CC_Minutes_2004_1122 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

NOV-22-2004 MON 03:06 PM MN PLANNING 651 297 2820 r'rom: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Gregg Downing Monday, November 22, 2004 2:48 F 'Scott T. Anderson' 'Tam McGehee' RE: EAW Petition and AUAR for Roseville Twin Lakes Project Post:'t" Fax NotE\" 7671 Oil 10 L # of ~ ..E,agas To From Co./Dopt. Co. Phone it Phone # . Fax # Fax 1# ~ Downin~ Dear Mr. Anderson: I am replying to the questions raised in your e-mail to me of earlier today. Your first question is whether the appropriate issue for the City to address in rl~spcnse to the petition is whether the ALTAR rerr:ains valid, as deter-mined by t.he upda ing criteria of subpart 7, and whether in making this detQrmin&tion the City should base ts con~iderCl.tion on changes in "raw numbers' for. the development or rather shou d constder whether analysis shows a subscantial incl."ea~e in the adverse el1vircnmencal irnpactEl assumed in the l>-.UAR. In our telephone conversation, we discussed vJhether my e-mail response to Ms. Tam McGehee of November 19, 2004 suggested that the raw numbers of the indiviliual types of land uses were to be the aeterrnining factor. 'itJe would agree tha.t in the final analysis what is important is the potential for nelJJ or increased adverse environmental effects due to changes in the land use scenarios l:hat ha'\le not been adee::uately addressed and mitigated. by tl:61 existing AUAR. In most: cases ;I.n the past, the RGUs have answered this question by merely examin.ing the II raw nUlytbe:cs; If that is, the RGU hZIS not obt,:d.ned j.nformacion compa:r..i.ng cr..e actual expected difference~ in the environmencal impact.s lik.ely to resul::. front the change in the land uses. In the ttbsence of such information, and with only the Ifraw numbersu to work with, the decision must necess6l.yily depend on the differences in the "raw numbers" (In other words, the raw mbers are taken as a surrogate for impacts). It was with this presumption in mJ.nd that responded to Mr. McGehee's a-mail. If, on the contrary, the City has actually obtained st:fficient information about the actual differences in impacts likely due to the changes in the development numbers;, it seems reasonable that the Clty should rely on that: informacion instead of the ~raw nurnbersll themselves because this information will bettej;" estimac.e the degr.ee o;E differences to be experienced by the environment. However, if the City chooses tllat approach I would caution thac the City ought to be sure that it does have enough clnELlytical information to support a decision on chis basis. Xf. the ":t:aw numbers" indicate a substantial change in devc:!lopment, that woulci seem to establish a pr'esumption that the AU.Zl.R needed updating. In that case, the RGU would need sufficient analysis inforrt1ation to rebu.t that presumption. If necessary information is lacking', it may be be8t t.o s:i.mpl;; rely on the differences in the development numbers. (We do not know enough about the specifics here to have an opinion on which way would seem better here.) Your second question concerns the EQB's view of the proper procedure to :CollowJ.f the City should determine the AUAR to need updating, specifically, whether an EAV.]/EIS P):'OC(~S8 ;;hould be follo~tJed or an AUAR updating- process. It has bta@n our consistent view l~hat since t.he AOAR p:r.ocess is a legitimate substitute for EAWS and EISs, that it is a.l.ways appropl-iate for ar. RGU to choose to do an .b.UAR (assuming there is an adequate comp plan and that the restriction en land uses undQr an AT:AR are met) in any case where environmental review is requ.ired or ordered. fI.Je do not believe that an RGU is locked into prepat"'ing an EAvV in responses to a successful petition; an AUAR is also a leg:Ltirnate response in our view. In regard to the final quesc10n about the appropriate~ess of the procedures used l)y the Cicy to solicit public input into the ciecision, as I indicated in our telephone conversation, the City has provided a lot more 'process' than is required by the EQB's .- 'les and 'i.11hich constderably exceeds what is typically the process used in responding to a :ition. As you know, che EQB'a rules provide almost no instructions for what process _l1e assigned RGLT is to use in dealing \'v.i.\:.11 ':1 peti tion. Our standard guidance to }tGUs is that they use whatever proc ss they 'i.'JQuld no.r-mally follow, under their ordinances and rules of procedur'e. for sim l&.r types of a.ction. It appears chat the City has given all interested parties plenty 0 opportunity to be heard, and that the process is fair to all 1