Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The Eugene Planning Commission took a straw ,vote on: Do lve believe the lvetlands cOl~flict <br />can be mini111ized through the applicant 'sproposed conditions? The result of the stra\\r vote <br />was unanimous ,5:0. <br /> <br />The Lane County Planning COlnmission took a stra\v vote tile result of which \vas 2:4, \vith <br />Comnlissioners Becker, Kirkham, Arkin and Siekiel-Zdzienicki voting in opposition. <br /> <br />o Floodin!!: <br /> <br />· Lv tllere a conflict (lue to flooding? <br /> <br />The E,ugene Pla1l11ing Con1mission took a stra\v vote on: Is there a cOl~flict due to flooding? <br />TIle result of tIle stra\v vote was 2:3, witll COl11missioners Duncan, La\vless, and Carroll <br />voting in opposition. <br /> <br />The Lane County Planning Comlllission took a stra,v vote the result of \vhich was 5: 1 , 'v.lith <br />Commissioner SiekielOAZdzienicki voting in opposition. <br /> <br />. Do .ve believe tlte flootling conflict can benlillilltized to lIteet the FEMA standard? <br /> <br />Mr. DUllcan asserted that adllerence to FEMA standards \vould result in n1ininuzatioll of contlicts. <br /> <br />Mr. Canllichael concurred with rvlr~ Duncan. <br /> <br />Mr. Howe stated that FEMA had dra\vn the line, and the subject property \vas not in the floodway but was in <br />tile floodplain. He added that proposal would not raise the floodplain by adding ll1aterial. Rather, material <br />would be extracted, alld \vould not inlpact'the floodplain. <br /> <br />Mr. Belcller stated lllaterial would be added by construction of the aquaclude, and could raise tIle water table. <br />Mr. Howe said tIle aquaclude would be below" groundVvrater~ From tIle standpoint of this development <br />contributing to tIle 100 year floodplain, tIle concept behind the floodway'and floodplain \vas that aU of the <br />,floodplain could be completely built and it \vould not increase the elevatioll in thefloodway by nlore than <br />one foot He added tlle applicant was not proposing any developnlent in the flood\vay.He said the entire <br />floodplain could be filled, and it would not cause more than one foot of rise in the floodway. These <br />conditions adhered to the' FE-MA modeling, and \vould not increase the likelihood of flooding. <br /> <br />Mr. Belcher said the issue was the ability of the subsurfac,e to absorb \vater and prevent flooding. <br /> <br />Mr. Becker said the question asked if there \vas a conflict due to flooding, and did not discuss floodplain <br />designations. ' <br /> <br />Mr. Duncan looked at ground\\'ater or flood potential as sOll1ething that occurred over a l:arge geographic <br />area, \vith the aqtlaclude being relatively small in comparison to \\There the groul1dwater and flood \vater <br />\voltld disperse. Any water that backed up \'i"ould do so over several 111iles rather than in a snlall area, and <br />\vould not have ll1uch impact. <br /> <br />Mr. BelcIler again expressed his frustration over being asked to take action on an issue in \VIlich he was not <br />an expert. He felt the local effect of placing a dam near housing could be significant if the ,,"vater \vas not <br />able to disperse over a much longer distance. <br /> <br />Ms. Arkin stated the ground\vater and surface water effects could not be separated. She felt strol1gly the <br /> <br />MINUTES- August 30, 2006 <br />Joint Lane County and Eugene Planning Con1ll1ission <br /> <br />Page 5 <br />