Item B: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

aquaclude could contribute to .flooding in residential areas. Additionally, the applicant had stated they had assumed that the Santa C:lara Watenvay ,vQuld relllove the ground and surface \vaters. Mr. Lawless sa"v the aquaclude, not as a dam, but more as a storm ,vater retention and illfiltration pond, ,vith the capacity to handle a rapid influx of water, as a best practice, providing a safety valve. This served as an overflow that \vould go into secondary stolID\Vater manage111ent systenl. He savv the design as being practical and reasoll.ab Ie. Ms. Colbath expressed concern that the aquaclude vvould cause flooding problems. In response to Ms. Colbath, Ms. Schulz said topographic 111aps were included in the record. Mr. Ho\ve iterated that the FEMA regulatiollS ~lere the applicable standard. He asked if the proposal \vould meet FEMA regulations, that being in a 100 year flood it \vould not raise the "vater level to one foot above the 100 year floodplai11 elevation. This \vas not in the flood\vay, and in a fl.oodplain, the entire floodplain could be filled and it \votdd not increase the flood\vay in violation of the FEMA requirement. Mr. Ho",re said in tllis situation, the stal1dard for the proposed extraction fronl the pit \vould be ifit violated the FEMA 100 year floodplain requireluents. Ms. Arkin said stated the issue was not only about the applicant's site, but also adjacent areas, the impact area, and beyond the impact area.. She added that applicant had stated that V\later \vould not only move horizontally but would also rise. She said that the EGRdra\vings did not shovv \vhere the ,vater table \vas located, or \vhere the excavated dirt would be placed. She stated slle did not believe the applicant had S110\V11 they could nlitigate inIpacts to the neighborhoods to the \vest. f\,1s. Schulz asked if the \vater would rise to one foot above the ground, 'Vvhich \vas the standard for the flood regulations. She added t.llat digging gravel \\rent do\vn.ward, 110t up\vard. Mr. Becker expressed concern about how the subterraneandanl \vould impact adjacent neighborhoods. Mr. Howe said the standard was within the impact area, and \vhether the FEMA 100 year floodplain standard could be met. Mr. Sullivan accepted the stateme,nts by the area residel1ts that they currently experienced floodingproblenls that existed before the excavation request. He said there "vas nothing in the record that indicated that the existing permit vvould exacerbate a flooding problem in that area. If the applicant met the FEMA requirement; the aquaclude could possibly dimil1ish flooding possibilities in the area because it could become a reservoir for the\vater ITlnoff tIle residents experienced. He eUlpllasized this assertion \vas his opinion, and had not been scientifically proven. Mr. Belcher ~xpressed concern that the aquacludecould cause the land around the aquaclude to be more heavily saturated. He said he would vote that the flooding could be mitigated in hope that the value of deliberation would. give both sides further oppoliunity to provide evidence before a final decision \vas made. Mr. Siekiel-Zdziellicki stated the danl \vould \vork both ways, and it was unknown how it would function, making it difficult to determine if the flooding conflict could be rnil1imized. Ms. Colbatll aske;dwhat recourse \vas available to FEMA if the aquaclude did 110t 11leet FEMA's standards. Mr. 110\\'e reiterated tile Plamling COl11ll1issions criteria: was there a standard a.nd does the applicant meet that standard? MlNUTES- August 30, 2006 Joint l~ane County and Eugelle Planning C0111mission Page 6