results of tests tion in property values for property near to the condition. This has generally of the null hypothesis on been referred to as proximity stigma and may not involve actual contamination yp on the subject property. In a weak real estate market the proximity stigma im- repeat sales of residential pact is expected to be exacerbated. properties over a period of Only recently with the article by Wolverton and Bottemiller-' has a formal 12 years. The theory of statistical test of this assumption been reported. Wolverton and Bottemiller tested proximity stigma would the null hypothesis of no difference in property sale prices near to high-voltage suggest that the detrimen- transmission lines against similar properties not nearby and found that the null tal conditions present hypothesis could not be rejected; that is, there was no basis to conclude that a would have had an impact difference in sale price existed. This result is contrary to the assertions put forth in much of the literature. on property values, but no However, a careful examination of many of the leading papers on the subject impact was identified. finds no explicit test of the null hypothesis of no effect on value. Apparently the Anecdotal interviews with researchers concluded, without testing, that an impact must exist and proceeded market participants in attempts to measure the alleged impact. The Appendix includes a list of the suggest that as long as the papers examined that do not indicate that there was a test of the null hypothesis use and enjoyment of the or do not report any results of such a test. The primary technique used in attempting to measure an impact has been homes were not impaired an econometric technique known as hedonic modeling. Hedonic modeling re- by the conditions, the lies on regression mathematics and assumptions by the economist that ( 1 ) the number of market coefficients of the predictor (independent) variables hypothesized by the re- participants who would gression model are quantitatively meaningful; (2) the value of a predictor vari- require or accept a discount were insufficient 1 . Ronald G. Ridker and John A. Henning, "The Determinants of Residential Property Values with Special Refer- to determine the market. ence to Air Pollution," Review of Economics and Statistics 49, no. 2 (May 1967): 246-257. 2. Marvin L. Wolverton and Steven C. Bottemiller, "Further Analysis of Transmission Line Impact on Residential Property Values," The Appraisal Journal (July 2003): 244-252. 3. The more current and precise mathematical language of predictor (or explanatory) variables and response variables are used in place of the less precise independent and dependent variables. In a regression using real- world observational data, it is highly unlikely that the variables hypothesized as contributing to the overall prediction of the response will be mathematically independent. proximity stigma: testing the hypothesis 153 able coefficient represents the marginal contribution Massachusetts real estate market underwent a ma- of that specific predictor variable to the response; jor recession and a recovery. The Wyman-Gordon and (3) a positive result of a test of significance of a plant was subject to allegations of disposal on site of specific predictor variable indicates a meaningful radioactive materials and chlorinated solvents and cause and effect relationship between the hypoth- contamination of the groundwater from these ma- esized predictor variable and the response variable.' terials and solvents. In addition, a nitric acid spill Unfortunately, none of these economic asser- into local surface waters resulted in allegations of tions are generally supportable by regression math- surface water and groundwater contamination. Be- ematics for observational (real world) data.' Of par- ginning in 1990, there was significant publicity re- ticular importance here is the last assertion that a garding the plant, including more than 23 reports cause-effect relationship can be demonstrated by a in the local press, numerous other media reports, test of significance within the regression—an asser- and public meetings called by environmental and tion that is not correct.6 One of the reasons for this plant authorities and others. In 1996, Wyman-Gor- is that a regression relationship—the hedonic model— don assisted Grafton in extending municipal water is itself a hypothesized relationship. One cannot test to nearby residential and commercial properties with a hypothesis with a hypothesis. A separate and a- domestic potable wells as a part of a program to ad- plicit test or tests must be undertaken to determine dress contamination concerns. Most of the residen- if the null hypothesis can be rejected. tial property within 2,000 feet of the plant bound- This article reports the results of tests of the null aries (and most of Grafton) had long been on mu- hypothesis of"no influence on value" for a situation nicipal water. where current real estate valuation thinking would Typical real estate valuation thinking would a- strongly indicate the probable presence of proximity pect the existence of a proximity stigma influence on stigma.' The results indicate that the null hypothesis housing prices near the plant under these conditions. cannot be rejected and that there is no basis for an The plant involved in this case was a former assumption of a proximity stigma impact on value defense plant constructed during the Korean War resulting from the detrimental conditions examined. to forge metal parts for aircraft, and until recently it While the results of the specific case examined had the largest forge in the world. Its primary work here are important in their own right, the primary was with nonferrous metals. The plant is located on significance of this research is the fact that an ex- a large parcel of land. The area surrounding the plant plicit test or tests of the null hypothesis of no effect on three sides is primarily middle-class residential. on value must be undertaken prior to attempting to The property on the fourth side is primarily corn- measure an alleged diminution in value. Even in the mercial. Properties lying within approximately 2,000 case presented, where conditions that would lead feet of the plant boundaries either have a direct view one to strongly suspect the presence of proximity of the plant or are most likely to use streets that lead stigma, no such diminution in value could be de- past the plant. tected. If the null hypothesis cannot be rejected, then The topography of this portion of west/central further statistical efforts to measure a diminution Massachusetts is generally hilly; this affects the street are meaningless, if not misleading. pattern. Consequently, residents of homes outside the approximately 2,000-foot distance from the plant The Detrimental Conditions boundaries generally do not have a direct sightline This study examines the price performance of prop- to the plant and generally do not come into daily erties proximate to the Wyman-Gordon plant in proximity to the plant, as compared to those within Grafton, Massachusetts, over a twelve-year period, the 2,000-foot distance. In addition, as with any old from 1986 through 1998. During this period the industrial area, other sources of possible disseminates 4. It should be noted that 21 leading texts written by statisticians for either the teaching of statistical techniques or for attorneys were examined, and the phrase "hedonic modeling" did not appear once in any variant. It is not a mathematically recognized technique of regression mathematics. 5. These assumptions are realized if, and only if the predictor (explanatory) variables are independent. This condition is highly unlikely for observational data and almost certainly not for complex phenomena such as real estate prices or values. 6. These mathematical facts and the reasons for them are clearly stated in many leading texts on regression mathematics. With respect to the last assumption, see for example John Neter et al., Applied Linear Regression Models, 3rd ed. (Chicago: Irwin, 1996), 9, "The existence of a statistical relation between the response variable Y and the explanatory or predictor variable X does not imply in any way that Y depends causally on X. No matter how strong is the statistical relation between X and Y, no cause-and-effect pattern is necessarily implied by the regression model." 7. This article is based on data collected by the author for a major oil company as part of a litigation matter (now resolved). The article has not been subject to any form of review or editorial input by that client, and the analysis and conclusions are solely the author's. /54 Q Applaisa IU 1H . Slimmer 1004 may be influential. For these reasons, the approxi- and undisclosed financing terms. After this refined mately 2,000-foot distance was believed most ap- list was compiled, it was reexamined and any sale more propriate for analytical purposes. than two standard deviations from the mean for the price range was eliminated.8 Methodology The refined list contained approximately 500 There are many ways to develop a testable difference repeat sale properties in competitive areas and over between two sets of real estate data; probably one of 35 repeat sale properties within the Wyman-Gor- the most obvious is use of paired sales. Where the don area. Using this refined list, exterior examina- information is accessible and of sufficiently recent dons were performed of the Wyman-Gordon area origin, paired sales may be one of the best approaches properties and of a sample of the competitive prop- available. However, that was not the case here, where erties. The tax and building department records were some of the pairs would have been more than a de- consulted, and in cases where they were available, cade old, with limited means of identification of pairs the listing data for the sales were examined in an or of determining if the pairs were indeed very simi- effort to ensure that the properties had not under- lar. In this circumstance, time series may yield a test- gone significant, sale price altering changes between able difference, as may other methods. sale dates.9 This eliminated some properties, and a The reliable, publicly available real estate data final list was prepared for analysis. covering the entire period was limited to the sale The data was then processed to determine the date, buyer/seller names, address of sale, sale price, annual compound rate of appreciation/depreciation mortgage amount, mortgage holder, and several for each pair of sales. This rate was assigned to the other minor pieces of information. Due to these midyear between sales as the compound annual ap- tations P tations it was decided to investigate the rate of ap- preciation rate for that property between the sale dates. preciation in sale price on repeat sales of homes; a These midyear rates were then avenged for each year repeat sale was defined as more than one sale of the in the study period for each of the areas—the Wyman- same property during the study period. This required Gordon area, the Grafton area other than the Wyman- that the probable condition of the property between Gordon area, and the competitive areas outside sale dates be investigated to ensure to the extent pos- Grafton in the Worchester County market area. sible that no major alternations had occurred dur- In choosing to use mean appreciation rates, it ing the period between sales. Further, it was neces- was assumed that the past is prolog, that is, what- sary to identify competitive properties in areas re- ever occurred before the events of interest, will have moved from the Wyman-Gordon area. The Wyman- been capitalized into the market value of the prop- Gordon area was defined as being those residential erty, provided there has been sufficient time for the properties within approximately 2,000 feet of the marketplace to adjust. Here the interest is whether plant boundaries for the reasons stated previously. or not a new event or events alter the value perfor- The original data list contained thousands of sales. mance of the property. Any such alteration should This list was sorted to obtain a list of properties with result in a discontinuity (abrupt change) or a differ- the same physical address and more than one recorded ent rate of appreciation/depreciation compared to transfer of ownership during the study period. The other properties not likely to have been influenced sorted list was then further refined by eliminating all by those events. This allows recognition that gen- pairs that involved buyers/sellers with the same sur- eral market conditions—such as the recession in name, buyers/sellers other than individuals (banks, property values in Massachusetts in the early 1990s corporations, etc.), purchases/sales occurring within with a subsequent recovery—will influence rates. It 12 months (to prevent flipping transactions from en- also makes it possible to detect a localized change as tering the data), unusually high loan-to-value ratios a departure from the general area-wide rate, if such (to eliminate sales with noncash consideration or sales change has occurred. of homes with damage such that purchase and repair The null hypothesis to be tested was "There is no financing might be included in the loan amount), difference in mean rates of appreciation for repeat sales 8. In a significant number of papers, the editing of the database used in an analysis has been poor or nonexistent, leading to serious analytical errors. For example, a failure to eliminate outliers (in this case through the two standard deviation criteria) ignores the fact that means are extremely vulnerable to distortion by an outlier value. Unless one were willing to assume that outliers were equally prevalent in number and magnitude on both sides of a mean, an extremely unlikely event with real estate values, allowing the presence of outliers would generate misleading results. See Albert R. Wilson, "The Questionable Reliability of 'Peer Reviewed' Real Estate Literature," Bureau of National Affairs Expert Evidence Report, 14, no. 1 (January 5, 2004): 16. 9. These examinations were performed by Calvin Hastings, SRA, an experienced appraiser who has practiced in the area for decades. proximity stigma: testing t e ypot esis 155 within the Wyman-Gordon area compared to corn- found, however, the results are generally consigned petitive areas."This null was tested by a broad range of to the dustbin of scientific inquiry and not reported. tests including parametric tests, which depend on as- The typical statistical analysis differs from that in sumptions of the normalcy of the distribution of the cases of proximity stigma because there the null hy- underlying data, and nonparametric tests, which do pothesis is of considerable importance to public policy not. Statistical analyses were also performed on the fre- and flies in the face of conventional thinking. In the quency of occurrence ofappreciation/depreciation rates subject case study, the null hypothesis is that a series within and outside the Wyman-Gordon area. of incidents of significant environmental concern had The conclusions of this study do not, however, no measurable impact on housing value performance rely only on formal statistical tests of the difference in their vicinity. Unlike most inquiries the new con- in magnitudes of rates of appreciation/depreciation. tribution to knowledge lies in the acceptance of the Those formal conclusions were further validated by null hypothesis, not its rejection. reference to tax assessment data, individual (i.e., Because this is the case, it is incumbent to explore nonrepeat) home sales, lending appraisals, and an- a variety of statistical tests to ensure to some reasonable ecdotal interviews, whose details are beyond the extent that acceptance of the null hypothesis on one scope of this article. dimension of data is not offset by its rejection on an- other. To this end, three general classes of tests were Test Statistics used in this study. These tests indude the following. Statistical tests are structured on the basis of the sci- 1 . Classic F-and t-tests, which are based on the mag- entific principle of falsification. This means that the nitude of the difference of means as measured by negative is tested to determine if it may be tenta- differences in sample averages. These tests assume tively rejected. The negative to be tested is usually that the data is normally distributed. called the "null" hypothesis. The available data is 2. Rank test statistics,10 which are based on the or- tested to determine if the null hypothesis can be re- dering of the magnitudes of the observations. It jected at some acceptable level of confidence. is a simple matter to generate samples where ev- A considerable variety of tests are available to test ery observation from a sample of one population a null hypothesis. Most traditional or classical tests exceeds every observation from a sample from an- examine the magnitude of a difference between sample other population. This situation occurred here. means or other statistics. The null is rejected if the In this situation it is possible to have the null probability of finding a difference of the observed hypothesis of identical means accepted by a clas- magnitude or greater is sufficiently small. Typically sic t- or F-test; all that is required is that the mag- the null is rejected if that probability is .05 or less. nitudes of the differences be small. The rank tests Stated another way, the null would be rejected and a have the further advantage that they are indepen- significant difference between the treated and tin- dent of the underlying probability distributions treated population would be implied if the chances from which the data was generated. Those rank of being wrong in reaching that condusion were less tests applied and reported here are as follows: than 0.05. In the typical statistical analysis the objective is a. The Two-Sample Wilcoxon test, which is to determine whether a treatment, exposure, or other archetypical of this class. Samples are merged perceived influence has had a significant impact. In into a single vector in increasing order of the short, has a change been observed that is sufficiently magnitude of the observations. Ranks are large to permit rejection of the null hypothesis and ger values of their position, or rank, in the then assigned to all observations as the inte- a conclusion that the observed change is a signifi- cant event, not merely a random fluctuation? When joint vector of magnitudes. The ranks asso- ciated with one of the samples are then added this is the case, the result is duly reported and gen- P erally accepted as evidence that the treatment had together to form the test statistic. The null an effect. If on the other hand the data proves insuf- hypothesis is then rejected on the basis of ficient to reject the null hypothesis on the basis of overly large or small values of the statistic. one form of test, other tests may be tried; these are b. Several variants of the Wilcoxon, which have discussed below. If no significant differences are been developed by using scores associated 10. An excellent resource for further detail on these tests is Jaroslav Hajek and Zbynek Sidak, Theory of Rank Tests (New York: Academic Press, 1967). 756 - e Appraisa hum Summer /004 with the ranks rather than the ranks them- and Comparable Areas. Only if the null were rejected selves. This is done to provide increased sen- would there be grounds for examining the situation sitivities when one is willing to assume further to find a cause for the difference and to at- knowledge of the form of the probability tempt to measure any such difference. distributions from which the sample were generated. Variants include median Scores, Analysis of Appreciation/Depreciation Rates by Van Der Waerden Scores, and Savage Scores. Difference of Means c. Goodness-of-Fit tests, which are a subset of The first analysis conducted was a comparison-of- means test performed against the annual appreciation rank tests. They differ from those above in that they measure overall differences in the or depreciation rates for homes in the Wyman-Gor- probability distribution from which the don Study Area compared to those of homes in Grafton samples were drawn rather than just their that were not in the study area (Grafton Area), and location and scale parameters. These tests homes in comparable areas (Comparable Areas). The appreciation or depreciation rate in this analysis was include the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Cramer-von Mises tests. formed by determining the annual compound sale price growth rate for each sale pair and attributing that rate Note that all of the tests performed in this market to the midpoint year between the sale dates. These rates study completely avoid regression and hedonic model- were then averaged for each year and the means were ing. The sole objective in this study was to determine tested using the usual difference-of-means tests appro- whether or not the null hypothesis should be rejected, priate to the size of the samples involved (the sample indicating that it is likely that there is some difference size for the subject area was necessarily small). The re- between the Wyman-Gordon area residential value per- sults are shown graphically in Figure 1 and in tabular formance and the performance of homes in the Grafton form in Tables 1 a — lc." Figure 1 Change in Sale Price Based on Repeat Sales (Base Year 1988 = 100%) 110% — f Wyman-Gordon Area 100% — ♦ I I ` I **4 ♦ I - Grafton Area 90% — ••• �' -i•s• Comparable Areas • •s •• • I ` ♦ - a 7 -i•00 . . . . . = MI . . • - 80% — - I a) V CI 70% — c° C ' Q ► Frequent public meetings and media attention to problems at plant 60% — o V H I Q I 50% 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 11 . The raw data used in the analysis is from the period 1986 through 1998. Because of the analytical technique used, the dates shown in Figure 1 and Tables la - lc range only from 1988 through 1997. The reason for this is that repeat sales are used. Therefore, if a home sold in 1986 and was subsequently resold in 1990, the appreciation rate for that pair of sales would be assigned to the midyear between the dates, or 1988. The analytical dates derived from the raw data are the dates used in Figure 1 and Tables 1 a - 1 c. proximity stigma_ testing the hypothesis 151 Table la displays the appreciation/depreciation two areas cannot be rejected at the 95% confidence rate data for the Wyman-Gordon Area. Table lb and level for any year from 1989 through 1996 because no Table 1 c display similar data for the Grafton Area t-value exceeds the 1 .96 required for the 95% level of and the Comparable Areas. In Table 1b and Table confidence. There was insufficient data (one repeat sale 1 c, a t-value column is added, giving the test static- appreciation/depreciation rate) attributable to the year tic for the comparison of the appreciation/deprecia- 1994 and none for the year 1997 in the study area and tion mean rate of that area and year to the mean therefore no test statistic was formed for those two years. rate for the corresponding year in the study area. As shown in Figure 1 , there was no year in which the As can be seen, the null hypothesis of no differ- Wyman-Gordon Area appreciation/depreciation rate ence in the means between the study area and the other did not appear to exceed the rates for the other areas. Table la Test For Statistical Significance in Difference of Mean Appreciation/Depreciation Rate Based on Repeat Sales Data, Wyman-Gordon Area Year Mean Std Dev Median n Maximum Minimum 1989 18.06% 25.93% 0.96% 3 54.71 % -1 .48% 1990 0.99% 2.71 % 0.67% 4 4.36% -1 .75% 1991 -0.11 % 3.74% 0.17% 3 4.32% -4.83% 1992 -0.09% 1 .71 % 0.79% 5 2.03% -2.34% 1993 -0.45% .094% -0.29% 4 0.70% -1 .92% 1994 -1 .49% 1 1995 -0.67% 4.97% -0.90% 5 6.33% -8.99% 1996 3.56% 3.35% 3.35% 10 6.33% 0.00% 1997 NSI NSI = Not sufficient information Table lb Wyman-Gordon Area Compared to Grafton Outside the Wyman-Gordon Area Year Mean Std Dev Median n Maximum Minimum t-value* 1989 -6.91 % 3.17% -6.52% 6 -3.44% -12.90% 0.9561 1990 -6.07% 11 .33% -1 .25% 4 3.59% -25.38% 0.6054 1991 -1 .90% 2.13% -1 .49% 13 0.84% -4.95% 0.4150 1992 0.48% 2.68% 0.00% 13 9.39% -2.09% -0.1790 1993 0.26% 2.07% -0.14% 18 4.47% -3.80% -0.3144 1994 2.57% 6.69% 1 .39% 19 25.12% -7.41 % NSI 1995 1 .77% 1 .75% 2.07% 9 5.26% -0.87% -0.4624 1996 3.02% 1 .79% 3.62% 7 5.14% 0.47% 0.1995 1997 0.00% 7.27% 3.63% 4 5.28% -12.53% NSI 'Comparison-of-means t-statistic is shown in t-value column. NSI = Not sufficient information Table lc Wyman-Gordon Area Compared to Comparative Areas Not Including Grafton Area Year Mean Std Dev Median n Maximum Minimum t-value* 1989 0.40% 10.87% 0.00% 21 29.63% -18.34% 0.6283 1990 -5.64% 4.35% -5.34% 33 5.60% -20. 10% 1 .2930 1991 -3.22% 4.60% -2.47% 39 5.40% -25.66% 0.5241 1992 -1 .33% 2.83% -1 .03% 59 3.72% -10.86% 0.3765 1993 0.49% 2.43% 0.43% 91 11 .28% -6.17% -0.3597 1994 2.37% 3.87% 1 .53% 67 19.55% -7.56% NSI 1995 2.30% 3.57% 2.28% 50 18.03% -9.41 % -0.4848 1996 3.23% 3.52% 2.53% 21 13. 34% -2.36% 0.0811 1997 3.84% 5.73% 5.41 % 5 9.83% 9.83% NSI •Comparison-of-means [-statistic is shown in t-value column. NSI = Not sufficient information /58 le Appraisa nurna, Summer 1004 Additional information in the form of tax assess- Conclusions ments, lending appraisals, and individual (i.e. While the test results varied in some level of detail, nonrepeat) home sales during the study period sup- they all consistently indicated the following: port this condusion of no influence on appreciation/ • Residential property appreciations in the depreciation rates or market value associated with Wyman-Gordon Area either significantly ex- proximity to the Wyman-Gordon plant. Because the ceeded those in the Grafton Area or were not study began four years before the announcement of a significantly different. problem and continued after the first announcement, • Residential property appreciations in the additional revelations, and publicity over the subse- Grafton Area either significantly exceeded those quent eight years, the conclusion of no effect appears in the Comparable Areas, or were not signifi- to be sound and well supported. candy different. A number of additional statistical tests were per- formed in an effort to test the characteristics of the three • The differences experienced in appreciation were populations (Wyman-Gordon, Grafton, and Compa- more profound when the data considered was rable Areas) without reference to specific parameters. restricted to properties whose first sale preceded The first of these tests looked at the question of 1990 with the subsequent sale(s) occurring dur- ing or after 1990. whether or not appreciation/depreciation was more g common in the Wyman-Gordon Area than outside From the foregoing it cannot be concluded that that area. Two analyses were conducted, one on the the incidents in the Wyman-Gordon Area involving gross data and one limited to pairs of sales where the groundwater contamination and allegations induding first recorded sale took place prior to any publicity radioactivity, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated sol- concerning an environmental problem (1990), with vents, and nitric acid spills, had no impact on real es- the subsequent sale(s) occurring during or after 1990. tate appreciation rates and consequent values. The only The results of simple counts of houses that ap- sustainable condusion is that the data does not pro- preciated or depreciated by analysis area without re- vide sufficient evidence to support a condusion of any gard to the date of the first sale are shown in Table 2. contamination-induced impact in a situation that— The Wyman-Gordon Area appears to outper- according to nearly all of the literature and expecta- form the other analysis areas by having a greater tions of the valuation community—would almost cer- percentage of homes appreciating during the period tainly have resulted in a significant negative impact. and fewer homes suffering depreciation. This be- It seems likely that ordinary, individual (i.e., per- comes even more pronounced when only homes are sonal) economics are the primary driving force in the considered where the first sale occurred before the transactions examined here. This idea is supported advent of any information concerning a problem, by anecdotal interviews of market participants as well (before 1990) with the subsequent sale(s) occurring during or after 1990, as shown in Table 3. Table 2 Simple Appreciation/Depreciation The overall performance of the area surround- Without Regard to Date of First Sale ing the Wyman-Gordon plant appears to be signifi- cantly better than the Grafton Area and Compa- Percent Percent rable Areas. Area Appreciated Depreciated Additional tests were performed in an effort to Wyman-Gordon Area 58.05% 41 .95% determine the stability of the conclusion that the Grafton Area 56. 18% 43.82% Comparable Areas 54. 19% 45.81 % null could not be rejected at the 95% confidence level. The results of these tests are shown in Table 4 and Table 5. Note that when looking at Grafton Area Table 3 Simple Appreciation/Depreciation versus Comparable Areas, the Wyman-Gordon Area With Date of First Sale Prior to 1990 and Grafton Areas data were combined. Various other rank tests were performed using Percent Percent ranks designed for sensitivity to different alterna- Area Appreciated Depreciated tives. These tests included the median Scores, Van Wyman-Gordon Area 57.89% 42. 110/0 Der Waerden Scores, Savage Scores, Kolmogorov- Grafton Area 24.24% 75.76% Smirnov, and Cramer-von Mises; these tests yielded Comparable Areas 14.50% 85.50% the same general results. proximity stigma: testing t e ypot iesis 159 Table 4 Two-Way Analysis of Variance and F-Test for the Means of the Percentage Appreciation or Depreciation All Data Test Statistic Conclusion Prob > F= 0.0080 Wyman-Gordon Area appreciation significantly greater than Grafton Area appreciation Prob > F = 0.0088 Wyman-Gordon/Grafton Areas appreciation significantly greater than Comparable Areas First Sale Prior to1990 Test Statistic Conclusion Prob > F = 0.0047 Wyman-Gordon Area appreciation significantly greater than Grafton Area appreciation Prob > F = 0.0001 Wyman-Gordon/Grafton Areas appreciation significantly greater than Comparable Areas Table 5 Wilcoxon Two-Sample Rank Test All Data Test Statistic Conclusion Prob > /Z/ = 0.2571 No statistically significant difference between Wyman-Gordon Area and Grafton Area Prob > /Z/ = 0.1118 No statistically significant difference between Wyman-Gordon/Grafton Areas and Comparable Areas First Sale Prior to 1990 Test Statistic Conclusion Prob > /Z/ = 0.0255 Wyman-Gordon Area appreciation significantly greater than Grafton Area Prob > /Z/ = 0.0001 Wyman-Gordon/Grafton Areas appreciation significantly greater than Comparable Areas as tax and lending appraisals and real estate listing data. Specifically, unless there is some impact on the Albert R. Wilson, CRE is principal of A. R. use and enjoyment of a home, the sellers appear un- Wilson, LLC of Woodland Park, CO. Wilson has a willing to accept a discount just for proximity. Fur- bachelor's degree in materials science engineering ther, a sufficient number of buyers who are unim- from Northwestern University, with a concentra- pressed by the condition exist in the marketplace to tion in applied mathematics, and a master's degree make discounts unnecessary. This suggests that valuers in business administration from Bowling Green may have been misled by individuals concerned about State University, with concentrations in finance and the presence of the detrimental condition into be- operations research. Wilson has been engaged in lieving that they represent the majority of the mar- the evaluation of the financial impacts of environ- ketplace participants; in reality they appear to repro- mental and other risks on business and real sent a minority that does not define the market. ' '- property values for more than twenty years. He has The most important conclusion is that without taught and written extensively for the appraisal, site-specific verification it cannot be assumed that legal, banking, and governmental communities on an instance of a detrimental condition will invari- the subject of environmental impacts. Contact: ably have a negative impact on real estate value per- T 800-486-9329; E-mail: arwilson@arwilson.com formance in the vicinity. The bottom line is that the valuer must seri- This paper could not have been developed without ously question the existence of proximity stigma as the technical assistance of Warren F. Rogers, PhD, a market force, and carefully investigate each and and expert local appraisal assistance from Calvin B. every such claim using traditional and time-proven Hastings, SRA. analytical techniques. Here, as in the Wolverton and Bottemiller study, there is simply no proximity stigma in evidence. 12. This result has been observed by other authors, see for example G. William Page and Harvey Rabinowitz, "Groundwater Contamination: Its Effects on Property Values and Cities," Journal of the American Planning Association 59, no. 4 (Autumn 1993): 473-481 . 760 -he Appraisa Won , Summer /004 Appendix List of Real Estate Literature Reviewed Asabere, Paul K., and Forrest E. Huffman. "Thor- Kiel, Katherine A. "Measuring the Impact of the oughfares and Apartment Values."Journal of Real Discovery and Cleaning of Identified Hazard- Estate Research 12, no. 1 (1996): 9-16. ous Waste Sites on House Values." Land Eco- Brookshire, David S., Mark A. Thayer, William nomics 74, no. 4 (November 1995): 428-35. D. Schulze, and Ralph C. d'Arge. "Valuing Pub- Kohlhase, Janet E. "The Impact of Toxic Waste lic Goods: A Comparison of Survey and He- Sites on Housing Values."Journal of Urban Eco- donic Approaches." American Economic Review nomics 30, no. 1 (July 1991): 1-26. 72, no. 1 (March June 1982): 161-77. Li, Mingche M., and H. James Brown. "Micro- Coiwell, Peter F "Power Lines and Land Value." Neighborhood Externalities and Hedonic Hous- Journal of Real Estate Research 5, no. 1 (Spring ing Prices." Land Economics 56, no. 2 (May 1990): 117-27. 1980): 125-41 . DesRosiers, Francois, Main Bolduc, and Marius Mark, Jonathan H. "A Preference Approach to Theriault. "Drinking Water Quality and House Measuring the Impact of Environmental Exter- Values: Measuring Environmental Externalities nalities." Land Economics 56 (February 1980): Using Hedonics." American Real Estate Soci- 235-46. etyAnnual Meeting, Sarasota, Florida, April 16— McClelland, Gary H., William D. Schulze, and 19, 1997. Brian Hurd. "The Effect of Risk Beliefs on Prop- Deyak, Timothy A., and V. Kerry Smith. "Resi- erty Values: A Case Study of a Hazardous Waste dential Property Values and Air Pollution: Some Site." Risk Analysis 10, no. 4 (December 1990): New Evidence." Quarterly Review of Economics 485-97. & Business 14, no. 4 ( 1974): 93-100. Mendelsohn, Robert, Daniel Hellerstein, Michael Epp, Donald J., and K. S. Al-Ani. "The Effect of Huguenin, Robert Unsworth, Richard Brazee. Water Quality on Rural Nonfarm Residential "Measuring Hazardous Waste Damages with Property Values." American Journal of Agricul- Panel Models." Journal of Environmental Eco- tural Economics 61 , no. 3 (August 1979): 529— nomics and Management 22, no. 3 (May 1992): 34. 259-71 . Gamble, Hays B., and Roger H. Downing. "Ef- Michaels, R. Gregory, and V. Kerry Smith. "Mar- fects of Nuclear Power Plants on Residential ket Segmentation and Valuing Amenities with Property Values."Journal of Regional Science 22, Hedonic Models: The Case of Hazardous Waste no. 4 (1982): 457-78. Sites."Journal of Urban Economics 28, no. 2 (July Harrison, David, Jr., and James H. Stock. "He- 1990): 223-42. donic Housing Values, Local Public Goods, and Mieszkowski, Peter, and Arthur M. Saper. "An Es- the Benefits of Hazardous Waste timate of the Effects of Airport Noise on Prop- Cleanup."Energy and Environment Policy Cen- erty Values." Journal of Urban Economics 5, no. ter Discussion Paper Series, John F. Kennedy 4 (October 1978): 425-40. School of Government, Harvard University, Nelson, Arthur C. "Price Effects of Proposed Land- November 1984. fill on Single Family House Values." Journal of Hughes, William T., Jr., and C. F. Sirmans. "Ad- Urban Planning and Development 118, no. 4 justing House Prices for Intra-Neighborhood (December 1992): 128-37. Traffic Differences." The Appraisal Journal (Oc- Nelson, Jon P. "Three Mile Island and Residential tober 1993): 533-38. Property Values: Empirical Analysis and Policy Ketkar, Kusum. "Hazardous Waste Sites and Prop- Implications." Land Economics 57, no. 3 (Au- erty Values in the State of New Jersey." Applied gust 1981): 363-72. Economics 24 (June 1992): 647-59. proximity stigma: testinq t e lypot tesis 261 Palmquist, Raymond B., Fritz M. Roka, andTomislav Simons, Robert A., William Bowen, and M. Vukina, "Hog Operations, Environmental Effects, Arthur Sementelli. "The Effect of Underground and Residential Property Values." Land Economics Storage Tanks on Residential Property Values in 73, no. 1 (February 1997): 114-24. Cuyahoga County, Ohio."Journal of Real Estate Reichert, Alan K., Michael Small, and Sunil Research 14, no. 1 /2 (1997): 29-42. Mohanty. "The Impact of Landfills on Residen- Simons, Robert A., and Arthur Sementelli. "Li- tial Property Values." Journal of Real Estate Re- quidity Loss and Delayed Transactions with search 7, no. 3 (Summer 1992): 297-314. Leaking Underground Storage Tanks." TheAp- Reichert, Alan K. "The Impact of a Toxic Waste praisal Journal (July 1997): 255-60. Superfund Site on Property Values." The Ap- Smith, Barton A. "Measuring the Value of Urban praisal Journal (October 1997): 381-92. Amenities." Journal of Urban Economics 5 Ridker, Ronald G., and John A. Henning. "The (1978): 370-87. Determinants of Residential Property Values Smith, V. Kerry, and William H. Desvousges. "The with Special Reference to Air Pollution." The Value of Avoiding a LULU: Hazardous Waste Review ofEconomics and Statistics 49 (May 1967): Disposal Sites." The Review ofEconomics and Sta- 246-57. tistics. 68, no. 2 (May 1986): 293-99. Saderion, Zahra, Barton Smith, and Charles Smolen, Gerald E., Gary Moore, and Lawrence Smith. "An Integrated Approach to the Evalua- V. Conway. "Hazardous Waste Landfill Impacts tion of Commercial Real Estate."Journal of Real on Local Property Values." The Real Estate Ap- Estate Research 9, no. 2 (Spring 1994): 151-67. praiser 58, no. 1 (April 1992): 4-11 . Simons, Robert A., Kimberly Winson-Geideman, Thayer, Mark, Heidi Albers, and Morteza and Brian A. Mikelbank. "The Effects of an Oil Rahmatian. "The Benefits of Reducing Expo- Pipeline Rupture on Single-Family House sure to Waste Disposal Sites: A Hedonic Hous- Prices." The Appraisal Journal (October 2001): ing Value Approach." Journal of Real Estate Re- 410-48. search 7, no. 3 (1992): 265-82. 16? le Appraisa ourna , Summer 7001 Tel: 303-792-2450 P.O. Box 630027 EUGENE G. COPPOLA P.E., PTOE Fax: 303-792-5990 Littleton, CO 80163-0027 August 5, 2015 James Sharn Director- Natural Resources Rocky Mountain Division Martin Marietta 10170 Church Ranch Way, Suite 101 Westminster, CO 80021 RE : Response to CLR-34NA Planning Commission Comments James : I am writing to express my thoughts on the CLR- 34NA critique of the traffic study I prepared for your U .S . 34 development in Weld County . The CLR- 34NA technical review of my traffic impact study was conducted by Mr. Ray Moe. Mr. Moe is not a registered professional engineer. In contrast, I am a registered professional engineer with active registrations in several states, including Colorado and have 44+ years of traffic engineering experience . I am one of 3, 000 certified Professional Traffic Operations Engineers in the United States and a Fellow of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. There were a number of comments expressed at the Planning Commission concerning the completeness, accuracy, assumptions, agency compliance and findings of the traffic study. I have provided capsule responses to the major CLR- 34NA comments below . ■ The TIS complies with typical TIS requirements of all affected agencies . None of the review agencies (Weld County, Greeley, CDOT, Windsor, Johnstown. . ) commented that the study is incomplete. EXHIBIT Us I CM • There are no nationally accepted trip generation rates for this use. Consequently, traffic estimates prepared by Martin Marietta are the best source of site specific information related to site traffic and the site service area . Operator estimates are widely accepted for other projects in Weld County including numerous oil and gas developments and the various support functions . • The study area is consistent with agency requirements . Traffic impact studies for projects such as 2534, the Shops at Centerra, Elk Lake Shopping Center, Bass Pro Shops, and Iron Mountain evaluated site access points and one off-site U . S . 34 intersection . All these developments were projected to generate more site traffic than the 2,260 daily trips expected from the Martin Marietta development. The 2534 development by itself is expected to generate almost 55 ,000 trips per day , almost 50,000 of which will use U . S. 34 and other nearby streets. • The Kelim frontage road will be considered when improvements at the CR 13 - U . S . 34 intersection are designed in coordination with CDOT. • Passenger Car Equivalents ( PCEs) are only used to determine turn lane storage lengths since large trucks are longer than passenger cars . Application of PCEs for other purposes as presented numerous times in the CLR-34NA presentation is incorrect. Consequently, queue lengths, peak hour and daily traffic, and other items in the CLR-34NA comments are wrong . • Martin Marietta has committed to improve CR 13 and install a traffic signal at the CR 13 - U . S . 34 intersection at its sole expense with this project. The CLR-34NA statement that these are not funded improvements is in error. • Funding for future improvements was identified as a problem by CLR- 34NA. The 2035 Greeley Transportation Plan prepared by Mr. Moe, however, identifies future interchanges at the U . S . 34 intersections with CR 13 , CR 17, Promontory/ 83rd Avenue, 651h Avenue, 47th Avenue and 35th Avenue. It also indicates the need to widen and extend ' O' Street from U .S . 85 to I-25 and other improvements. I suspect there is no funding for these either. f • ■ The 2035 Greeley Transportation Plan dated May, 2011 , prepared by Mr. Moe indicates that U . S . 34 will operate at LOS ' E' in 2035 even with interchanges . The estimated 2035 ADT on U . S . 34 was 57,400 VPD in the area of CR 13 . This is generally consistent with the Martin Marietta TIS considering that updated traffic counts were used in the Martin Marietta study. There are a number of other items I disagree with ; however, the majority of the review comments are addressed in the above responses . Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance . Sincerely, , i;;t�n►, ,tiiiullq . N%‘<. GORGE Co ��Vt,��`G�STFq •�'�� toy/1' SitZ/ ye -37 __&ter4-°e-Eu ene G . Coppoi , . E. , PTOE J 1545 exe �fr.s mac,; a , �i�� ••a NAt_ •.•nt S� 4' Page Ii Response to CLR - 34NA Noise Issues Regarding Hwy 34 Project Prepared by Paul Burge, INCE Bd. Cert, AECOM, August 4, 2015 Revised by Torn Damrana, AECOM, August 10, 2015 Noise Prediction Methodology The general technical approach to our noise prediction methodology was as follows: 1 . Develop a list of all significant noise sources associated with the proposed development ( including ready-mix plant, asphalt plant, associated truck loading, concrete crusher/recycler, truck wash station, internal truck route, internal rail movements, rail unloading and material conveyor systems) . 2 . Determine reference noise levels and distance associated which each source (thorough reference documentation, actual noise measurements at similar facilities, or other reasonable methods) . 3 . Identify nearest noise sensitive receptors in each general direction 4. Determine approximate distances from each noise source to each of the identified receiver locations as well as the distance to the corresponding property line . 5. Calculate the contributing noise level from each noise source at each receiver location assuming a conservative simple geometric spreading model, also assuming all source operating at once and modeling mobile sources, such as internal truck routes and rail loop with noise source at closest possible location . Sum all contributing levels for total noise level . 6. Propose reasonable noise reduction elements to meet regulatory noise requirements, including earthen berms, walls, silencers, acoustical enclosures and administrative controls, as required . Noise Limits We researched and reported State and County noise regulations for maximum allowable industrial and residential land uses (for both, Residential day/night limits of 55/50 dBA and industrial day/night limits of 80/75 dBA) with a goal to meet both requirements. Existing Noise Sources The CLR NA and several individuals alluded to the quiet character, or low ambient noise levels of the current environment. However, there are several noise sources already present in the general area which are certainly contributing to the existing ambient noise levels in the community. These include most notably, but are not limited to, the very busy State Highway 34 just to the north of the Indianhead Estates and two active rail lines just to the south of the proposed development which would include noise primarily from horn soundings at grade crossings. We estimate that just the sound from the EXHIBIT OS- / - - � 1 Page 2 highway during peak traffic hours could reach as much as 65 to 75 dBA in the backyards of the closest Indianhead Estates homes, 55 to 65 dBA at the front yards of second row homes, 45 to 55 dBA near the middle of the development, and 40 to 45 dBA at the furthest end of the development. Noise from existing trains sounding horns at rail crossings, while more transient than highway noise, could also be audible at homes further south from the highway. Other existing noise sources such as local traffic, agricultural and commercial activity and typical community activity could also be contributing to existing ambient noise levels. Rail Noise from the Proposed Project Several issues regarding rail noise concerns were mentioned by the CLR -34NA and individuals, which are addressed below. Continuous low-speed operation The proposed rail activity on the project site would be a low speed continuous movement through the rail loop (approximately 1 to 2 mph ) with unloading occurring at the hopper unload station while the train is still in motion . Idle speed There were question about why an idling locomotive was used as the noise source for internal train movements. This was because at a speed of 1 to 2 mph once the train is actually in motion the sound from the locomotive would be similar to the sound from an idling locomotive . This assumption has since been confirmed by additional calculations ( FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Table F- 1, Lmax for loco at 1 mph at 50 feet = 71 dBA) and subsequent measurements at similar facilities. Wheel squeal and couplings noise The CLR-34NA summary document stated that "Because the track would be curved there would be constant "wheel squeal" as the cars move around the track as well as the crashing sounds that occur due to the constant starting and stopping for unloading the aggregate." Wheel squeal is sometime a problem on rail system with tight turns, but the probability of wheel squeal actually occurring is based on several factors, including curve radius, train speed, vehicle truck wheel base distance, temperature and wheel/rail friction conditions, and it can be difficult to know for certain if wheel squeal will develop p until the system is put into operation . Given the low speed operating conditions and approximate 800 foot rail loop radius, we do not expect wheel squeal condition to develop for this project. However, if they do there is a simple and inexpensive solution of adding rail lubricators to the system which have been proved to effectively mitigate the condition (Transpiration Research Board, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Report 71, Friction Control Methods Used by the Transit Industry) . Further, the concern for coupling noise would be valid if the train were to start, move forward and stop to unload each rail car. However, the proposed unloading process will be continuous, with the rail hopper cars being unloaded without the train stopping, so coupling noise should not be an issue. I Page 13 Vibration from Rail operations Ground vibrations from rail movement can sometimes be a concern, either due to annoyance, or in some extreme condition, due to potential damage to nearby structures. However for this project, those concerns are overstated . The Federal Transit Administration recommends a screening distance for potential vibration impacts (annoyance) for locomotive hauled trains of 200 feet from the track centerline for residential properties for locomotive-hauled trains moving at 50 mph ( FTA Table 9-2) . At speeds of just a few miles per hours that distance would likely be 25 feet or less from the rail loop. Vibration levels associated with potential architectural or structural damage would be much higher ( i .e. even closer to the rail line) . Since all possible residential receiver locations are at least 10 times further than these distances, it is clear to say that ground vibrations form rail activities would be a non-issue. The Proposed Project Includes Many Noise Mitigation Measures Some CLR-NA representatives have suggested that the project has not suggested any meaningful p gg 88 g mitigation for the project. This is not true for noise, where the proposed project would include extensive use of earthen berms, noise wall, acoustical silencers and enclosures to reduce noise level to acceptable levels. Claims of "Careless" Noise Analysis The CLR-34 NA presentation suggested that the MMM noise analysis was careless for taken noise measurement in high wind condition, estimate noise levels and incorrectly reference "idling" locomotive levels for train movements. The comment regarding noise measurements in high winds conditions stated that "Key Measurements were taken on a day when wind was 8 mph, gusting to 37 mph", and that these levels were too high. CLR-34 NA did not say where this information came from ( likely a local weather report or website), but the measurement data were collected under proper conditions ( including appropriate wind speeds), with a calibrated professional grade sound level meters and wind screens. Noise measurements were collected concurrently with wind speed measurements by the field technician using a hand held anemometer. The noise measurements were conducted to characterize source noise levels used in our noise predictions (typical less than 200 feet from the source) — not to assess noise impacts. Collecting these data under high wind condition would have only increased the measured source level, resulting in g even higher predicted noise levels in our analysis, so there would have been no benefit in conducting measurements in such a manner. All noise source reference levels were either measured directly at a similar facility, or taken from credible reference documents, such as the FTA's Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, and other approved environmental documents. The one noise source that was estimated was the source level for the hopper unload station, for which measurement data was not immediately available. Instead, local workers we interviewed and reported that they could have a normal conversation at about 50 feet from the unload unit without having to raise their voices, which would indicate a sound level of I' Page I4 about 65 dBA or less at 50 feet since 65 dBA is a typical level for normal conversation . This was an estimate based on referenceable data and reported workers experience, but not a guess. Claims of a careless noise analysis related to train idle noise for use in low speed operation were previously addressed . Tisa Juanicorena From: Esther Gesick Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 12:51 PM To: Tisa Juanicorena; Rafaela Martinez Cc: Diana Aungst RECEIVED Subject: FW: Resolution USR15 -0027 C AUG 1 4 2015 Tisa/Rafa, WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Please see contact info below to keep track of as we finalize documents. Thanks ! Esther E . Gesick Clerk to the Board 1150 O Street 1 P.O . Box 7581 Greeley, CO 80632 tel : (970) 336-7215 X4226 Confidentiality Notice : This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure . If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication . Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited . Original Message From : Diana Aungst Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 8:47 AM To : Esther Gesick Cc: James Sharn Subject: RE : Resolution USR15-0027 Esther: Please provide the final resolution for case USR15-0027 to James Sham. Thanks, Diana Aungst, AICP, CFM Planner II EXHIBIT Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N . 17th Avenue - Greeley, Colorado 80631 I 970-353-6100 ext. 3524 .�i.� # 0, Fax: (970) 304-6498 daungst@weldgov.com www.weldgov.com 1 To : Weld County Commissioners c/o Diana Aungst. AICP. CFM Planner II Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N 17th Avenue Greeley. Colorado 80631 970-353-6100 ext 3524 : Fax 970-304-6498 dau ngst(c�weldgov. com From : Alan Lee Horn Resident 1074 Poplar. Johnstown ( Kelim ) 80534 To , Case # USR 15-0027 I am strongly opposed to the Martin Marietta Materials ( MMM ) Highway 34 Development. The primary concern I have is that a heavy industry plant of this nature is incompatible with the surrounding area zoned for residential . agricultural and light industry businesses . My secondary concern is in regard to the PM Particulate Matter) that will be emitted from the MMM plant . According to the formal report by the World Health Organization in January. 2003 , the following is cited : Question : Which effects can be expected of long-term exposure to levels of PM ( Particulate Matter) observed currently in Europe ( include both clinical and pre-clinical effects . e . g . development of respiratory system)? Answer: Long-term exposure to current ambient PM concentrations may lead to a marked reduction in life expectancy. The reduction in life expectancy is primarily due to increased cardio-pulmonary and lung cancer mortality. Increases are likely in lower respiratory symptoms and reduced lung function in children . and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and reduced lung function in adults. Source: Health Aspects of Air Pollution with Particulate Matter. Ozone and Nitrogen Dioxide Report on a World Health Organization Working Group. Bonn. Germany 13- 15 January 2003 Thank you for your consideration . Respectfully. Alan Lee Horn Resident RECEIVED Case # USR 15 -0027 For Public Record AUG 1 3 2015 August 11 2015 WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Weld County Commissioners c/o Diana Aungst , AICP, DFM Planner II el`Seeal Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N . 17th Avenue Greeley , C0 80631eP i s ' 970- 353 -6100 ext 3524; Fax : 970- 304-6498 - daungst@weldgov. com Weld County Commissioners : RE : Planning Application USR 15 -0027: Martin Marietta Materials Highway 34 Development This letter requests that the Weld County Commissioners deny the Special Use Permit application (USR - 1584) submitted by Weld LV LLC and Gerrard Investments LLC. This proposed facility is not compatible wi th p w th the established use of this area of Weld/ Lorimer counties; namely , agricultural , residential , commercial , professional , shopping and light industrial (clean , low-activity) nor with the long term vision of the surrounding cities and communities for this area. There must be a better site in Weld County for such a facility! This proposed facility is huge , much larger than their existing facilities in Longmont and Greeley , covering over 130 acres and promising unacceptable traffic , noise , light , dust , odor , waste , vibration and water polluting concerns for the over 150 homes and medical facilities nearby , some homes as close as 700 feet from the proposed facility . This isn't just an asphalt plant or just a cement plant or just an aggregate plant . It is all of that together and more. Just the increase in traffic and decrease in public safety alone should be cause for complete denial at this site. We live in Indianhead Estates and are retired . Even now we must choose our time of day to travel Hwy 34 from CR 15 either east or west. Often , when there is a small , dozen or so -car train crossing the highway near CR 13 , even during the slowest traffic times , there is a significant wait and traffic backs up almost to Centerra Parkway ( 2 miles) with traffic headed east and almost to CR 15 with traffic headed west toward I- 25 . Recently , we sat almost 10 minutes for just such a train at about 12 : 30P that had a switching problem on the east bound side. Such a wait is not uncommon now. I can't imagine how over 1 , 100 truck trips daily (to start , going to over 2 , 200) and 3 , 117-car trains from WY will exacerbate the traffic flow issues . MMM's app , etc . says the facility will be about 1 / 2 mi south of Hwy 34 . That means the train entrance to the railroad spur will be approximately 1 /2 mile south of Hwy 34 . An average railroad car is 75 - 80 feet long and locomotives run at least 100 feet in length . Thus , a 117- car train with 2 - 4 engines will be approximately 1 3 /4 miles in length . Wouldn't such a train coming from WY with materials for the facility be blocking traffic on Hwy 34 for an extended period of time just to access the railroad spur MMM is proposing? It would have to slow and/or stop , switch to the spur and move all the cars onto the railroad spur oval , load/unload and move back onto the main track again . The logical conclusion is that any site for such a facility would have to be at least 2 miles away from Hwy 34 to keep traffic flowing at an acceptable rate any time of the day on the highway . If the trains would then have to be shortened to get the necessary amount of materials onto the site , there would have to be at least double the number of trains weekly coming in from the north across 34 between Loveland and Greeley. Needless to say , Hwy 34 access to Loveland , Greeley , Johnstown and Windsor as well as Centerra would be impossible if this special use permit is approved . Traffic is already heavy at Centerra Parkway. As a shopper , I would find another shopping center for sure. The volume of train and truck traffic proposed is too close to I - 25 , Hwy 34 and Centerra. It will create prohibitive congestion and safety concerns when it runs smoothly . In theory , all operations run smoothly. The practical application of that theory is often much different . In this case , if the practical application is not as favorable as MMM claims and their mitigation efforts don't work as presented , it will be too little , too late . I dare say that the Commissioners would be well advised to take a conservative stance on this proposal . When accidents or delays occur , we cannot imagine the negative impact on the principle gateway to Weld County. MMM's mitigation efforts are insufficient at best to counter the negative impact on our quality of life , that of our neighbors and on commerce in a critically important area of Weld/Larimer Counties. Visualize the mournful cry of the train whistle in the distance , traveling its way through our area. If you are like me , you enjoy hearing that train , even as often as 3 times a week. Now visualize a huge train , slowing , stopping , bumping , screeching its brakes , engines vibrating , whistles blowing , running a 1 /2 mile or less from your home , trying to get onto a railroad spur oval and unload and/or load each car before it slowly bumps and screeches its way back out and gains speed on the rails again. If any of the officials deciding this matter will pause and consider having such a facility adjacent to their homes , retired or not , we are confident the decision would be easy - denial ' We purchased our retirement home in Indianhead because of its non - urban , agricultural , peaceful , quiet nature. Allowing large , heavy industry here will change all of that. Further , once this exceptional use is approved , the door will be wide open to additional , heavy industrial applications , a precedent having been set. MMM currently supplies both Weld and Larimer as well as other counties with construction materials and additional construction materials are likely necessary to the growth of the area. However , we're confident there are better sites in Weld County y that are more compatible with the current and future uses and vision for the surrounding area and just as accessible to roadways/railways to get those materials to their destinations as quickly and inexpensively as possible. Thank you for your thorough consideration of this matter. We're certain you will take your responsibilities to your current Weld County constituents and the future of Weld County seriously. Please make the best decision for us and the future of Weld County and deny the MMM application for a special use permit in its entirety at this site. Sincerely , Linda Novak & Howard Newell 6804 Lakota Court Cell : 720- 289-4097 EMail : lindaonwheels@mindspring. com Tisa Juanicorena From: Lauren Light Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 11:39 AM To: Tisa Juanicorena Subject: RE: ?? Noise Plan Martin Marietta DS 36 was not added by EH. We do not have a noise monitoring plan. You could check with planning too but EH does not see the need for DS 36. Lauren Light, M . B.S. Program Manager/Environmental Planner, Environmental Health Services Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment 1555 N. 17th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 (light@co.weld.co.us <mailto:llight@co.weld .co. us> 970-304-6415 Ext. 2211 (office) 970-304-6411 (fax) P Think Green - Not every email needs to be printed chttps://www.facebook.com/WeldCountyGovernment> <https://twitter.com/weldgov> <https://www.youtube.com/user/WeldCountyCO> Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. EXHIBIT From : Tisa Juanicorena Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 10:50 AM To: Lauren Light Subject: ?? Noise Plan Martin Marietta el -��• Hi Lauren, will you please look at DS 36 and tell me if you think it is a duplicate of 24 or should we leave it in. 1 Thanks, Tisa Juanicorena Deputy Clerk to the Board 1150 O Street/ P.O. Box 758/ Greeley, CO 80632 tel: 970.336.7215 X4217 tjuanicorena@co.weld.co.us <mailto:tjuanicorena@co.weld.co.us> Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient Y is strictly prohibited . 2 Tisa Juanicorena From: Hora, Pam < Pam.Hora@tetratech.com > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 3:10 PM To: Bruce Barker; Esther Gesick; Julie Mikulas Cc: Diana Aungst; Tisa Juanicorena; James Sham; David J Hagerman (david.hagerman@martinmarietta.com); Janet Lundquist; Tisa Juanicorena Subject: RE: Resolution - USR15-0027 - Weld LV, LLC and Gerrard Investments, LLC, c/o Martin Marietta Hi Bruce, Thank you for getting back to me. Good to hear that you are fine with making the change per the first suggestion and we will let the second suggestion go so that we can keep things moving. Pam Pamela Franch Hora, AICP I Senior Planner / Deputy Operations Manager Direct +1 720-864-4507 I Business +1 303-772-5282 I Fax +1 303-772-7039 I Mobile +1 720-201-1073 Pam. Hora@tetratech.com <mailto: Pam . Hora@tetratech.com> Tetra Tech I Complex World, Clear Solutions'"" 1900 S. Sunset St., Suite 1E, Longmont, CO 80501 I tetratech.com <http://www.tetratech.com/> Please consider the environment before printing. Read More. <http://www.tetratech.com/sustainability> This message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. From: Bruce Barker [mailto:bbarker@co.weld.co.us] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 9:38 AM To: Hora, Pam <Pam.Hora@tetratech.com>; Esther Gesick <egesick@co.weld.co.us>; Julie Mikulas <Julie. Mikulas@martinmarietta .com> Cc: Diana Aungst <daungst@co.weld.co.us>; Tisa Juanicorena <tjuanicorena@co.weld.co.us>; James Sharn <james.sharn@martinmarietta.com>; David J Hagerman (david.hagerman@martinmarietta.com ) <david.hagerman@martinmarietta.com>; Janet Lundquist <jundquist@co.weld.co.us>; Tisa Juanicorena <tjuanicorena@co.weld.co.us> Subject: RE: Resolution - USR15-0027 - Weld LV, LLC and Gerrard Investments, LLC, c/o Martin Marietta EXHIBIT Pam : I aS 1 I agree with your first suggestion. The wording you put forth is the same but just better stated. So I OK with it. As for the second change of adding language to Condition 1.A.2), I cannot say whether that was the intent. To add such language would require bringing it back before the Board and noticing the neighbors. I suspect MM would not wish to entertain that process at this juncture, but rather, deal with the issue when PW says the triggers have been met (PW may at that point agree with you that the triggers are limited to traffic generated by the applicant). Bruce T. Barker, Esq . Weld County Attorney P.O. Box 758 1150 "O" Street Greeley, CO 80632 (970) 356-4000, Ext. 4390 Fax: (970) 352-0242 Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is attorney privileged and confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Hora, Pam [mailto:Pam . Hora@tetratech.com] Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 11:45 AM To: Esther Gesick; Julie Mikulas Cc: Diana Aungst; Tisa Juanicorena; Bruce Barker; James Sharn; David J Hagerman (david.hagerman@martinmarietta.com <mailto:david.hagerman@martinmarietta.com> ) Subject: RE: Resolution - USR15-0027 - Weld LV, LLC and Gerrard Investments, LLC, c/o Martin Marietta Hi Esther, 2 We took a look at the Resolution and we agree that all of the changes are consistent with what was discussed at the hearing; however, some of the wording in Section 1A is not the best ( not surprising given the fact that it was 10pm ! ) and so we wanted to ask Bruce to consider rewording of the third sentence so that it reads as follows: The Improvements and Road Maintenance Agreement shall include possible height limitations and requirements related to the appearance of buildings on the site, based on consultation by the applicant with the Community Work Group, established by the applicant. Also, under item 1A2 ) we would like to ask that the following words be added to the end of the first sentence : "as a result of traffic generated by this project" (or something along those lines) . The reason for this change is just to make sure it is clear that Martin Marietta is not on the line for making the described intersection improvements unless it is Martin Marietta's traffic that triggers those improvements. We are confident that this concept is what the Commissioners intended and we just want to make sure it isn't incorrectly interpreted in the future . Let me know if you have any questions. Also, if my described changes aren't clear, I would be happy to redline them onto a Word version of the Resolution for you if you want to send me a Word version . Thanks, Pam Pamela Franch Hora, AICP I Senior Planner / Deputy Operations Manager Direct +1 720-864-4507 I Business + 1 303-772-5282 I Fax + 1 303-772-7039 I Mobile + 1 720-201- 1073 Pam . Hora@tetratech .com <mailto : Pam . Hora@tetratech .com > Tetra Tech I Complex World, Clear Solutions' 1900 S. Sunset St., Suite 1E, Longmont, CO 80501 I tetratech . com <http://www.tetratech.com/> Please consider the environment before printing. Read More. <http ://www. tetratech .com/sustainability> This message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information . Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful . If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system . From : Esther Gesick [mailto :egesick@co.weld .co. usj Sent : Thursday, August 27, 2015 9 :40 AM To : Hora, Pam <Pam . Hora@tetratech .com <mailto: Pam . Hora@tetratech.com> >; Julie Mikulas <Julie . Mikulas@martinmarietta .com <mailto :Julie . Mikulas@martinmarietta .com> > 3 Cc: Diana Aungst <daungst@co.weld.co.us <mailto:daungst@co.weld .co.us»>; Tisa Juanicorena <tjuanicorena@co.weld .co.us <mailto:tjuanicorena@co.weld .co.us> >; Bruce Barker <bbarker@co.weld.co.us <mailto: bbarker@co.weld.co.us> > Subject: Resolution - USR15-0027 - Weld LV, LLC and Gerrard Investments, LLC, c/o Martin Marietta Pam and Julie, Please see the attached Resolution you have been waiting on. Tisa reviewed the record and compiled the first draft, I proofed, and Bruce has also given it his blessing as complete. Please review and let me know if you have any questions of concerns. Once I know the applicant is satisfied with the form, we have other members of the public who are anxious to get a copy as well. Thanks ! Esther E. Gesick Clerk to the Board 1150 O Street I P.O. Box 758 I Greeley, CO 80632 tel: (970) 336-7215 X4226 Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. 4 Hello