CC PACKET 05281996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i which action is taken. Cities should What about other state the environmental review requirements always be certain, though, that notice is or federal requirements? that are set by state law. given within the time limit set by the How do these basic requirements Understanding these environmental new statute.Many cities take prelimi- under the new statute apply when a requirements requires us to wade into nary action at one meeting, and proposal requires the approval of other the alphabet soup of state statutes and formally approve reasons for their government bodies or when environ- rules addressing the Environmental decision at a subsequent meeting.This mental statutes apply?The new statute Quality Board(EQB), Environmental approach is probably acceptable as answers some of these questions and Impact Statements (EISs) and Environ- long as the final approval and notifica- raises some doubts about others. mental Assessment Worksheets tion occurs within a reasonable period (EAWs). Under the state Environmen- and before the time limit set by the What about 'al Policy Act(Minn. Stat. Ch. 116D) new statute. environmental review? and rules that were adopted by the The penalty for failing to meet the What if state law requires the EQB,government bodies must prepare new time limits is harsh:automatic preparation of environmental docu- environmental documents under approval of the application. It is ments?The new statute provides that certain conditions.Two different kinds important for all cities to understand the time limits are extended if a state of environmental documents maybe how the new statute works to avoid statute requires a"process"to occur required:EISs or EAWs.Environmental inadvertent approval of land use before the city acts on the application Impact Statements are full evaluations applications.The basic requirements of when that"process"will make it of the environmental effects of a I the new statute are discussed in greater impossible for the city to act within 60 proposal and of alternatives to it.The detail in the April 1996 issue of days.The statute's use of the word purpose of the EIS under state law is to Minnesota Cities magazine. "process"is undoubtedly a reference to help determine whether or not a opportunity to waive information S.What steps will the city take to need not be elaborate to be"-';-' , requirements not needed for a ensure that the record is.com effective. �� particular application. plete? On judicial review, a court mays P 4. What grounds should the city If the standards'set out by"the;"--. inquire whether any record evidence . use for extensions? Supreme Court in the case of supported the city's decision. -If ftie„_'The new law allows a city to Swanson v- City of Bloomington 421, only record evidence was generated . extend the 60-day time limit for a_ N.W.2d 307 (Minn.'19.88)' are met,: by the applicant,the answer to that period up to an additional 60 days if .r:rm _ judicial review of.the city's`decision question may�well be "no." Eyen,; the city gives a written notice before - will be confined to the record that'- simple and inexpensive stafflanalyses the initial 60 days run that notifies :- was developed before the city are better than no city analysis and the applicant of two things:the Because the'timetable'unde'r the new may provide a"sufficient basis for the reason for the extension and the statute will be more compressed,the city's decision..: .. •`..- length of the extension.The fad that city must.give.early thought to Endnote h the city must specify a reason sug- identifying and documenting any gests that a blanket extension would concerns raised by the project. If it 1. Under the Swanson case,the me ' not pass muster.A blanket extension does'not do so,the statutory time; courts limit their review that is equally applicable to all cities period,may slip by and the.record dente that was presented and to all applications would "swal- before the tit ma be confinedfo`' : pp Y Y city and do not consider new . low" the general statutory 60-day material developed and presented_by evidence if two requirement s:a re _ rule, and would ignore the require the'applicant, even if real concerns met. First,=a complete record must F ment that a reason be provided for are posed bythe`proposal. In_that;: be available.showing what trKi city . the extension. -case, a city`s decision to deriy a `considered, including tapes o�, ; What constitutes sufficient proposal would likely not survive. transcripts of'planning commission grounds for an extension?The need review.by the courts: ;f and city council proceedings to collect further'information'on an-, T0`make'sure that the record is:;_> Second,the city's consideratiorF,-,_. application or to.conduct further balanced and that the city is not- must have been :'full and fair-� analysis because of its'size or tom boxed into approvals,the city should '.. The Swanson decision plexity, or because of the sensitivity systemize a way to identify concerns that standard is met where;ifie of the affected area, are solid ` - with a proposal and to develo P P P.'.�;�: :� property owner has been�giyer}; _ grounds for an extension. Grounds = record evidence documenting'.th6se sufficient_opportunity to present., for an extension could also include _ concerns where appropriate.-A_good relevant material to the city; M. circumstances that distinguish one time for staff to identify the need for has been given the opportunity to` - city from cities in general.The - any record evidence would be at or answer questions and react&16e argument could be made that, while following an pre-application "`' g 9 Y P PP testimony of other participants:,,- the 60-day limit was intended to. meeting with staff, or during the .These two standards are explained apply to cities in general, it was not initial 10-day period for evaluation of more fully by the court in the r Swanson decision. t intended to apply to a articular city applications.An staff analysis o or under specific circumstances. other analysis generated by-the city = : : .. . ..._ .. .__._-----•-- -- -,. . . ._.. . . .._ ._ ._ ._ _.,_Fig:=;:._.. .-