pf09-010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Members of the Roseville Gty Council November 23, 2010 Page 4 � t�<�� Moss & Barnett drawn into the Gladstone building from multiple roof air intakes. Uses in the building, such as the data center, are sensitive to dust and particulates, and dust and particulates will interfere with those uses. The performance standard reflects the legislattve decision that designation of the district as "Industrial" does not mean that the uses in the district must tolerate dust from other uses in the area. There is an abundance of evidence in the record establishing that particulate mat[er wiil be perceptible beyond the premises of the asphalt plant, and that regardless of the adequacy or inadequacy of the mitigation technology, the particulate matter will interfere with the use of adjacent properties. c. Toxic or noxious matter. The asphalt plant emissions will contain a multiplicity of problematic materials serious enough to require an EAW and EIS. The City's standard does not require a demonstration that a use will violate MPCA health standards for the Council to find that the use will violate the performance standard. Even if the control technology works as advertised, emissions witl cross the properry line. They will impair the overall public health, safety, comfort and welfare of the area and cause injury or damage to property and businesses. The EAW analysis of toxic matter concerns the MPCA's health risk standards and asserts that at the property line the emissions do not violate that standard. The EAW assumes the effectiveness of the proposed control technology, but the Letters raise numerous problems with that assumption and the technical analysis it depends upon. The analysis described in the Letters shows that particulate matter will qet �ast the property line. There will be adverse effects on other properties, including the Gladstone property and the Old Dutch property. Consequently the performance standard wili not be satisfied. d. Qdo� vvi!! be reatlilv dgtettible beyonc! the bosandasy of the immediate site of the asphalt plant. The project as proposed does not satisfy the performance standard. There is no reason to proceed further with the any application regarding the project. Section 1007.O1.D.4 of the City Code states: Odors: The emission of odorous matter in such quantities as to be readily detectible beyond the boundaries of the immediate site is prohibited. The data in the EAW shows that the asphalt plant wilt violate this standard. The Letters raise numerous concems regarding the selection of odor standard in the EAW, the effectiveness of the mitigation technology, and the potential effect on adjacent property. The EAW asserts that "with controls in place, HZS impacts at the property line and nearest residence are not expeded to be significant." As described in the Letters, air quality expert Patrick ]. Mulloy raised numerous concerns and questions regarding the effectiveness of the mitigation technology and the merits of the underlying odor modeling. Most importantly, for purposes of applying the performance standard there is one unassailable fact, odors will be readily detectible beyond the boundaries of the immediate site. This will occur even if the mitigation technology works as assumed in the EAW. ..� � �..