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