CC_Minutes_2004_1206 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

8. Paragraph F of Subpart 7, Rule 4410.3610 requires further environmental review when "development or construction of public facilities will occur on a schedule other than that assumed in the environmental analysis document or plan for mitigation so as to substantially increase the likelihood or magnitude of potential adverse environmental impacts or to substantially postpone the implementation of identified mitigation measures." The AUAR and mitigation plan identified a number of road improvements and intersection modifications that are required to mitigate traffic impacts of redevelopment under the assumptions of the AUAR [AUAR pp. 44-45]. These identified improvements modifications have not been completed, or will not occur according to the time schedule required in the AUAR to mitigate traffic impacts of redevelopment. (See AI Sands letter dated November 18, 2004; Memorandum from Stephen C. Wilson, SRF Consulting Group, Inc. dated November 30, 2004.) At least one mitigation requirement is not possible: an intersection of Twin Lakes Parkway and Snelling. (See discussion in paragraph 7(C) above}. The council finds that implementation of mitigation measures identified in the AUAR has been substantially postponed, and that this substantially increases the likelihood or magnitude of potential adverse envu.onmental impacts relating to increased traffic levels that cannot be supported by existing infrastructure. 9. Under Paragraph G, Subpart 7, Rule 4410.3610, the council finds that the following new information demonstrates important assumptions or background conditions used in the ADAR analysis are "substantially in error" and that environmental impacts of redevelopment in the area have consequentially been substantially underestimated: A. The AUAR assumed "no known hazards to groundwater" [ADAR paragraph 20(b), p. 38]. Groundwater contamination involving the hazardous chemical TeE has since been discovered in the area. (See DPRA Twin Lakes Area Groundwater Study Report dated August 2004; Letter from Judy Helgen dated October 17, 2004; presentation by Margaret Rattei at November 22, 2004 council hearing). The council finds that important AUAR assumptions and background conditions concerning the absence of groundwater contamination are now substantially in error, that adverse environmental impacts of redevelopment in the area have thus been substantially underestimated, and that further investigation and environmental review is needed on the nature and scope of the TeE contamination in the area. B. State water quality rules governing water quality standards applicable to the Langton Lake and Twin Lakes area were amended in 2002, after the AUAR was conducted and adopted in 2001. Further amendments to these rules are expected to take effect in 2005. (See letter from Steven Heiskary, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, dated November 19, 2004; letter 3