My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2007
>
CC Agenda - 01/22/07 Meeting
>
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:25:55 PM
Creation date
1/18/2007 10:10:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/22/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
56
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
Kerry Stanlee, Beaverton, wondered why questions went to Mr. Noxon instead of the <br />applicant relative to the study that was done for the applicant. With regard to the memo <br />that was generated on October 27 that was a response for a request for them to consider <br />the construction of the aquaclude as mining activity. He recalled that originally the <br />aquaclude construction was considered construction and under the DEQ regulation, the <br />noise from construction activity is exempt. He indicated it was not studied at that point. <br />He said when the question came up at the first hearing, if it is construction if the material <br />is going to be excavated and some of it sold, they were asked to determine what would be <br />needed to mitigate the noise from the activity if the county and city decided to consider it <br />was excavation instead of construction. <br /> <br /> Dwyer indicated they would be leaving the record open for any party to respond to items <br />submitted during the previous open record period including the public hearing to have the <br />opportunity to respond. <br /> <br /> Stanlee indicated the memo was generated to address the question of what mitigation <br />would be required if the aquaclude construction was considered excavation instead of <br />construction and considered non-exempt from the noise regulation. He said they looked <br />at the use of an excavator and a front end loader, not simultaneously. He determined that <br />it was a 980 H frontend loader that mitigation would be required when the equipment was <br />within a certain distance of residences. He indicated it differed from different parts of the <br />site because of the ambient degradation rule. He said when Noxon stated they didn’t put <br />the data in for the analysis of the 330 L excavator, an oversight was made. He said the <br />330 L level is 73 DBA at 50 feet for the record. He had in the memo that the frontend <br />loader was 72 DBA at 50 feet so the source data was there. He said using the same <br />analysis for the original calculated, they came up with the height of the berms required <br />for different locations. He stated the aquaclude would not be constructed at one time, it <br />would be as needed to open more areas. He commented it was not a long term operation. <br /> <br /> Stanlee said all questions the elected officials might have are answered in what they <br />submitted. He stated Noxon brought up the issue about the ambient degradation rule and <br />how they went to generate an ambient that was not normal. He noted in the rebuttal <br />materials there is a letter from John Hector who was the manager of the DEQ noise and <br />enforcement section for 11 years. Stanlee indicated Hector reviewed what they did and <br />he wrote into the material that this procedure was acceptable. He said the area where <br />they had an excavator operate, was an area they do current operations at. He recalled on <br />the first day they were out there it wasn’t operating. He said they had the measurement <br />made at that time. He said they looked at what was the representative of the conditions <br />the residents experienced now. He said they provided reference data and it is in the <br />report. <br /> <br /> Piercy said they would keep the record open. She noted period one of the record is open <br />for submittal of additional written information by any party, including the applicant until <br />January 8, 2007 at 5:00 p.m. She added that period two is that the record is open for any <br />party to respond to items submitted during the previous open record period to January 22, <br />Page 21 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 <br />WD bc/m/06121/T <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.