CC Minutes - 12/12/06 Joint Elected Officials

Home Browse Search

trucks are of heavy weight and there was no evidence that the city had waived that requirement. He added that Delta’s employees (before the planning commission) admitted that the actual traffic levels will depend upon market demand for their product. He noted the TIA rule requires that the traffic analysis be done for the 20 year planning period. He said if they were to consider having a new use located next to a residence, a gravel extraction pit would be low on the list. He commented that the most difficult planning decisions that cities and counties have to make are where they have different categories of use coming together and it represents an extreme example of having an industrial use. He commented that the impacts are real and not mitigated and the application should be denied. Jim Nepler, Eugene, commented the only way they learned about the situation was the Lane County Planning Commission told them there would be a hearing about this. He said they didn’t consult with the neighbors. He said he had a personal interest in this issue because his son suffers from serious asthma. He said--despite what is said about dust--dust and diesel fumes create severe conditions for children with asthma. He commented that nothing Delta had asserted regarding air quality was supported with data. He said they were asking to trust them. He said given the potential monetary gains for the applicant, and the quality of life costs, they need to make an honest judgment call about the applicant’s credibility. He commented the application was filled with statements that were untrue. He recalled at the November 15, 2005 Planning Commission, Delta’s attorney said “Delta has complied with all dust regulations for 80 years.” He added in February 2006, Delta stated “They have a proven track record of compliance over the life of its LRAPA permits.” He asked if Delta really never received an LRAPA violation. He said since 1966 LRAPA had received more than 16 complaints from neighbors about Delta’s operations. He reported that the complaints include a 1999 petition signed by over 20 neighbors who were being affected by air pollution and dust created at the existing Delta facility. He said complaints included breathing difficulties from persons suffering from throat cancer and other ailments. He added in the past six years LRAPA had issued Delta’s four notices of non-compliance and a violation for failing to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne, including the failure to water the facility yard and roadways. He said a copies of the violation notices were already in the record. He said LRAPA’s file on Delta includes a notice of violations. He thought with more homes nearby, the problems would get worse. He said in the past Delta had few neighbors, and those neighbors periodically filed dust complaints against Delta. He said that Delta’s pit expansion would put it a few hundred feet from people who already have serious breathing problems. He said that Delta stated they intended to minimize dust by complying with its LRAPA permit in the future. He hoped that Delta would make the promise in good faith, but said their neighbors had come to suspect that good faith is an attribute that Delta holds in short supply and they aren’t credible. He said they had not curtailed dust problems and didn’t have a plan to do so in the future. He hoped the elected officials would deny the application. DuPriest read a letter from LRAPA in May of 2000. Page 7 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 WD bc/m/06121/T