Item A: Public Hearing onMetro Plan Amendment (Delta Sand and Gravel)

Home Browse Search

Minimi~tion of cOnflicts - Dust - addressed by DEQ. Emissions. standards applied by Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAP A) through an Air Contaminant Discharge Pennit (ACDP): Visible Air C~ntaminant Limitation (LRAPA 32-010) Particylate Matter Weight Standards (LRAPA 32-615) Particulate Matter Size '.Standard (LRAP A 32-055) , Other Emiss.ions (LRAP A 3,2-090) Rules for F~gitive Emissions (LRAP A 48-01 S) This PAPA is for tbturemining of an adjacent expansion site. Delta's proceqing operation directiy east of the expansion site operates under a currentL'RAPApermit (No. 20119). if approved,. the proposed future mining exPansion area will. be. added to the existing permit and. complianCe requirements' w~ll be updated to includ~ the expansio~ ~ and conduct operations ..ip a manner that complies with the applicable standards under the existing authorized pennit. The existing operation is not under review in this PAPA application. ' . . . The submittals from the SCRO mises issue with the dust impact analysis and with thetrustabUity of the applicant to Died the LRAPA requirements. LRAP A past .violations are included in the Written record. AdditioJially, some of thC neighboring. resideats have. health issu~. that are exacerbated by. poor . air quality, asthma and breathing problems and have .-aised that issue. The analysis conducted by Bridgewater models a conservative approach to the predicted conflict. The. Planning Commissions bad, ' . conceniSabout lack of analysis of additional bnpacts from dust if the setback variance request to complete a low permeability. baaier (~clude) WQ granted.. the location of the ~ and . methodology for completion was considered to be a large factor in the d~ennination of impacts. for this confliCt. See P A1238 Exlu'bit ~C'. ~nc!itions #13- #21 for dust minimization conditions ProPOsed by , the' app.licant. . . , Both of the PlaDDlDg . Commissions fouod UD.nllllou~ly that there Is a eonftiet. due to duH, and that'tlle eonftlet due to dust eould, "Dot be. mlnlml7~ 'to . I~vel. that meets 'the DEQ. emlulon ltaD4ards..ppUed 1>>,. LRAP A.. Neither. plaDDlDgcoDmdsiioo condudect further ESU ...... ' b~1ile RODe. h~d beeD provided by the .ppDeant. .. . .. LaneCoanty . PlaDDiDg ColDDIisiion voted 3-2 with ODe. abstention, ud Eugene, PlaDDiDg '. CO~slOD votect,3-% that the conftlet eould Bot be mlnlml~~ ' (. . FLOODING CQNFLICl'S. '. . .. . . The Lane County FloOd H8zard requirements are .found in. Lane Code 16.244 Floodplain Combining , Zone. Refer to applicant's submittal Bvalll;8tion of Potential Flood Impact (Exht'bit II) The applicant . . deicribes how all activity will be beiow ground and not affect the base flood level. Federal EmergenCy . . Management. Agency' requirements as implemented by Lane County in Lane Code 16.244(7)(cXii): CCWhere basejlootJ'f!levatio1Lf have been"provided butjloOdways have not" the cumulative effect of anY . proposed deVelopment, when' combined, with all 'other existing' and anticipated development, shall hot . increase, the wate" surface elevation of th:e hf:lse flood more than one foot at any point." . . Gravel extraction activity does not impede floodwaters because extraction of the aggregate will . proceed in a downward manner, and will not create any banier'sthat impede flood flows. Conflicting testimony and photos submitted during the public hearing dispute that assertion. .R.esidents hi the neighbOrhood submitted photos of flOo4ed streets (Exhibits 41 & 42)and provided testimony at the Noveri1ber 15111 2005. Hearing expressing concern that 'mining. of the expansiooare& would exacerbate ',flooding in the 'Sutrounding 'n~igbborhoods, 'especially the new residential developments built withitt the, ~act area. The relationship between groUndwater ~d sUrface water in af)ood and uncertainty of B~Council Hearing- OJdinance No. PA. 1238', Agenda Cover Memo Deltt Sand &, Gravel Ex_on