My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 1: PH on Ordinance Amending Metro Plan (Delta Sand and Gravel)
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2006
>
CC Agenda - 11/01/06 JEO Meeting
>
Item 1: PH on Ordinance Amending Metro Plan (Delta Sand and Gravel)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:18:50 PM
Creation date
10/26/2006 8:42:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Staff Memo
CMO_Meeting_Date
11/1/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
125
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
<br />In response to a question from Ms. Nichols regarding whether the wetlands permits arid mitigation plans for the <br />wetland were done when the housing development nearby was constructed, Mr. Perkins said it was always <br />advisable to have them since the law required that wetlands not be diminished in size or value. He said a good <br />developer would have looked at those things but said he did not know if the particular developer had followed <br />through with permits and biological assessments. . <br /> <br />Mr. Sullivan said he had concerns.that there had been very little agency input regarding riparian corridors, wetlands <br />and wildlife habitat. He questioned whether Mr. Perkins thought that if the Department of State Lands and Oregon <br />Department ofFish and Wildlife investigated the site their assessments would agree with his own. <br /> <br />Mr. Perkins said he thought the agencies would agree with him but acknowledged that he had not walked on the ~ite <br />and collected specific information and had only presented a general analysis. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Sullivan regarding whether in his opinion the agencies should be requested to <br />~ake those inquiries, Mr. Perkins said the request should be made to determine that the wetland boundary <br />mentioned in the application was accurate and to look at possible effects to nearby wetlands. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Sullivan regarding whether he had been on the property at all, Mr. Perkins <br />. reiterated that he had not been on the land but had rendered an opinion based on the information in the. application. <br /> <br />Mr. Belcher asked for a map of the wetlands along the boundary of the ap.plication to be provided. <br /> <br />Malia Kupillas, President of Pacific Hydro Geology, said she was registered geologist with a specialty in hydro <br />geology. She said she had reviewed the reports that were prepared as part of the application as well as the <br />computer model. She said after reviewing both of the reports she said there had not been enough information given <br />to show that ground water would not be affected. She noted that information was missing. She said the applicant <br />had stated that ground water and su~ace water were separate bodies and stressed that this was not true. She <br />stressed that ground water and surface water were connected and impacts to one would also impact the other. She <br />said ground water would go where it was easiest to flow. If the easiest was to go up because the soil was more <br />permeable then it would go up. She said the computer model submitted by the applicant failed to show what would <br />really happen. She said her biggest question was about the low permeability barrier. She said the computer model <br />showed two scenarios. The fIrst was a dam that enclosed the new area and another scenario around the entire <br />operation. She said both scenarios would have an impact on ground water. She said what the applicant had not <br />shown was that a coffer dam like barrier could not be built as described in the application because a full circle <br />barrier was not planned to be constructed. She said there was no map that showed .where the barrier was supposed <br />to be constructed. She remarked that excavating for the barrier would mean excavating wetlands. <br /> <br />Ms. Kupillas noted that the Santa Clara area was developed with the current ground water levels which were lower <br />because of the current mining activities. She said there had been no analysis of what could happen if the low <br />permeability barrier were constructed and the natural ground water returned. She remarked that the residential <br />developments had been constructed under the assumption of current ground water levels and their .concerns over <br />flooding were valid. She said the only difference between ground water and surface water was the ground level. <br />She said if ground water levels were raised to a certain point then there would be surface flooding. She said the <br />water in the oxbow lake was filled by ground water exposed to the surface. <br /> <br />. MINUTES"-Lane County Planning Commission <br />Eugene Planning Commission <br /> <br />. 'January 17, 2006 <br /> <br />.11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.