2004_1108_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

�1��4��t i�; � RFITWIE< R05ZAK MALONEY G�� 33'� 0�3� P,�3 Mayor Klausing Roseville City Council November 3,2004 Page 2 of 3 determine whether action on the Petition is necessary. As we have advised you, action on the Petition is a condition precedent to consideration of the Twin Lakes Development Proposal. By way of background, the City prepared an Alternative Urban Area-wide Review ("AUAR") study of the Twin Lakes area in 2001. The AUAR was adopted and approved per EQB rules. By EQB rule, any future project in the study area is exempt from further environmentaI review so long as the AUAR remains valid. EQB rules specify circumstances under which an AUAR becomes invalid. These include, very generally speaking, circumstances where "substantial changes" have occurred since the AUAR study was conducted that demonstrate the study is substantially in error, or that environmental effects have been substantially underestimated. The principal question for Council determination, as it relates to the Petition, is whether the AUAR remains valid. If the document remains valid, the Council must necessarily conclude that no further environmental review is necessary, or may be required. Consequently, the Petition would be summarily dismissed. EQB Rules do not define the process for determining continuing validity of an AUAR as an alternative form or method of environmental review. EQB Rules do require that a determination be made by December 6,2004. Based on this requirement, and taking into consideration the interest in pursuing a good supportable decision resulting from a fair process, we recommend the following procedure be utilized by the Council: i. On November 8, adopt the process described herein. 2. Require the Petitioners and Project Proposer to submit information in writing supporting their positions on the continuing validity of the AUAR (See attached letters). The written submittals would be due by 4:QQ p.m. on November 15. 3. Allow Petitioners and the Proj ect Proposer to submit written materials in direct reply to the other party's written materials by 4:00 p.m. on November 17. 4, Hold a hearing on November 22, allowing the Petitioners and the Project Proposer one hour each to summarize their pasi�i ��s, � Since the Petitioners carry the burden in this case, they would present first. The Proj ect Proposer would present second. Staff would also presentpertinent informationto the Council. ' This hearing is not a public hearing reguired by law, so the Council could permit OT not permit further testimony by other parties.