Laserfiche WebLink
.� <br />Members of the Roseville City Council <br />November 23, 2010 <br />Page b <br />Maximum Acute Risk Values <br />Max Acute Risk <br />0.46 <br />0.22 <br />0.20 <br />0.16 <br />0.12 <br />0.10 <br />o.os <br />0.06 <br />0.04 <br />0.02 <br />H2S <br />Concentration <br />(N9/m3) <br />21.54 <br />4.99 <br />4.54 <br />3.63 <br />2.72 <br />z.v <br />i.sz <br />1.36 <br />0.91 <br />0.45 <br />� <br />EE��� <br />�oss c� Barnett <br />H2S Odor <br />Threshold -ATSDR <br />(u9/m3) <br />0.7 <br />0.7 <br />0.7 <br />0.7 <br />0.7 <br />o.� <br />o.� <br />0.7 <br />0.7 <br />0.7 <br />The analysis shows and establishes that the odors will be readily <br />detectibie beyond the boundaries of the immediate site. Hydrogen Sulfide gas is <br />a health risk and Hydrogen Sulfide odor is objectionable and a nuisance. <br />The conclusion is clear: odors will be detectible well-beyond the properry line, violating the <br />performante standard. The violation is prohibited and th� asphal± plar,t is prohibited. <br />4. The project cannot satisfy the conditional use permit standards. <br />The EAW process intervened in the City's process for determining whether the project satisfied <br />the conditional use criteria for outdoor storage. If the Councii determines that in fact the <br />asphalt plant is a legal use, the EAW process should still proceed. Assuming for the sake of <br />argument, however, that at some point the City undertakes the conditional use analysis, <br />interested parties, including Gladstone, need an opportunity to comment. The conditional use <br />criteria do not mirror the e�vironmental analysis for the EfiW, and the record has expanded <br />from what was previously available to the City. Even at that, the record should be <br />supplemented to address the conditional use criteria. Nonetheless, the City has legally <br />sufficient reasons to deny the conditional use application. <br />Regardless of any ultimate conclusion by MPCA as to public health risks, the asphalt plant will <br />have a direc[ and negative effect on the adjacent properties. \�th respect to impact on the <br />general public health safety and welfare, the record is replete with factual matters raising <br />objections and concerns regarding the impact over and above any health risk determination by <br />the MPCA. Odors and particulates are the most obvious problems. <br />The e�ensive outdoor storage and the asphalt plant will have a direct and negative effect on <br />the overall development pattem and the use and development of adjacent properties, including, <br />� <br />� <br />� <br />