pf_02867 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4. Everest requests a clarification as to why the Twin Lakes EA W analysis incorporated anticipated development on adjacent lots (including Centre Pointe) while the Centre Pointe EA W did not acknowledge the Twin Lakes development. Response: The Twin Lakes EA W assumed a project area build out year of201 O. The traffic analysis conducted for the EA W assumed year 2011 to reflect traffic conditions one year after build out. As a result it was appropriate for the Twin Lakes analysis to consider the cumulative effects of both the Twin Lakes and Centre Pointe developments because both would be fully built out by the year 2011. The Centre Pointe EA W traffic analysis and corresponding air quality and noise analyses assume the year 2001 to reflect post-development conditions. The City of Roseville indicated that by the year 200 I no additional development, beyond which is currently in place or under construction, is forecast to occur in the Twin Lakes project area. As a result, it was appropriate for the Centre Pointe EA W analysis to assume no additional development in Twin Lakes. 5. Everest states that the EA W analysis is flawed in assuming that no additional development will occur in the Twin Lakes project area until at least year 2001. Response: As indicated in the response to comment #4, the City of Roseville does not forecast any additional development in the Twin Lakes project area until at least the year 2001. This forecast is based upon the most recent development projections established by City staff. V. FINDINGS OF FACT/DECISION ON NEED FOR EIS Minnesota Rule 4410.1700, subp. 7 specifies the following criteria to be used in deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects: · Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; · Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; · The extent to which effects can be mitigated by ongoing public regulatory authorities; and · The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposers of an EIS previously prepared on similar projects. Based on the information contained in the Twin Lakes EA W, comments on the EA W, and the criteria listed above, the City of Roseville as the RGU makes the following determinations: · The project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. · The preparation of a State Environmental Impact Statement is not needed or recommended. · The City of Roseville and other agencies may issue permits to allow for construction in compliance with the rules of the EA Wand in conformance with the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act. 7