Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Kerry Stanlee, Beaverton, wondered why questions went to Mr. Noxon instead of the applicant relative to the study that was done for the applicant. With regard to the memo that was generated on October 27 that was a response for a request for them to consider the construction of the aquaclude as mining activity. He recalled that originally the aquaclude construction was considered construction and under the DEQ regulation, the noise from construction activity is exempt. He indicated it was not studied at that point. He said when the question came up at the first hearing, if it is construction if the material is going to be excavated and some of it sold, they were asked to determine what would be needed to mitigate the noise from the activity if the county and city decided to consider it was excavation instead of construction. Dwyer indicated they would be leaving the record open for any party to respond to items submitted during the previous open record period including the public hearing to have the opportunity to respond. Stanlee indicated the memo was generated to address the question of what mitigation would be required if the aquaclude construction was considered excavation instead of construction and considered non-exempt from the noise regulation. He said they looked at the use of an excavator and a front end loader, not simultaneously. He determined that it was a 980 H frontend loader that mitigation would be required when the equipment was within a certain distance of residences. He indicated it differed from different parts of the site because of the ambient degradation rule. He said when Noxon stated they didn’t put the data in for the analysis of the 330 L excavator, an oversight was made. He said the 330 L level is 73 DBA at 50 feet for the record. He had in the memo that the frontend loader was 72 DBA at 50 feet so the source data was there. He said using the same analysis for the original calculated, they came up with the height of the berms required for different locations. He stated the aquaclude would not be constructed at one time, it would be as needed to open more areas. He commented it was not a long term operation. Stanlee said all questions the elected officials might have are answered in what they submitted. He stated Noxon brought up the issue about the ambient degradation rule and how they went to generate an ambient that was not normal. He noted in the rebuttal materials there is a letter from John Hector who was the manager of the DEQ noise and enforcement section for 11 years. Stanlee indicated Hector reviewed what they did and he wrote into the material that this procedure was acceptable. He said the area where they had an excavator operate, was an area they do current operations at. He recalled on the first day they were out there it wasn’t operating. He said they had the measurement made at that time. He said they looked at what was the representative of the conditions the residents experienced now. He said they provided reference data and it is in the report. Piercy said they would keep the record open. She noted period one of the record is open for submittal of additional written information by any party, including the applicant until January 8, 2007 at 5:00 p.m. She added that period two is that the record is open for any party to respond to items submitted during the previous open record period to January 22, Page 21 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 WD bc/m/06121/T