CC_Minutes_2007_0820 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

L, ~-~. J,~i'ti-~" i f D /'~~! C®~~e~ts ~®r ~/2®/07 ~®sev~~fle C>l~y C®u~c~l l~ee~Il~~ '~'a~ 1cGefl~ee 1. When is an "update" no longer an "update?" This "update" appears to be a new AUAR. This assertion is based upon the changes in the underlying assumptions as well as the changes in subareas. Both of these alterations make it very difficult to actually compare and analyze the changes particularly with respect to density, intensity, and traffic. These key factors are essential to any meaningful environmental review. Furthermore, if this is a new AUAR and not an update, then the review process by the agencies and the public should be greater. 2. An AUAR under EQB rules must have a scenario consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. When the Twin Lakes Master Plan was amended into the Comprehensive Plan it specifically outlined the development approved in this area. In the Friends of Twin Lakes litigation the court stated that this plan was part of the Comprehensive Plan. This "updated" AUAR has no scenario consistent with the Twin Lakes Master Plan as Amended to the Comprehensive Plan on June 26, 2001. Transcripts of the Council Meeting where the Amendment was discussed and passed clearly outline the reasons that the "Retail Scenario 1A" was specifically deleted from the amendment. It also provides a clear and comprehensive discussion of the reasons the staff supported and the Council approved only Scenario 1 for the area. If more support than the transcript of the meeting is needed, Page 9 of the Twin Lakes Master Plan includes a chart stating 0% retail both before and after redevelopment. 3. It appears from the scenarios proposed in this AUAR "update" that the increase in density and retail is consistenfi with exactly the "Retail Scenario 1A" of the Twin Lakes Master Plan- exactly the scenario that was rejected by the Council and is not part of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. As for the additional environmental review requested by the Court in the Twin Lakes litigation, it has not been done (with the exception of a bit for Xtra Lease and Old Dominion). There has been no additional work trying to identify the source of TCE contamination in the ground water. In fact, it is known that there is TCE in the ground water from the five monitoring wells. What the city has failed to do at either the request of citizens or the court is to construct additional wells to see if the TCE is flowing across the site or originating on the site in isolated pockets. The AUAR cannot conclude that there are "no known hazards to groundwater" when there are known to be at least pockets of TCE which are now or could be due to construction leaking into the groundwater. In spite of commentary in the newspaper and comments by the DNR and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the EAW review process for the proposed Northwestern College expansion, this AUAR fails to provide any analysis of permanent or migratory wildlife in the area. This AUAR wishes to rest upon the fact that there are no "endangered species" here rather than address the requests of the DNR and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding great concern for the small amount and continuing loss of wildlife habitat in the northern suburbs. The wildlife corridor from Langton Lake to Oasis Pond along the ditch to Little Lake Johanna and on to Lake Johanna is a critical wildlife habitat area. Testimony during the Twin Lakes review and litigation by a noted birder and faculty member of the University of