2001_0108_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

project(s), such as Veritas, and provide the framework for a more practical mixed used business park. 3.0 STAFF COMMENT and RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 As outlined above, the detailed renewal strategy process is well under way. Once the Council decides on a scenario(s), a more detailed AUAR review can begin, culminating in final approval of changes to the Comprehensive Plan. The Council needs to accept or reject the Commissions recommended scenario which will provided "direction and define the scope" for further study. Should the detailed AUAR study of the selected scenario uncover some significant new environmental, physical, or fiscal impacts, the Plan and the scenarios would be brought back to the Commission and Council for further modifications. 3.2 To begin the AUAR review process staff will work more closely with Planning Consultant, DSU to develop a work plan and cost estimate for the project based upon the recommended land uses. In addition, there will be a need to hire a traffic consultant to evaluate the estimated traffic capacity of recommended redevelopment plan. There is an opportunity to partner with the I-3 SW Coalition's traffic consultant, SRF, in this effort as they look at the traffic impact all along the entire corridor based upon the build out study. 3.3 Staff will return to Council with a request to approve a work plan and costs associated with the development and review of the AUAR by DSU and traffic study by SRF in late January. 3.4 The staff prepared both visual and technical reports necessary to evaluate the impact to the community of the 270 acre redevelopment master plan, including 46 parcels. The technical plan amendment describes the possible redevelopment of between 2.1 and 3.5 million square feet of building area depending on the height of the structures and the traffic and utility capacities. 3.5 Focus group meetings have been held. A staff summary the findings is attached. 3.6 An AUAR approach to environmental review is recommended over more parcel specific approaches such as an EAW or EIS for several reasons: 1. It requires the technical rigor of an EIS, the most rigorous form of review, but uses the convenient "worksheet" format of an EAW. 2. Unlike an EIS or EAW, an AUAR requires mitigation of the project's environmental impacts. 3. An AUAR addresses impacts of future development, as well as of the proposed project. 4. As a result, future proj ects in an AUAR study area may not require further detailed environmental review, if they are consistent with original AUAR assumptions, their impacts do not exceed those anticipated by the AUAR and mitigation measures are implemented, as required by the AUAR. PF3232 — RCA(010801) Page 3 of 6