Item 1: PH on Ordinance Amending Metro Plan (Delta Sand and Gravel)

Home Browse Search

assumed that the SatitaClara Waterway would remove the ground and surface waters. Mr. Lawless saw the aquaclude,not as a dam, but more as a storm water retention and infiltration pond, with the capacity to handle a rapid influx of water, as a best practice, providing a safety valve. This served as an overflow that would go into secondary.stormwater management system. He saw the design as being practical and reasonable. Ms. Colbath expressed co~cem that the aquacludewould cause flooding problems. In response to Ms. Colbath, Ms. Schulz said topographic maps were included in the record. Mr. Howe iterated that the FEMA regulations were the applicable standard. He asked if the proposal would meet FEMA regulations; that being in a 100 year flood it would not raise the water level to one foot above the 100 year floodplain elevation. This was not in the floodway, and in a floodplain, the e~tire floodplain could be filled and it would not increase the floodway in violation of the FEMA requirement. Mr. How.e said in this situation, the standard for the proposed extraction from the pit would be if it violated the FEMA 100 year floodplain requirements. . Ms. Arkin said stated the issue was not only about the applicant"s site, but also adjacent areas, the impact area, and beyond the impact ar~. She added that applicant had stated that water would not only move horizontally but would also rise. She said that the EGR drawings did not show where the water table was located, or where the excavated dirt would be placed. She . stated. she did not believe the applicant had shown they could mitigate impacts to the neighborhoods to the west. .' Ms. Schulz asked if the water would rise to one foot above the ground, which was the standard for the flood regulations. She added that digging gravel went downward, not upward. Mr. Becker expressed concern about how the subterranean dam would impact adjacent neighborhoods. Mr. Howe said the standard was within the impact area; and whether the FEMA 100 year floodplain standard could be met. Mr. Sullivan accepted the statements by the area residents that they currently experienced flooding problems that existed before the excavation request. He said there was nothing in the record that indicated that the existing permit would exacerbate a nooding problem in that area. If the applicant met the. FEMA requirement; the aquaclude could possibly di~sh flooding possibilities in the area because it could become a reservoir for the water runoff the residents experienced. He emphasized this assertion was his opinion, and had not been scientifically proven. Mr. Belcher expressed concern that the aquaclude could cause the land around the aquaclude to be more heavily saturated. He said he would vote that the flooding could be mitigated in hope that the value of .deliberation would give both sides further opportunity to I?rovide evidence before a fmal decision was made. Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki stated the dam would work both ways, and it was unknown how it would function, making it difficult to .determine if the flooding conflict could be minimized. Ms. Colbath asked 'what recourse was available to FEMA if the aquaclude did not meetFEMA's standards. Mr. Howe reiterated the Planning Commissions criteria: was there a standard and does the applicant meet that standard?