My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item A: Delta Sand and Gravel
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2008
>
CC Agenda - 04/21/08 Work Session
>
Item A: Delta Sand and Gravel
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 1:00:57 PM
Creation date
4/18/2008 9:50:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
4/21/2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
standing discussions about the agency’s on-going existence (see Nepler, DuPriest, Bettman, and <br />Taylor testimonies at the 12/12/06 joint public hearing). In the case of LRAPA’s dissolution, the <br />Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) would be responsible for enforcing local <br />air quality standards. The Council finds that conditions of approval dependent on LRAPA’s <br />enforcement are not satisfactory for long term mitigation of a potentially hazardous source of <br />dust proximate to an urban residential area. <br /> <br />Both of the Planning Commissions found unanimously that there is a conflict due to dust, and <br />that the conflict due to dust could not be minimized to a level that meets the DEQ emission <br />standards applied by LRAPA. Neither planning commission conducted further ESEE analysis <br />because none had been provided by the applicant. <br /> <br />Eugene Planning Commission voted 3-2 that the conflict could not be minimized, and Lane <br />County Planning Commission voted 3-2 with one abstention. <br /> <br />For reasons explained in more detail under Goal 5 findings, we find that potential dust conflicts <br />from the proposed mining of the expansion area have not been minimized and, therefore, this <br /> <br />application is not consistent with Goal 6 regarding air quality. <br /> <br />Statewide Planning Goal 7 <br />To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards. <br />The proposed expansion area is partially located within an un-numbered A zone of the <br />Willamette River flood plain as illustrated on the federal Flood Area Insurance Rate Map <br />(FIRM) (Panel 1126 of 2975, effective June 2, 1999). It is located immediately west of a <br />Flood Insurance Study (FIS) area that has defined floodways and base flood elevations of the <br />Willamette River. <br />Because the floodway for the Willamette River is determined to be substantially east of the <br />expansion area, the FIS has determined through definition of the floodway that the expansion <br />area could be completely obstructed without increasing the water-surface elevation of the <br />100-year flood more than one foot at any point. <br />All mining activity proposed for the expansion area would occur as excavation taking place <br />below existing ground surfaces. Overburden would be removed and stockpiled in areas with <br />elevation higher than base flood elevations or in areas currently below existing ground <br />elevations. That mining methodology will preclude the need for sound berms or flood <br />containment berms that could impede flood flows across the expansion area. Berms <br />associated with the construction of the aquaclude will be temporary in nature and will be <br />removed by returning the material to the area of the aquaclude as construction occurs or prior <br />to anticipated heavy rain events. <br />Therefore, we find that the proposed use of the expansion area would be consistent with the <br />purpose and intent of Goal 7. <br />Statewide Planning Goal 8 <br />To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state. <br />We find that there has been a legislative determination by the Metro jurisdictions through its <br />comprehensive planning process, as implemented by the Metro Plan diagram, that the subject <br />property is not designated for recreational facilities or opportunities. Identified recreational <br />needs have been provided for on other sites within the Metro urban area. Therefore, we find that <br />the proposed amendments would be consistent with Goal 8. <br /> <br />Statewide Planning Goal 9 <br />To diversify and improve the economy of the state. <br />Ordinance - 27 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.