Laserfiche WebLink
<br />D. Development within any subarea delineated in the environmental analysis <br />document would exceed the maximum levels assumed for that subarea in <br />the document. <br /> <br />E. A substantial change is proposed in public facilities intended to service <br />development in the area that may result in increased adverse impacts on the <br />environment. <br /> <br />F. Development or construction of public facilities will occur on a schedule <br />other than that assumed in the environmental analysis document or plan for <br />mitigation so as to substantially increase the likelihood or magnitude of <br />potential adverse environmental impacts or to substantially postpone the <br />implementation of identified mitigation measures. <br /> <br />G. New information demonstrates that important assumptions or background <br />conditions used in the analysis presented in the environmental analysis <br />document are substantially in error and that environmental impacts have <br />consequently been substantially underestimated. <br /> <br />H. The RGU determines that other substantial changes have occurred that may <br />affect the potential for, or magnitude of, adverse environmental impacts. <br /> <br />6. Regarding paragraph A of subpart 7 of Rule 4410.3610, the AUAR was adopted <br />by the Council on August 13,2001; Petitioners do not allege that the AUAR is <br />more than five years old. Hence, the Council determines that paragraph A is no <br />basis for invalidating the AUAR. <br /> <br />7. Regarding paragraph B of subpart 7 of Rule 4410.3610, Petitioners allege that this <br />paragraph applies, and the AUAR is invalid, because a comprehensive plan <br />amendment should be adopted by the City in order to permit the Rottlund proposal <br />to proceed. The Council determines that paragraph B does not, however, apply to <br />invalidate the AUAR for the following reasons: <br /> <br />. The City attorney has advised the Council, by written opinion, that the <br />Rottlund proposal does not require a comprehensive plan amendment <br />. No comprehensive plan amendment has been proposed or presented to the <br />Council for consideration <br />. Since paragraph B applies only when "A comprehensive plan amendment <br />is proposed", it has no application in the present case. <br /> <br />8. Regarding paragraph C of subpart 7 of Rule 4410.3610, Petitioners allege that the <br />AUAR is invalid because total development in the area will exceed the maximum <br /> <br />12 <br />