CC_Minutes_2010_1129 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Issues #6. The EAW does not adequately address issues related to the truck trips to /from this project site and trucks on or near the site. Issues #7. The EAW does not adequately address economic impacts to local businesses and homes. Issues #8. The EAW does not adequately address the cumulative impacts of the project. Issues #9. The submittals should include the Material Safety Data Sheet and an emergency response plan, including provisions for evacuation. These comments and issues are included in the existing written records at the MPCA and the City. Item #2: The draft Resolution denying the Conditional Use Permit Lists sufficient findings to support this denial by the City Council Neighbors Against the Asphalt Plant supports the draft Resolution. We find the list of findings provided to be sufficient to support the denial of the Conditional Use Permit. We are encouraged to see that findings are provided for both the City Code amendment adopted on October 11, 2010 and provisions of the City Code that were in place at the time of the original application for the CUP. We are impressed by the strength and breadth of the administrative record supporting the Resolution and the findings. This is based, in large part, on the substantive comments submitted by the residents and businesses that would be affected by the proposed asphalt plant. We are pleased to see that the Resolution is clear and definitive. In some cases, the findings are based on information in the EAW. Based on the manner in which numerous statements and estimates were revised by the applicant between the CUP submittal materials and the EAW submittals, the City should consider the information in the EAW to probably be underestimates and understatements of conditions on the site and impacts of the proposed project. If an EIS was required by the MPCA, we believe that new estimates and impacts would emerge. This leads NAAP to conclude that the staff findings are probably conservative and that the CUP denial is entirely appropriate and necessary. Item #3: Please add a finding to the list provided in the draft Resolution, as follows: #8.O.: The proposed asphalt plant proposal does not meet City Code 1007.01.D.7: "Explosives: No activities involving the storage, utilization or manufacture of materials or products which could decompose by detonation shall be permitted except such as are specifically licensed by the city council." This finding is supported by information provided by NAAP in the attached material, including: a list of 21 explosions and/or fires at asphalt plants in the U.S. and Canada between 1997 and 2010, information from a recent newspaper article indicating that the MPCA did not address a risk assessment for spills or explosions in their environmental review, and information from asphalt, oil, and paving trade journals and an asphalt Material Data Safety Sheet indicating that asphalt plant explosions and fires are considered to be significant hazards. Submittal by Neighbors Against the Asphalt Plant November 29, 2010 page 2 of 4