Item B: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

Lal1e COU11ty "Board of COlnmissiol1ers and Ellgene Cit;l Council c/ 0 Stephallie Sc11ulz, Planrler Jallllary 22, 2007 IJage 4 ()f 9 :[\/!c)reoverl LRA.P A has eve11 perl11itteLi Delta to explain-a'\lvay' infractio11s vvithout an.)! appare11t il1'lestigatio11 or fttrther actiC)11. COlnplaint No. 8872 (IIt.arge al11cnlI1ts ()f t1 ust frCH11 crllshing acti \rities. . .. Cllec.ked vvi th Delta, 'Ille)l had mechanicallJrc)blell1s.. . ") i\l-lf)licant relies (lIt tl1e mere eXlstel1ce of LRl\.Pl~ tC) clain1 that it \Ivill adJlere tC) DEQ alldL.Rl\l) A standards, a11d tC) n1ake IIp for the fact th.at it has failed tC) prl1\riLie th.e l1eCeSSar)l e\lide11ce deIllonstratillg tllat its existil1g tlperatit)n cOl1fornls t() tl1ese sta11dards ()r that its proposed operati()n \:\tc)tlld do se). J--I()vvever, as demo11.strated. abO\le and reflected ill the catalogue of cOlnplail1ts provided b~y LRA.P AI tIle City a11d COltnt}l ~h()tlld 110t rely ()n LRAPi\' as tll.eir proxy', LRAP A 11as failed to C011d.tlCt testing or mon.itoring to ensure that neighbor's are not recei\Tillg substalltial doses of harmful iIlhalable partiCtllate Inatter frC)ffi tIle Delta's existing O}lerat1C)n despite clllnplaillts regarding healt11 effects. Indeec1, LRAP A appears to l13\re taken no action tln. nlore thaI1 a tllird e)f tIle c()lnplail1ts from l1eig111Jors of the existing developlne11t. \I\litll regard to t11c)se ha11dful of complaillts that it does act ()11, .LRi\Pi\ eitl1er attelnpts tC) explain-av\t~ay the prol)leln or relies on Delta toad.dress its crvvn problems. It does not address conlpliance vvith eitl1er its C)'\t\}11 stalldartis or tll()Se ().f the DEQ e\'en \'v11en tllese issues are l1rollght t() its attentiC)11 11:/ con1plaillants. As a reslllt,LRi\Pi\ flvv()rks \.vithlf Delta oI11argely the saIne issu.es time-and-again \:\rithOttt reaching a resolution, al1.d vvhile failillg tC1 address pc)terltiall)! serious public health iSSltes. . It is little v'vonder t11atApplicant \1\ris11es tC) cl1ntin.ue rel)'illg 011. LRi\,Pi\'S oversight 110\:'\1 t11at it is proposin.g to relocate into the heart of a largo .elyl residential area. IJ1d.eed, it takes ll() 'b"-reatinl.agi11atiol1 tC) ~ ~ ~ al1ticipate tIle host ()f complaiI1ts that\\lill reCei\le norespc)nse, as Ule dllst fr()m i\llplicartt's to})sc)il strippill.g blc}vvs ilTto tIle residences C)rU y a fev'v hll11dreti feet a'vva}r. See Complaint No. 8371. I11deed, (J11e ca11 almost anticipate IJRi\P./\ ad\t'isi11g neig11110rs that t11ere is nc) health: risk, e\ren. as it fails t<'1 c()nduct testing to ellsure t11at the P1\lI 2.5 arld PI\ll 10 staIldards are 110t \riolated, an.d tl1at it is still vvorki11g vvitl1 the i\pplicant to s()lve the SalTI.e prol-')lelTIs. See COluplaint No. 13748. 1'11is is 11ot.ll1itigation, and it is nC)\tvhere n.ear substaI1tial ev~jdel1.Ce delTIOllstrating the al)Sel1Ce of a 1 Tvvo large parcels to tIle north are not predOlninantly reside11tial. One is a large area of agricultural property tllat vvould stand to receive substalltial dust frOITI i\pplic311t'S relocated haul road alolle. The otller is o\l\rned by' Euge1.1e'S 4J 5c11001 District.