pf07-021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

�homas Paschke � From: Scott T. Anderson [sanderson@ratwiklaw.comJ Sent: To: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 10:22 AM Bill Malinen; Thomas Paschke Cc: Jay T. Squires; mdarrow@sehinc.com Subject: Re: FW: 2700 Cleveland Avenue � • Page 1 of 3 I reviewed Mr. Livingston's latest position, i.e., he should be exempt from environmental review under Minn. Rule Section 4410.4600, subp. 10. Apparently he would claim that as his hotel is only listed as slightly less than 74,000 square feet, he comes within the exemption. That reasoning is not consistent with the rules or this rule. The project being proposed in this case consists of two commercial facilities, a hotel and a restaurant. The restaurant is an additional 5000 square feet, putting the project, at Mr. Livingston's own numbers, at a gross square footage of 78,364. These two building have to be analyzed together in terms of the exemptions--�, the entire 4410 rules are, with few exceptions, project based in terms of their analysis and the application of the rules. This interpretation, and the square footage assessment of what this project is above, is shared by the EQB in their interpretation of the operation of the rules (I spoke with them on ]uly 27). The assertion of exemption is simply another attempt to avoid examination of any potential environmental impacts that may be involved in this proposed development. Second, Mr. Livingston asserts that since he sent a completed EAW form to the City, the Rules only give the City 30 days to determine if it is complete or not. That is an incorrect reading of the Rules. Rule 4410.1400 deals with the preparation of the EAW. It does not give a time limit for determining whether the form is complete or not. It does say the RGU should promptly determine whether it is complete, but the fact that no time limit is attached to that is an acknowledgment that each fact circumstance may differ as to whether and what is necessary. The time limit in Rule 4410.1400 is for after the RGU has determined the submission is complete. Thereafter the RGU has 30 days to add supplementary material to it and approve it for distribution. The other time limits in the EAW process are the 30 day notice and comment period (Rule 4410.1600): the 30 days to decide whether an EIS is necessary after the close of the comment period (Rule 4410.1700); and, under the same section, the 30 days the RGU can extend the decision on the need for an EIS if it deems there is insufficient information that can be obtained (based on the comments received). No 30 day period such as that described by Mr. Livingston appears in the Rules. Finally, I seem to recall that Mr. Livingston in two meetings stated on the record he had not submitted the EAW form in order to voluntarily undertake environmental review. He was merely giving staff information they said they wanted. An EAW was just ordered at the last meeting, and this was submitted before then. As far as I am concerned, there is no problem with timing in this case in terms of our review of the document. This is particularly true given the positions Mr. Livingston keeps asserting. What staff will be doing at this juncture is to assess the EAW form submitted and determine what, if anything, is missing that staff believes is required. This is done with reference to the completed form and the guidelines for an EAW that are published by the EQB. What staff does then, if the EAW is missing information, is to "return the submittal to the proposer for completion of the missing data." I know Jay and Thomas will be discussing this project tomorrow in office hours. But I wanted to respond to Mr. Livingston's inaccurate assertions as to what the rules mean and require in this case. Scott T. Anderson Scott T. Anderson »> "Bill Malinen" <bill.malinen@ci.roseville.mn.us> 7/27/2007 4:37 PM »> 07/31 /2007