2001_0212_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

3.0 STAFF COMMENT and RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 The Council decided on a scenario(s) for a more detailed AUAR review on January 8, 2001. The Council should approve the work plan and costs for the AUAR 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 modif'ications. 3.2 Staff has met with Planning Consultant, DSU to develop a work plan and cost estimate for the project based upon the recommended land uses. In addition, staff has received a work plan and costs far the air quality, noise, and traff'ic consultant (SRF� to evaluate the estimated capacities and impacts of recommended redevelopment plan. There is an opporiunity to partner with the I-35W Coalition's traff'ic consultant, SRF, in this effort as they look at the traff'ic impact all along the entire corridor based upon the build out study. The work plans are attached. The estimated costs are $54,000 for the DSU portion of the AUAR and $39,500 far the SRF portion of the plan. (These costs are not excessive front end investments when considering the new development could add between $200 and $400 million in new buildings and site improvements.) 3.3 The AUAR approach to environmental review is recommended over more parcel specific approaches such as an EAW or EIS for several reasons: L It requires the technical rigor of an EIS, the most rigorous farm 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 projects 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. 5. This type of process is more proactive and visionary and provides for a more comprehensive master plan. In addition, the process removes a redevelopment barrier by decreasing the environmental review process for projects by six months to a year. This savings is time can be very significant in the site selection process for major corporations. Once the AUAR is complete, the community, developers and companies will have a better understanding of what is expected in the redevelopment process. 6. Alternatives do exist which would reduce the city's role, but at the same time slow the potential redevelopment. (1) The City could decide not to complete further planning or environmental work and place that burden on each individual development and property owner as (ifj they come farth with projects. (2) The City could request fmancial participation (payment, deferred payment, or assessment) from the existing property owners, with the city to be reimbursed at the time of redevelopment (issuance of building permits). PF3232 — RCA(021201) Page 2 of 3