2006_1204_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

water and wastewater analyses, forecasts, and impacts would need to be re- examined. Eliminating a scenario from the AUAR Update decreases its flexibility. The projects will need to fall within development limits set forward in the scenario or be subject to an envirorirr�er�tal assessment. Removing Scenario 1B from the existing draft Final AUAR Update may be slightly more costly than keeping it in the document as this would require adjusting the worst-case scenario for water and wastewater. The consultant would need to update the forecasts to determine level impact using the numbers from Scenario lA. C. Release the current draft, with minor revisions, to the commentin�a e� ncies: The current draft Final Twin Lake Business Park AUAR Update could be reviewed and determined "complete and accurate" by the City Council with some minor revisions. Scenario 1 B can remain in the document. This is a viable development alternative for the study area and reflects impacts if the area would develop in a more housing focused manner than during the preparation of the original 2001 AUAR. Ti�siead of describing this scenario as that of a known development plan, it could be explained as a second comprehensive plan scenario as this plan was deemed to not conflict with the City's existing Comprehensive Plan. As described above, maintaining a second alternative in the AUAR Update allows for increased flexibility within the document. The AUAR puts forward maximum levels of development that can take place within the AUAR area as a whole and any identified subareas. If a project is proposed that exceeds these thresholds, it must go through the environmental assessment process, which could significantly delay the project. Again, this review would only take into consideration the impacts generated by this project—not those generated by the redevelopment of the entire AUAR area. Increase flexibility in the document does not equal a lax mitigation strategy. In fact, the analysis that leads to deta��:i��ing the mitigation strategy will have examined a wider breadth of potential worst-case scenarios. The document examines the worst- case scenario for the various components of analysis (traffic, air quality, wastewater, etc.). For example, retail creates more �raf�'ic than housing, thus the worst-case traffic scenario is related to retail; housing creates more wastewater, so the worst-case scenario for wastewater are those associated with increased housing. Completing minor edits to the AUAR Update would not significantly increase the cost of the AUAR Update. Traffic and stonnwater management modeling and forecasts would remain the same as the "worst-case" scenario would continue to be included. All of the analyses would remain the same with tweaks to the language that describes Scenario 1B. D. Pre�are a third scenario: An RGU is not limited to the number of development scenarios that are included in an AUAR. The current AUAR includes two scenarios—Scenario lA, which is based on the Comprehensive Plan designation and Scenario l�, which integrated the Twin Lakes West conceptplan. Scenario iA puts forward fairly intense development through out the AUAR area, while Scenario 1� Page 3 of 4