My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf09-010
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
2009
>
pf09-010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2014 3:32:19 PM
Creation date
6/24/2013 3:41:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
09-010
Planning Files - Type
Conditional Use Permit
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
651
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
''� <br />Submittal by Neighbors Against the Asphalt Plant <br />November 29, 2010 <br />to the Roseville City Council <br />� <br />Item #1: Mischaracterization of the status of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet <br />(EAW) <br />In a letter dated November 10, 2010 written on behalf of Bituminous Roadways, Gregory <br />Korstad of Larkin Hoffinan Attorneys states: <br />•"The result of the environmental review process to date is that an environmental <br />assessment worksheet has been prepared which concludes that the proposed facility <br />does not present a potential for significant environmental impacts from the proposed <br />project." <br />•"The present status of the environmental review is that the technical and scientific <br />analysis of the project demonstrates the lack of adverse effects from the proposed <br />project." <br />It is inaccurate and misleading to state that the EAW "concludes" or "demonstrates" anything <br />authoritatively. The EAW's current status is that: <br />l. It is a draft document. <br />2. The MPCA received 167 comments on the EAW, many of which raised specific and <br />significant questions about the methodology used and conclusions drawn in the EAW. <br />3. The City of Roseville submitted comments and requested that an EIS be required <br />because "the City believes the proposed project will have significant environmental <br />effects that need to be further studied and finds that the current EAW response <br />inadequately addresses the environmental effects of the proposed asphalt plant" (City <br />letter to the MPCA, Sept. 10, 2010). <br />4. The MPCA suspended the environmental review process without responding to any <br />of the comments or formally accepting or adopting the EAW. <br />The City should consider the EAW to be only a draft document. Additionally, based on the <br />manner in which numerous statements and estimates were revised by the applicant between the <br />CUP submittal materials and the EAW submittals, the City should consider the information in <br />the EAW to probably be underestimates and understatements of conditions on the site and <br />environmental impacts of the proposed project. <br />Neighbors Against the Asphalt Plant submitted formal comments and a contested case hearing <br />petition related to the EAW. The following issues were raised. These issues have not been <br />addressed by the MPCA or any other regulatory body. <br />Issues #1. The traffic analysis in the EAW is insufficient and flawed. <br />Issues #2. The stormwater (surface-water runoffl analysis in the EAW is insufficient and <br />flawed. <br />Issues #3. The dust analysis in the EAW is insufficient and flawed. <br />Issues #4. The air emissions and odors analysis in the EAW is insufficient and flawed. <br />Issues #5. The noise analysis in the EAW is insufficient and flawed. <br />Submittal by Neighbors Against the Asphalt Plant November 29, 2010 page 1 of 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.