pf_03022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4. Everest requests a clarification as to why the T\\ in Lakes EA \\" analysis incorporated anticipated development on adjacent lots (including Centre Pointc) while [he Centre Pointe EA W did not acknowledge the Twin Lakes developm.ent. Response. The Twin Lakes EA \V assumed a project area bu i Id out year of 20 1 O. The traffic anal:s is conducted for the EA \V assumed year :;011 to reflect traffic conditions one year after build OUI. As a result it was appropriate for the Twin lakes analysis to consider the cumulative effects of both the Twin Lakes and Centre Poinre developments because both would be fully built out by the year 20 II. The Centre Pointe EAW 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! 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 E.-\ \\' analysis to assume no additional development in Twin Lakes. 5. Everest states that the EA \V analysis is flawed in assuming that no additional de\'elopmc:rH \\ ill occur in the Twin Lakes project area until at least :-~ar :00 I. kzsponS2: As indicated in the r~sponse to corn:nent ::4. [he City of ROSc\ilk docs not f~)r.:.:clS: .111\ additional development in the Twin Lakes proj~ct area until at leas! the :-ear :00 I. Thj~ fl)r':':,bl i~ based upon the most recent development projections established b:- Cit: staff. v. FI:\DI:"iGS OF F ACTfDECISIO~ 0:--; i'EED FOR EIS Minnesota Rule 4410.\ 700, subp. 7 specifies the following criteria to be used in deciding whether a pr0ject 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 detenninations: · 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 ;n compliance with the rules of the EAW and in confonnance with the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act. 7