02-9143r
75
I
RESOLUTION NO. 9143
RESOLUTION DETERMINING ADEQUACY OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT AND APPROVING RECORD OF DECISION
BEST BUY CAMPUS
WHEREAS, Best Buy Corporation is the Proposer of a 42-acre office development located
between 76th and 78th Streets and between Penn and Knox Avenues in the City of Richfield
("Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Project is proposed to include 1.59 million square feet of office space and total
parking of 7,500 parking spaces; and
WHEREAS, on July 3, 2001, Judge Allen Oleisky of the Hennepin County District Court
ordered as follows: That the City of Richfield ("City") shall prepare a supplement to the Best Buy Final
EIS concerning the effects that the closure of Highway 62 will have on traffic in regards to the Best
Buy project; and
WHEREAS a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was prepared by the City
with assistance from the Proposer; and
WHEREAS, the City with assistance from the Proposer has prepared a proposed Record of
Decision in the SEIS for the Project for consideration by the City Council ("Record of Decision"),
which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City staff has reviewed the proposed Record of Decision and has found the
Record of Decision to be consistent with the evidence submitted to the City and the applicable
I statutes and regulations, to the best of their knowledge, and has recommended that the City Council
approve the Record of Decision and determine that it adequately studies the traffic impacts of the
project as ordered by the Hennepin County District Court; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make the Findings of Fact and Conclusions which are
contained within the Record of Decision and to conclude that the SEIS is adequate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby:
1. Adopt and approve the Record of Decision on the Best Buy Project Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement in the form which is attached hereto as Exhibit Band
hereby makes the Findings of Fact and Conclusions which are contained in Exhibits A
and B; and
2. Find and determine that, based upon the Record of Decision, the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the Best Buy Campus project is
adequate.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of January, 2002.
??;a~~ (LA
Martin J. Kirsc, ayor
ATTEST:
I \ ha .9--1 /J ~
".,j , /1lU1 . vJ.dVlfVJ
Nancy Gibbs, Ci~ Clerk
Best Buy Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Attachment A
Summary of Findings
I. The SEIS evaluates three alternatives with respect to the effects of the closure of the
Crosstown. Alternative 1 assumes a completed Best Buy Campus and the originally proposed
Crosstown closure schedule provided by MnDOT, with a one-year delay to account for the
delay required by the Legislature. Alternative 2 assumes a shorter closure period. Alternative
3 assumes no closures in either direction.
. The cumulative traffic impacts of the Crosstown reconstruction and the Best Buy Campus will
result in some intersections operating at worse conditions than reported in the Final EIS
(FEIS). Traffic volume increases will be most noticeable at the Penn and 76th Street
intersection. The increases occur during Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the Crosstown closures, with
each phase expected to last approximately 18 months. Under Alternative 2, the impacts from
I
closures would be for a shorter period of time. Under Alternative 3, there would be no impact
related to closures because there would be no closures.
.
Air quality levels would continue to meet state and federal standards for carbon monoxide
levels.
. Noise levels along Penn Avenue north of 76th Street would increase four decibels (three
decibels is perceptible by the human ear) as a result of the Crosstown reconstruction. Noise
levels at all other receiver sites are not forecast to change significantly (less than three
decibels).
. Potential mitigation measures include the following: implement the Best Buy Travel Demand
Management Plan, implement measures identified in the Interchange West Transit/TDM Study,
establish effective detour routes, revise signal timing, provide construction transit service,
I
delay occupancy of some part of the Best Buy Campus, and redesign the Crosstown
Reconstruction Project.
Best Buy Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Summary of Findings
Attachment A
. The implementation of mitigation measures such as the TOM Plan or signal timing revisions
would improve overall traffic operations but not enough to return operating conditions to the
way they were prior to the closures.
. The mitigation measure expected to have the greatest impact on traffic operations would be
the redesign of the Crosstown Reconstruction Project.
. The completion of any of the following roadway improvements before 2004 would also improve
traffic operating conditions: Lyndale Avenue bridge, 79th/80th Street Bridge over 35W,
additional right turn lahe at the We.~t Ramp of 1-35W at 76th Street, improvements at 76th
Street and York Avenue.
I
I
I
I
ADEQUACY DETERMINATION AND
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR THE
BEST BUY CAMPUS
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
ADOPTED BY THE RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL
ON
JANUARY 22, 2002
I
This document constitutes the City of Richfield's Adequacy Determination And Record Of
Decision For The Best Buy Campus Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS
Adequacy Decision). The Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement For the Best Buy
Campus (SEIS) includes both the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement For The
Best Buy Campus published on October 15,2001 (Draft SEIS) and the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement For the Best Buy Campus published on December 10,2001
(Final SEIS).
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
" Best Buy Co., Inc. (Best Buy) is building its new corporate headquarters campus (Best Buy
Campus) on a site located north oflnterstate 494 (1-494) between Penn and Knox Avenues and
south of 76th Street in the City of Richfield ( City). The Best Buy Campus is currently under
construction and includes four office buildings (two of6 stories and two of8 stories) connected
by a hub building and attached to a central parking ramp (Project). The development includes
approximately 1.58 million square feet of space and is designed for a maximum of 7,500
employees. The first building is scheduled to be completed and ready for occupancy in early
December 2002.
I
The remainder of the Best Buy Campus description remains the same as that published in the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement For The Best Buy Campus on August 21,2000 (DEIS),
and in the Final Environmental Impact Statement For The Best Buy Campus on October 30,
2000 (FElS) with the exception that the maximum development scenario of 1.9 million square
feet, 9,500 employees, and 9,500 parking spaces is no longer being considered.
I
2.0 APPLICANT, RGU, AND CONSULTANTS
Best Buy is the proposer of the Best Buy Campus and has made application for various
permits and approvals related to the Project.
The Best Buy Campus is being constructed in the City, and the City as the Responsible
Governmental Unit (RGU), prepared the Notice Of Preparation And Scope Of
Supplemental EIS For Best Buy Campus Project (SEIS Notice), the Draft SEIS, and the
Final SEIS for the Project in accordance with the Environmental Review Rules
promulgated by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (MEQB). See Minn. Rules
Chapter 4410 (MEQB Rules).
The following firms assisted the City in preparing the Scoping Document, Draft SElS and Final
SEIS: URSIBRW, Inc. and Faegre & Benson LLP.
3.0 SEIS REVIEW PROCESS
3.1 Reason for SEIS Preparation
On December 11, 2000, the Richfield City Council adopted the Adequacy Determination And I
Record Of Decision For The Best Buy Campus Environmental Impact Statement (ElS Adequacy
Decision). By this action, the City found the FElS to be adequate.
On January 9, 2001, Walser Auto Sales, Inc. (Walser) filed a lawsuit challenging the EIS
Adequacy Decision. The major allegations of the lawsuit relevant to the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement For The Best Buy Campus (SElS) were:
. That the FElS failed to include the required consideration of alternatives and that the limited
consideration of alternatives was artificial;
. That the PElS failed to consider all the environmental, economic, employment, and
sociological impacts, and in particular failed in its traffic analysis to consider the Mall of
America expansion; and
. That the FElS failed to identify reasonable mitigation measures for the environmental,
economic, employment, and sociological impacts of the Best Buy Campus.
In mid-January 2001, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) announced its
plans for reconstruction ofthe Trunk Highway 62 (TH 62) I Interstate 35W (I-35W) interchange
involving I-35W from 46th Street to 66th Street and TH 62 from Highway 121 to Portland
Avenue (Crosstown Reconstruction Project). According to MnDOT's four phase construction
schedule, TH 62 was to be closed in both directions between Penn Avenue and Portland Avenue I
for 2 months in Phase 1, for 18 months in Phase 2, and for 18 months in Phase 3, for a total
closure time of 38 months. I-35W was to remain open during the entire Crosstown
Reconstruction Project.
:~~'
I
On January 17,2001, Walser requested that the City prepare a Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement on the Best Buy Campus. The reasons given by Walser as demonstrating a
need for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement were:
. That the Mall of America expaIlsiohWas not considered in the FEIS;
. That redevelopment plans in the Airport South District would significantly exacerbate
impacts from the Best Buy Campus;
. That an Alternative Urban Areawide Review Process being conducted for the Airport South
District may significantly affect the impacts from the Best Buy Campus;
. That the planned Crosstown Reconstruction Project and diversion of traffic to 1-494
constitute new information and circumstances enhancing the potential environmental effects
from the Best Buy Campus; and
. That the cumulative effects of new information and new circumstances presented by Walser
required preparation of a supplement.
On February 12,2001, the Richfield City Council denied Walser's request for a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement.
On March 9,2001, Walser filed a lawsuit challenging the City's denial of its request.
I
The lawsuit challenging the adequacy of the FEIS and the lawsuit challenging the denial of
Walser's request for preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement were
consolidated for hearing before Judge Allen Oleisky of the Hennepin County District Court. On
July 3, 2001, Judge Oleisky issued an order upholding the EIS Adequacy Decision and rejecting
all grounds for supplementing the FEIS, save one. Specifically, Judge Oleisky ordered:
That the Defendant [City] shall prepare a supplement to the Best
Buy Final EIS concerning the effects that the closure of
Highway 62 will have on traffic in regards to the Best Buy project.
Judge Oleisky's Order at page 2. A copy of the Order is included as Appendix A in the Draft
SEIS.
In response to Judge Oleisky's Order, the City has prepared the SEIS to determine "the effects
that the closure of Highway 62 will have on traffic in regards to the Best Buy Campus."
3.2 Scoping Document
In conformance with the MEQB Rules, the City prepared and distributed a Notice Of
Preparation And Scope Of Supplemental EIS For The Best Buy Campus Project (SEIS Notice).
The SEIS Notice was published in the EQB Monitor on August 6, 2001.
I
The scope of the SEIS, as defined by Judge Oleisky, was limited to "...the effects that the
closure of Highway 62 will have on traffic in regards to the Best Buy project." Order, p.#2. The
SEIS Notice further defined the SEIS scope by delineating three alternatives for the Crosstown
Reconstruction Project and the expected impacts to traffic flows on I-35W and 1-494. For each
alternative, the SEIS Notice indicated that the issues to be addressed in the SEIS would be
traffic, air quality and traffic-related noise.
Written comments on the Scoping Document were received from two parties. These comments
were considered by the RGU, and written responses were provided in Appendix D of the Draft
SEIS.
3.3 Draft SEIS
Notice of availability of the Draft SEIS was published on October 15,2001 in the EQB Monitor
and in an advertisement taken by the City in the October 24,2001 issue of the Richfield Sun
Current newspaper. The Draft SElS was circulated for review to public, governmental I
jurisdictions, and regulatory agencies in accordance with MEQB Rules and to all parties who had
commented on the DElS andF:EJS. The Draft SElS was also made available through City
offices and the local library.
The City hosted a public information meeting regarding the Draft SElS on October 30,2001
(Appendix C). After a presentation on the praft SElS, the public was invited to comment. No
one chose to comment. The public comment period ended on November 14,2001. During (or
shortly after) the Draft SElS comment period, eight written comments were received. All
comments, including those received after th~ close of the comment period, were considered by
the RGU, and written responses were provided in Section 11.0 of the Final SElS.
3.4 Final SEIS
Notice of availability of the Final SElS was published on December 10,2001 in the EQB
Monitor, a press release was issued on December 8, 2001, and an article regarding availability of
the Final SElS was printed on December 19, 2001 in the Richfield Sun Current newspaper
(Appendix C). The Final SElS was cir~ulatec;l for review to the public, governmental
jurisdictions, and regulatory agencies in accordance with MEQB Rules. The Final SElS was also
made available through City offices and the local library and to all parties who had commented
on the DElS, the FElS, the SElS Noti~~" and the Draft SElS.
The 10-day public comment period on the Final SElS commenced on December 11, 2001, and I
closed on December 26, 200 L During (or shortly after) the Final SElS comment period, three
written comments were received- ~see Appendix B). All.comments, including those received
after the close of the cOlllillent period, were considered by the RGU and written responses are
provided in Appendix A.
3.5 Determination of Adt(quacy
On January 22, 2002, the Richfield City Council considered the SElS and all comments and
responses, made the findings in Section 4 of this SElS Adequacy Decision and determined that
the SElS was adequate.
4.0 FINDINGS
After considering the Draft SElS and Final SElS, the comments and responses to comments on
these documents and the SElS Notice, other documents referenced in these documents, the
reports of its staff, and public testimony, the Richfield City Council makes the following
Findings with regard to the alternatives studied, the significant environmental effects that the
Crosstown Reconstruction Project will have on the Best Buy Campus, and potential mitigation
measures identified to reduce or eliminate those effects.
I
4.1 Alternatives Studied
I
The Draft SEIS and the Final SEIS~y,,!-luated three alternatives with respect to the effects that
closures of TH 62 caused by the Crosstown Reconstruction Project will have on traffic flows on
1-35W, 1-494 and local streets, and how they will in turn affect the Best Buy Campus area traffic.
Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, assumes a completed Best Buy Campus for 7,500
employees as described in the FEIS and the originally proposed closure schedule provided by
MnDOT, except that the closures would be implemented one year later than originally planned.
These closures are referred to in the Draft SEIS, the Final SEIS, and this SEIS Adequacy
Decision as the Phase 2 (2004) Closures and the Phase 3 (2006) Closures.
Because MnDOT is reevaluating its construction plans and schedule for the Crosstown
Reconstruction Project, two other alternatives were analyzed. Alternative 2 assumes a shorter
closure period. Alternative 3 assumes no closures in either direction on TH 62.
4.2 Traffic
4.2.1 Impacts
The cumulative traffic impacts ofthe Crosstown Reconstruction Project in conjunction with the
traffic generated from the Best Buy Campus will result in some intersections operating at worse
conditions than reported in the DEIS and FEIS. The differences are shown in Tables 4.7 through
4.10 of the Draft SEIS. Increases in traffic volume will be most noticeable at the Penn and 76th
Street intersection.
I
4.2.2 Mitigation
The analysis documented above explored potential traffic impacts due to the Crosstown
Reconstruction Project at some intersections serving the Best Buy Campus. The traffic
operations being analyzed represent short-term changes to commuting patterns due to the
Phase 2 (2004) Closures and the Phase 3 (2006) Closures. Under Alternative 1, the Phase 2
conditions are expected to last approximately 20 months, the Phase 3 conditions approximately
18 months. When the Crosstown Reconstruction Project is complete, traffic operations and
commuting patterns should return to normal, pre-construction conditions, although with
additional traffic due to the Best Buy Campus and continuing growth in the metropolitan area.
(The additional traffic resulting from metropolitan area growth was considered in the Draft SEIS
and the Final SEIS.)
a. Potential mitigation measures
A number of potential actions could be taken to reduce the traffic impacts associated with the
Crosstown Reconstruction Project. In developing these mitigation measures, programmed
roadway improvements were assumed. Other revisions to the roadway geometry were not
considered.
I
The potential mitigation measures identified are:
. Implement The Best Buy Travel Demand Management Plan;
. Implement Measures Identified In The Interchange West Transit/TDM Study;
. Revise Signal Timing;
. Provide Construction Transit Service;
. Delay Occupancy Of Some Part Of The Best Buy Campus;
. Delay Occupancy Of Other Projects on 1-494; and
Redesign The Crosstown Reconstruction Project.
I
b.
Evaluation o/mitigation measures
(1) Implement The Best Buy Tr<;lvel Demand Management Plan. This mitigation
measure would reduce both AM and PM peak hour trips associated with the Best Buy
Campus by 450 to 750 trips. Best Buy and the City working with other agencies could
implement this measure.
(2) Implement Measures Identified In The Interchange West/TDM Study. This
mitigation measure would reduce traffic ~t intersections in the Best Buy Campus area by
6% to 15%. The City working with Hennepin County and other agencies and private
property owners would implement this measure.
(3) Revise Signal Timing. This mitigqtion measure would minimize delay times and
optimize traffic flow. MnDOT working with the affected cities could implement this
measure.
(4) Provide Construction Transit Service. This mitigation measure would provide an
alternative for delayed drivers. MnDOT working in conjunction with other government
bodies, or employers or commercial businesses could implement this measure. (5) Delay
Occupancy of Some Part of th.e Best Buy Campus. This mitigation measure would
potentially reduce the impact of the Crosstown Reconstruction Project on some I
intersections and mainline segments. This measure would be implemented by the City
and Best Buy.
(6) Delay Occupancy of Other Projects on 1-494. This mitigation measure would
potentially reduce the impact of the Crosstown Reconstruction Project on some
intersections and mainline segments. This measure would be implemented by the Cities
of Bloomington and Richfield.
(7) Redesign the Crosstown Reconstruction Project. This measure could shorten or
eliminate the closures a,~dgssociated traffic impacts of the Crosstown Reconstruction
Project. MnDOT and the Legislature is currently reviewing the feasibility of this
mitigation measure.
Mitigation measures 1 through 6 above would not individually mitigate all of the Crosstown
Reconstruction impacts. Measure 7, if funded and implemented by the Legislature, would fully
mitigate the Crosstown Reconstruction impacts.
c. Evaluation 0/ combined mitigation measures
Because most of the mitigation measures studied above would not be suffcient taken individually I
to completely mitigate all traffic impacts, additional evaluation was perfonned on two
combinations of mitigation measures in the Final SEIS. The following summarizes the findings.
(1) Combining Implementation Of The Best Buy TDM Plan And Delayed Occupancy
Of Some Part Of The Best Buy Campus To Reduce AM And PM Peak Hours By 1,000
'~""'"'.f;.t, i.:(;r~.rY,";'''+,:
Trips. Mitigation measures which reduce Best Buy Campus trips generally result in a
small improvement in intersection level of service but not enough to eliminate the
impacts of the Crosstown Reconstruction Project.
I
(2) Combining Implementation Of The Best Buy TDM Plan, Delayed Occupancy Of
Some Part Of The Best Buy Campus To Reduce AM And PM Peak Hours By 1,000
Trips, And Revised Signal Timing. Mitigation measures which reduce Best Buy Campus
trips coupled with signal optimization generally result in an improved level of service at
most intersections.
Only the second combination of mitigation measures, which reduces Best Buy Campus trips and
optimizes traffic signal operation, improves the level of service at most intersections. However,
due to the assumption of random vehicle arrivals and optimization of signal timing on a system-
wide basis the level of service forecast in the Draft SEIS and Final SEIS decreases for some
traffic movements and intersections, compared to the previous forecast analysis in the DEIS and
FEIS. In optimizing signal timing, the model attempts to minimize total vehicle delay
throughout the signal system. Therefore, while the level of service at certain intersections goes
down, the total vehicle delay throughout the road system is improved.
I
The results ofthe previous analysis conducted for the EIS without the Phase 2 (2004) and
Phase 3 (2006) Closures indicated that with the addition of the Best Buy Campus trips to the
study area, the traffic operations could be adequately mitigated with roadway improvements.
However, with the addition of the temporary rerouting of traffic through the study area due to the
Closures, the implementation of mitigation measures, such as implementing the TDM Plan or
optimizing the signal timing, while improving the overall network operations, would not be
enough to return the operating conditions to the way they were prior to the Closures. The
mitigation measure expected to have the greatest impact on the traffic operations would be the
redesign ofthe Crosstown Reconstruction Project. The level and duration of impact expected
would be less if the Crosstown were not closed, or if any closures were to occur for a more
limited time period than described for Alternative 1.
d. Impacts from other roadway projects
There is the potential that one or more of the programmed roadway improvements programmed
within the Best Buy Campus area, as discussed in Section 2.3 of Appendix F of the Draft SEIS,
could be completed prior to the Phase 2 (2004) Closures or the Phase 3 (2006) Closures. The
expected result, if any or all of these roadway improvements were completed prior to the
Crosstown Reconstruction Project, would be an overall improvement in traffic operating
conditions compared to the results presented in the Final SEIS.
4.3 Air Quality
4.3.1 Impacts
I
The air quality analysis completed for the Draft SEIS and Final SEIS has concluded that all
applicable State regulations will be satisfied. Traffic from the Best Buy Campus and the
Crosstown Reconstruction Project will not cumulatively cause exceedances of state and federal
standards for carbon monoxide (CO) levels at reasonable worst-case locations, under reasonable
worst-case conditions.
4.3.2 Mitigation
No air quality mitigation is required. Any measures employed to mitigate traffic impacts,
however, will likely result in corresponding improvements in air quality.
4.4 Traffic Noise
I
4.4.1 Impacts
The analysis indicates a significant (greater than 3 dBA) increase in traffic noise levels along
Penn Avenue north of 76th Street. As documented in the traffic analysis, traffic volumes on Penn
Avenue north of 76th Street are forecast to increase significantly as a result of the Crosstown
Reconstruction Project. Peak hour noise levels along Penn Avenue north of 76th Street are
forecast to increase by approximately 4 dBA compared to the No Closure conditions. Noise
levels at of the other receiver sites are not forecast to change significantly (less than 3 dBA)
relative to the No Closure conditions.
4.4.2 Mitigation
Reductions in traffic noise levels at Penn and 76th Street could be accomplished through:
. Travel demand management programs that reduce traffic volumes;
. Detour routes that direct traffic off Penn Avenue; and/or,
. Restricting truck traffic on Penn Avenue.
4.5
Permits and Approvals
I
Based on the Draft SEIS, the Final SEIS, agency comments and City requirements, the following
permits and approvals will likely be required for Project completion.
Table 4.1: Permits Required
UNIT OF GOVERNMENT
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA)
National Pollution Discharge
Elirn.ination System Permit (NPDES)
Indirect Source Permit (ISP)
Registration Permit for emergency
generators
Sewer Extension Permit
Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT)
Minnesota Department of Health
(MnDH)
Off-site Road Improvements
Approved
To be applied for
if needed
Submitted for
reVlew
Approved
Watermain Extension Permit
Abandonment of Water Wells
Well Permit/Registration
Approved
In process
Not required
Scoping Decision Approved
I 'EIS Adequacy Decision Approved
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approved
Planned Unit Development Plan Approved
and Rezoning
Final Development Plan Approved
Conditional Use Permit Approved
Utility Vacations and Permits Approved
Right of way Vacations Approved
Preliminary Plat Approval Approved
Final Plat Approval Approved
Demolition Permit Approved
City of Richfield, cont. Building Permits Approved
Certificates of Occupancy To be applied for
Adoption of Official Map for 1-494 Completed
Final Transportation Demand To be submitted
Management Plan
Richfield Housing & Business Subsidy Agreement Completed
Redevelopment Authority Contract for Private Completed
Redevelopment
Tax Increment Financing Plan and Completed
Public Financing
I Nine Mile Creek Watershed Grading and Drainage Permits Approved
District
Metropolitan Council Sewer Extension Submitted for
review
Designating 1-494 for RALF loan Approved
funds
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approved
5.0 DETERMINATION OF ADEQUACY OF SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMP ACT STATEMENT
In determining the adequacy of the SEIS, the City Council has considered the three criteria
specified in Minn. Rules 4410.2800, subp. 4, which are discussed below.
I
5.1 The SEIS MlJ.st Address Potentially Significant Issues And Alternatives Raised In
Scoping SQ Th~t All.8ignificant Issues For Which Information Can Reasonably Be
Obtained Have Been Analyzed In Conformance With Minn. Rules 4410.2300, Items
G And H.
The Draft SEIS, Final SEIS, the responses to comments on these documents and the SEIS
Notice, and other documents referenced in these documents, address the alternatives and all the
potentially significant issues set out in the SEIS Notice. A thorough discussion of the significant
environmental impacts of each alternative has been provided. This information is summarized in
Section 4 - Findings, in Section 11.0 - Responses To Comments of the Final SEIS and in
Appendix A - Responses to Comments of this SEIS Adequacy Decision.
The Draft SEIS, the Final SEIS, and the responses to comments evaluate mitigation measures
that could reasonably eliminate or minimiz.e the adverse environmental impacts of the Crosstown
Reconstruction Project as described in the SEIS. The key mitigation measures are set out in
Section 4, Findings of this SElS Adequacy Decision.
A combination of these mitigation measures could be used to address the Crosstown
Reconstruction Project impacts in the l;j.rea of the Best Buy Campus. The City will coordinate
with MnDOT and Best Buy to determine the appropriate combination of mitigation measures to
implement, taking into account the Legislature's action on MnDOT's Crosstown Reconstruction
plans.
5.2 The SEIS Must Provide Responses To Substantive Comments Received During The
Draft SEIS Review Concerning Issues Raised In Scoping.
All comments on the Draft SElS were responded to in Section 11 of the Final SEIS. Copies of
the comment letters are attached to the Final SEIS as Appendix H. The Final SEIS was
distributed to everyone who commented on the Draft SEIS along with those on the MEQB
distribution list.
All written comments received on the Final SElS are responded to in Appendix A of this SEIS
Adequacy Decision. The comment letters are attached in Appendix B.
5.3 The EIS Must Have Been Prepared In Compliance With The Procedures Of The
Act And Parts 4410.0200 To 4410.6500.
The environmental review requirements of Minnesota Statutes and the MEQB Rules have been
met by the SEIS and related documents prepared for this Project as detailed in Section 3,
Environmental Review ProGess of this Record Of Decision.
5.4 CITY COUNCIL DETERMINATION
The City Council hereby determines that the Best Buy Campus SEIS meets the three criteria set
forth in the MEQB Rules and is adequate.
I
I
I
I
Appendix A
Response to Comments
I
I
Supplemental EIS For The Best Buy Campus
Adequacy Determination And Record Of Decision
Appendices
RESPONS.ES TO COMMENT LETTERS ON FINAL SEIS
This section provides responses for all written comments received on the Final SEIS from
agencies and individuals. COm1Il~:n\ lt~1;ters are included in Appendix B.
Written comments on the Final SEIS were received from the following agencies or
individuals:
A) Metropolitan Council
B) Minnesota Department of Transportation
C) Robert Hall
A. Metropolitan Council
Comment A 1: The Metropolitan Counci!'sreview has concluded that the Final SEIS is
complete. Therefore, the Council will take no formal action and waives further review.
Response Ai: Comment noted.
B. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)
I
Comment 81: Please note that MnDOT's comments contained in our November 1,
2001, September 27, 2000, October 17, 2000 and November 16, 2000 letters I
concerning the draft, final and draft supplemental EIS are the same for this final
supplf)mental EIS
Response 81: Comment noted. The MnDOT comments provided in the
referenced comment letters were responded to in the Final EIS and EIS
Adequacy Decision in 2000.
C. Robert Hall
Comment C1: In general, the responses to comments do not seem to be responsive to
the commentor's previously stated observations.
Response Cl: Comment noted. The comments provided in the referenced comment
letter were responded to in the Final SEIS document in December 2001.
Comment C2: Less than 500' (20%) of the current 2,500 Best Buy employees
responded to the survey about traffic mitigation measures. The commentor does not
recall a study that indicated a 25% interest in participation (in alternative transportation).
Further, the 10% reduction (of trips) appears to be based on current levels rather than
levels when 7,500 are employed at the site.
Supplemental EIS For The Best Buy Campus
Adequacy Determination And Record Of Decision
Appendices
I
I
Response C2: The fact is, as documented in the Draft SEIS, Appendix G, Page
E-3, the Best Buy Employee Survey had approximately a 30% response rate.
Best Buy sent out approximately 4,000 surveys and received responses from
1,313 employees. The Employee Survey yielded responses of "likely" or "most
likely" to try alternative modes of transportation as follows:
. 23% or approximately 300 current employees willing to try car pool
. 16% or approximately 210 current employees willing to try the bus
. 25% or approximately 330 current employees willing to try a van pool
Given that nearly a third of the employees responded to the survey, it is
reasonable to project the response results to the full 7,500 employee workforce
for planning purposes. A similar response rate from 7,500 employees would
represent approximately 2,400 employee responses when the Best Buy Campus
is fully staffed. Therefore, projected interest in trying alternative modes of
transportation would be up to 552 (carpool), 384 (bus) and 600 (vanpool)
employees, respectively.
I
Existing Best Buy employees have been encouraged to form carpools/vanpools
at their current Eden Prairie locations. Best Buy has hired a full time
Transportation Coordinator for the express purpose of implementing the various
components of the TOM plan and generating and maintaining interest in
employee participation in alternative transportation modes. The new campus site
in Richfield will create additional advantages for alternative transportation use
(on-site daycare, bus stop on-site, closer to more transit facilities, most
employees in one work location) not currently available at the existing site that
should lead to increased employee interest and participation in the Best Buy
TOM program.
The goal of the Best Buy travel demand management plan is to reduce the
number of peak hour trips generated at the Richfield campus by 450 to 750 trips
with the anticipated campus employment of 7,500.
Comment C3: It is preposterous to contend that the northbound access off 76th Street
to 1-35 is not related or affected by the Best Buy Project. If it is not related, why are the
movements noted on the figures?
Response C3: The Best Buy Draft SEIS showed that traffic generated by the
Best Buy development would be adequately handled by the existing northbound
76th Street entrance ramp to 1-35W.
The need for a new northbound ramp at 76th Street is driven by the new design
for reconstructing the 1-494/1-35W interchange. The proposed 76th Street ramp
was first shown as part of the 1-35W Draft EIS in March 1992 and the
reconstructed northbound access to 1-35W from 76th Street was proposed by
MnDOT as part of the 1-494 FE IS in November 2001 (Appendix D).
I
The reconstructed northbound access is an independent project and is not
proposed as part of the Best Buy Campus Project or the Crosstown
Reconstruction Project.
Supplemental EIS For The Best Buy Campus
Adequacy Determination And Record Of Decision.
Appendices
Comment C4: The Response to Comments in the Final SE1S did not dispute or refute the
commentor 's previous comment that the projected raw numbers for each peak trip shows three to
four riders. Three to four riders is not realistic.
Respons ~ C4: Neither the Best Buy Campus EIS nor the SEIS stated that each I
Best Buy trip will accommodat~ 3 to 4 riders. The (::IS estimated the number of
vehicle trips that would be generated by the Best Buy Campus in the peak traffic
hour (2;620 AM and 2,000 PM). As evidenced by studies of other corporate
office developments (Trip Generation Manual, 6t11 Edition), employees tend to
arrive and depart over an extended period in the morning and afternoon, not all
during the same one hour period. Therefore not all Best Buy employees were
projected to arrive or depart in a single hour and the majority of peak hour trips
were assumed to be single-ocC!..Jpant vehicles.
The proposed Best Buy Campus TDM plan was not figured into the projected
peak hour trips. The TDM plan is intended to reduce the number of trips
projected during the peak hours.
Comment CS: The Responselo Comments in the Final SE1S did not dispute that the Draft SE1S
used current employee numbers to speculate on traffic impacts. The document claims that 720
employees currently use 1-494. Is it not likely that the employees (a larger number?) who
currently live west of the new campus will use 1.,.494? The Final SE1S did not address how one
can predict patterns for 7,500 employees using numbers for 2,571 employees.
Response C5: Page 2-11, section 2.9, Appendix F of the SEIS states,
"Approximately 720 employees (28 percent of the total number of employees) I
currently use 1-494 to travel to/from the existing Best Buy office buildings in Eden
Prairie." The estimate of 720 existing Best Buy employees currently using 1-494
was not used directly in the future year analysis. This is the same method used
in the EIS analysis.
Forecasts of future traffic volumes on 1-494 associated with 7,500 Best Buy
employees at the Richfield site were made based on the methodology described
beginning on Page 2-1 of Appendix F, Traffic Impact Study of the Draft SEIS.
I
Supplemental EIS For The Best Buy Campus
Adequacy Determination And Record Of Decision
Appendices
I
Appendix B
Comment Letters
(See office file for comment letters)
I
I
Dee 2? 01 02:0?p
COMMUNITY DEVELO
612-861-89?4
p.2
12/21/01 11:~4 ~AA tial 6U2 16i4
i'l.i-'(,O (,OKU\\ lU
~UUl
~ Metropolitan COUDCU
~ Bunding communities that work
,
vecem~ "l.t. l.UU 1
John Stark, AJCP
l'rOJcCl Manager
City ofRichficld
6700 portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
RE: The City of Richfield Environmental Impact ~tatement- HeSt tsuy CampWi t'TOJect
Metropolitan Council District 5
Metropohtan Council Referral File No. 18260-8
Dear Mr. Stark:
The Metropolitan Council has conducted a review of the l'mal suppiemental bnVlronmental unpacl
Statement (Final SEIS) received by the Council on December 10, :lool. rne rmaJ ~blb r~Y1eW ror me
Best Buy campus project located in the city of Richfield is to detennme the eUecls ot trattlC 00 tile
campus ifHilZhwav 62 closed. The Final SElS review requires the Caunell to detemllne Its aaequacy ana
accuracy in addressing regional concerns. The Council's review has concluded that the l'mal :)h1S IS
conu>lete. Therefore, the Council will take no formal action and waive further review. It you have any
Questions or need further information, please contact Christy Stark, Principal Reviewer at 651-602.17.50.
Al-
f
Sincerely,
\.,:arelluewar
Deputy of Regional AdministratIon
cc: Phil Rivencss, Metropolitan Coweil Distnct 5
Eli Cooper. MeeD DirectOr, Planning and Urowth Management
Phyllls Hanson, Manager. t'lamllDgI lecnmcal ASSIStance
Christy Stark, Planner. PlanninglTecbnical Assistance
Cheryl Olsen, Referrals Coordinator. Plannmg! TechmcaJ AsslStance
,
www.mettoc:ouncl1.org -,,"0 1I1.I0..ape OlU-,OOO
230EastF1flhSlR:et . Sl.Paul.MSnnesOtaSS10l-162G . (661)602-1000 . l"u602.i550 · TfY291,()904
An EquIlI 0pp0tlWriIV EmJ*l\IB
'+~I
.t ~
~~-~
Minn sota D partm nt of Transportation
M tropolitan Division
Waters Edg
1500 West County Road 82
Roseville, MN 55113 .
December 19, 2001
rn ~ @lEO \Vi ~ m _\.
ULI DEe 2 6 2001 ~ r
Mr. John Stark, AICP
City ofRichfie1d
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
By
Subject:
Best Buy Campus FSEI8-Mn/DOT Review EIS01-002A
Northeast Quadrant of Interstate 494 and Penn Avenue
Richfield, Hennepin County
Control Section 2785
Dear Mr. Stark:
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOn has reviewed the above referenced Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS). Please note that Mn/DOT's comments Bl
contained in our November 1, 2001, September 27, 2000, October 17, 2000 and November 16, 2000
letters concerning the draft,final and draft supplemental EIS are the same for this final supplemental EIS.
Please address all future correspondence for development activity such as plats, site plans, environmental
reviews, and comprehensive plan amendments to:
Paul Czech
MnlDOT - Metro Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B-2
RoseviIle, Minnesota 55113
,
MnlDOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of
other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2)
copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's review and
response to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the
necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete
submittals.
Feel free to contact me at (651) 582-1378 if you should have any questions.
Copy: Rob Wied, Hennepin County
Bob Byers, Hennepin County
Walter Rochenstein, Faegre & Benson
Beth Kunkel, URSIBRW Inc.
MnlDOT Division File - C.S. 2785
MnlDOT LGL - Richfield
~
An equal opportunity employer
.
-
,
-----Original Message-----
From: HALLSetal@aol.com [mailto:HALLSetal@aol.com)
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 4:55 PM
To: Jstark@ci.richfield.mn.us
Subject: FSEIS responsef
Mr. John Stark, AICP
Project Manager
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave. So
Richfield MN 55423
Mr. Stark:
This are my comments with regard to the FSEIS for the Best Buy Campus:
In general, your comments do not appear to be responsive to my
previously-stated
observations.
I Cl
As I recall, less than 500 (20%) of the current 2,500 Best Buy employees
responded to the
survey about traffic mitigation measures. I recall no study indicating 25%
interest in
participation. Further, your 10% reduction appears to be based on current
traffic levels
rather than levels when 7,500 are employed at the site.
It is preposterous to contend that the northbound access off 76th Street to
135 is not
related to the Best Buy project. If not related, it is certainly affected.
If it is not, why are
traffic movements noted on your figures? Even if it is not, it certainly
should be.
C2
C3
With regard to peak trips, you did not dispute or refute my statement that
you are C4
projecting that each trip will accommodate 3 to 4 riders. Instead, you told
of methodology
you used. The raw numbers show 3 to 4 riders, and that is unrealistic.
Again, you did not dispute that you used current employee numbers to
speculate what the
traffic. You claim a conservatively low number by stating that 720 currently
use 1494. Is it
not likely that the employees (a larger number?) who currently live west of
the new CS
campus will use I494? You did not address how you can predict patterns for
7500
employees by using numbers for 2,571 employees.
I thank you for the opportunity to be heard.
Robert L. Hall
7309 Oliver Ave So.
Via Email 12/26/01
I
Appendix C
Public Notices
(See office file for Public Notices)
I
I
Supplemental EIS For The Best Buy Campus
Adequacy Determination And Record Of Decision
Appendices
--.. ..- -- ....-.--....
,...'"
plA w'~\:,\ to-l'\ -bl
Si,C.V\ -t\.V'V'\.e.~t
,
,
Infonnational meeting on the Best Buy Campus Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). The SEIS studies the
environmental impacts of the proposed Best Buy project as they relate to
the potential closure of portions of Trunk Highway 62 (the crosstown)
during construction and identifies ways to mitigate impacts.
7:00 p.m., Tuesday, October 30, 2001
Council Chambers
Richfield City Han
6700 Portland Avenue South
Citizens can attend the meeting and provide comments on the Best Buy
SEIS. Written comments on the SEIS can also be submitted by
November 14, 2001 to: John Stark
Community Development Manager
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield MN 55423
Copies of the SEIS are available for review at Richfield City Hall, the'
Augsburg Park Community Library (7100 Nicollet Avenue S.) and the
Southdale Branch Library.
~
oJ ClI I
.LV ~e- '-'e-.U.....t'
~.... '.-
Impact of .
Hwy. 6~ plan
on Best Buy
traffjc probed
City of Richfield develops
supplemental report to EIS
By John KJun .
Sun Newspapers ..
The combination <if the clo-
sure of Minnesota Highway 62 . .
for improvements and increased
traffic from th Best Buy campus. .
will have an impact on traffic at
76th Street and Penn Avenue.
but air and noise quality is not a
concern; according to a recent
study mandated by court order.
During an Oct. 22 work ses-
sion, the Richfield City Council
reviewed a supplemental study
to the Best Buy project's Envi-
ronmental . Impact Statement
. (EIS). Based on a lawsuit filed by
Walser Automotive and a subse-
quent July decision. by Judge
Allen Oleisky of Hennepin Coun-
ty District Court.. the city had to
prepare a supplement to the Best .
Buy finaI EIS "concerning the ef-
fects that the closure of Highway
62 will.have on traffic in regards
to the Best Buy project." .
The Best Buy campus, locat-
ed along Interstate 494 between
Penn and Knox avenues, is al-
ready under construction. The
1.58 million-square-foat campus
will ultimate1yhouse up to 7.500
employees. The first office build-
ing in the complex is scheduled
for occupancy in pecember. 2002.
Highway 62 is also.scheduled
for reconstruction, and portions
ofit are expected to be closed for
periods ranging from 18 to. 38
months. The closures are likely
to divert traffic onto 1-494 a,nd .-
Richfield city streets.
BEST BUY: To Page 7A
. . .~....
- I
. ....l
~. ...'"
po":>
lo{~~/D \ S~ CUMt4- ~ -~
.1
1
.I
I.
1
. -, www.mnSun...cOnr.
-, '
. '""Best Buy .Sapplementalstudy
; . includes twQrecomme~,!v~
FromPagelA ....-. . .... ... creasedtraffiCVolumeSexpectedfrom~~'
closIDgofHighway62. ......_ _ _ .._:.
.. 'Recent legislation' forbids construe..;' .. -Reduce the number of-trips to :and
tiop on the highway UJitil May.1. 2002... from the campus through the company's
The actual start date has'y'et to ~ deter- Travel Demand Management' (TDM)
mined by the Minnesota Department of plan.
Transportation. . The TDM plan promotes practices m-
According to John Stark. a project tended to reduce the traffic effects of the
manager for the- city, the findings of the campus. It includes the use of alternative
snpplementalEIS reveal DOconcern5 for . modes oftraDsportation such as telecOlI)-
, air or noise quality. .. .. . muting. staggered work hours and flexj:..'
'They are so far from being issues that' 'ble work hours for Best Buy.employees.
they're non-issues. "Stark said. _ As. part of the plan, Best Buy conducted a
One problem area discussed in the -' survey of its employees, ofwho~ 1,300 Qr
, supplemental report. -prepared by the 30 percent responded.' Acc~to the
consulting firm lIRS and paid for by Best. survey results, 23 percimt.831d they were
Buy. is the intersection of Penn Avenue Willing to try carpooling; 16 pen:ent said
and 76th Street. This interseetion..is the' . they were willing to try the bus. and 25
Only one the study cites as likely to oper- . peReIlt said they were willing to try a
ate under "poor" or "failing" conditions. .vanpool. .
This condition is expected'to exist in 2004. .Walser Automotive's attOrney Carolyn
The study suggests that mitigating Wolski, of the law firm Leonard. stree~
measures could be - t!ken by MnDOT, , and Deinanl, said her client had not yet
- Richfield and Best Buy to reduce the im": read the supplemental EIS and 'had no
'-pactontheintersection.Accordingtothe - 'commentonitasofFriday. .. . ~
. report, two measures would improve the The report isopeJ1 to ,public'input ~~
intersection's level of service to "accept- the form ofwriUen comments until Nov.-' ..
:~t~~m~~~~ .it;;~~~:::~~':f1'
-- . .-. -'-..----..-- . '.:
..
'.ti'~~
;f:
:~~~
....
.....!
.. ~:-
.....It;.
.~~r
.,
. ;~~
.....\
."!f.
':,i
.7,
.' :.~~
- .;.:;,~
..'..,
\.~.:~
.::~
. . . J,.
.~
~an !U U~ U~:!UP
p_b
pI
. 11:15 am
:OOam
:l Service -
."
~
:lIiow Av.. So..
RidIIIeId. MH
866-MG
,.,~
)EOF
NER'~;
'fRAN"
!gO Ave. S.
d1e1d
8471
shIp
45 a.m.
9:00 am'
1th ~-
:Kinley
:II'l
.,....com
'.
~"
i"
".' .
'"','
:30~.,
~a.m:
r.~ am.
able
orner
!21
"
~
ELCA)
-mile
~8
30_
_
lit Forum
;.:..<~; .
........._..7 '
SCBOOL DJSTJUcrBALLOT QllBSTlON 1
APPROVAL OF SCHOOL D1S1'IUCf
IIEJ1BII,END1JM REYBNtJB AUTBOBlZATION
.choDlbosrd or~Scb"'" Distl'ic& No. 280 (RiebfieId) baa ~ to lnc:rMA-ita pa.enl edueatiOll'_ue
$297.83 peJ'~~ CDG pupil-,to '!'be aclditioGal:re\l8llue WiI1 be UlIeCl to ~~ ~~ IIDd th.
to ~0Il tbreoC.,;n require all _tlmat.ed Jef'ereadwD tax rate g{ approllimately .000lK or the refeIleftdum
'oal1I8oftbe8dlDol cJilt;rid.forto. eapaJBIM In 2002. theflrat,.-iLis iii be Ie'fiecL The........ refereDdWD rff"o
autIJDrisatiaD .ouId be .pp1iceblek~,yeusWII- ~ revoked ... reduIled sa)ll'8wicle4 by law. ,
: YES Sball1he iiu:reaM iD the _118 i-Pc-l by \hi; ~ ofIodepea.dent sa-J DistrictNo. 280 be approved?
NO:', '
Put as) 00 in the 1qU'
SANf1'l BELKENGREN
JOHN L. EASl'EllWooD
DAVlDJ. LAMBERGER
r
.CJ
o
,/0
,; a
,.,/
wnte .... if any
BTVOTING "YES" ON 'l'HlS BALLOl' QUES'ltON. . ..
YOU ARB VOTING lIOlLAPROPERTY'TAX INCBEAS&
, ,SCBOOLDISl'RICl'BALLOTQUESTION2
AP(>JlOVAL OF SCBOOLDISTRlCl BOND I9SlJB "
" . ' ANDDOWNP~LEVY, /"
,.8Cbaol board of IndepeDdeD\ Scbool Dlatriet No. 280 (Ricbfield) bas propoeed a projecl.for ~ ~ or aequiai-
IlIo ud betterment.or sChool ...tilt! and fat:iliti~ iDcNdiDa the l'llIlovatillDo upllJ'8diAg. equil'P'l.!f 8Il4-~ of im-
~ta to nrioua IIChocJl district ai.... and 6U:iIiti..: and th. acquieition aDd Installatioo of ~ ......,.. llllOIrity
iDd tabnoIoIU II)ISteIDS In wrious'1lcltoot dj.aict facilities. The eatiJllated total cost or the ~ ie appro:ximate11
~.ooo. 'the prujec' hes reeei_~ positive..mew and comment from the Com"'~~C~ Families end
. 1lI proride iImda for. ~Il'ofthe pI'Ojeet-w. tbeboDrd baa PJO~ to ietRIe obtiptiouchool bui1cl-
baIIdlI ill lID'alllo_uot to __ $16;250.000. To pJOVide fuDda for the remaini"l . of the pJO~COtta. the &eboal
AM vropoeed a down paymeat =:-t ol3.2O'i'I> times the....t tax ell ity oCthe lIChool district.,The ~
cbnm pa,m...t levy will raiee a $770.000 for texea ~yable in 2 , the linot year it i. 10 be JniecI. Bod
be autbsrized for ten yean. " , ' " .
, YES sbn iIIsuai>ce ClftHe ~ Ob~tion IIChool buildiDr; bonds down payiDellt ~ ~ b)"~"board
b NO oflDGaS-dent. School Diemct No. ~ be approved?, .
l . \
!. BYVOTING~'ONTJD9 Q1lES'nON.
, YOU ARE VOTING ~ A TAX'INCREASE. . ..
". combined poJ1i.ag pI_ I.... this electloa ....d the . served by u-e polUDc places ...m 'be .. toll.....:
'PRECDlCI . pOlLING PLACE \ AJ)DBESS
! 1 1II0UDtCalv..,.U_tiODBldg. \6Ml.l6tbAveoueSouth
'.2 St. P8ter's Catholic: Cl:nuch' 6120 NialDet A_\Ie South
3 ' Sheridan HiI1s School 6400 Sberidall AveDue South
4 St:. mc:haM'. Catho1S Ch 7540 Peon Avenue South
5 Richfield Middle2ao1 JUnior High) 746r--Oliver Avecu. SoIrtb
6 Central School 7145 Hamet Avenue South
7 Hope Chun:b nS2 fi>J1Jaod Avenue South
S RidIfieJd Iot.erm te School 1020 - 1~ AveDue South
9 CenteoDial Sdulo'l 731& BIoOI\liDIltOD Avenue South '
Any eligible TOter reaidiDg /~ ~ool iJistric:t may vote at"~ el~~ at the polJing place desipat.ed above for the
prec:iD<t in which be or aIie xesideL The palla for aaid el.cti... will opeil at-7:oo o'dock ...... and -..ill cloee at 8:00 o'dac:k
p.m.""thedateof~~ . \.' '
A ~ maat be ~red to vote to be eligible to vote in this e1ectioD. An nn~ iDdividualmay.register to yota at
tbepollingpl~'Oo~edioDday., . --'\ '
, .'
Dated: September4.2001 .
BY"O,G OF THE SCHOOL BOARD \
. PmltiIa B. Dmyt;reDla>. cMrk '
pec Elect 280 \,
'\.
,
CI
wntAl.1l, if aA1
a
wnlO.... ifDSlY
The precinc:tS and tM pol1inl; places for Ur
PRECINct .
1
2
3
4'
5
6
7
8
9
POLLING PLACE
Mount Calval7 Edu<:atP
St. Peter's CaU>olic Cbu
Sberida>> Hilla 5c11<>01
5t. JI.lobaN's CatMUc (
Richfield MiddI. ~
Ceova1 School
~Churcb
R>Chfie)d Inter1lloclla...
CentellDial School
kAy eligible _ler residioc in tb.! school
pncioct in ....bid> he or she ""ides. Tho.
p..... DR the date of said election.
A vo_ must be registered to vote to be ..
the paUinC place OD election clay.
Dated: September 17.2001
BY ORDEit OF THE SCHOOL BOARD
Pamela B. DmytreDko, ClerK
PERSONNEL (n roved unanimouslY
1. Apprcwed .tiJlll! c.rtirlC!d positio
liDo for 2001 lIcbool year (or Carole
aSecoDd guageIP"..Himetofull-tU:
Sch=1 . lWorlulr. Bon niB Mueller.
:u>d. . Waill!. Industrial Techno!
2. _ full-time certilied posiUa
tiol> for 2001-02 school )...... for Cbriaun
.,fary EducatioD lpart.-timc Ti~e ] to full
The regular mee~ of the Board of Educati of Inde- /.3. Approved a coououing contract I
d _. Sch-' ""--'_ 280 H 'C I"' '/ year for Deborah &rhy. ElementatT Er
~ e_ ..... "''''W'_ . e~ ouoty. .. ... Titl.l to full-time e1emeotarY)
MilUlesota. was ~ on Monday, ~"'r.1, 2OO1..t6e 4. Mceptecl die fall.tilDe certified ..It
~ of EdUcat.OD Room, ~lIlistratiYe W'mg,~ 1 Rodel. SChool Social Worker . Central
Hernet AveDue South. Th. meet,iog...... c:a11ed to -... etrecti.... 9-18.01 "
the chair Ilt 7 PM with the fo]lowiDg members...iD at . 6. Aulhori2ed ~ leave of .'been.,. Id
dBD~: Dmyt1'eDlto. PreeJIIaD. LaD>~rpI; Lalfon, ,Rorie. Cameron, Speech Language CUrUcieD
mnd ~y. 'A~ None. SupenoteadeIR Devlin and "{ec:tive approsiJoatal, Ol-3().02 tlu-ol
the foUOWIDg diftctDre were allO preseat;f'Bradley, Rood. 1 YeM; aocl. Kristine Olson. Music
SAd s..8DSllI1- ~ . efl'ectMlnppruximate1y 01.22-(Y.
REPORTS AND INFORMATlO FROM SCHOOL 6. ppzoved ~ foUowiog port.-liIDe
SOURCES ,t~t ar p!'Obeuon for 2001-02 ach
1. ~usilless ~ James-~ey ~tec11lD ex- ~"W. ..FJr:meJI. taryTitlel;and.u.
=~~pl>rtfortheRuth Johnsooilcbollusbipfoun- 7. . the pen.time certified
2. The Boerd nviewed t.Wo c:OIIuDandau-. " probatian 2DOI-02 xbool ye8J' for
~. Glohal'FIuch.
ROUTINE' (ap ed uDlUlImoualy) " 8: A Special Apeemetlt
1. ~the . uteS~ngu!armeetlngofg.17.o1. tion~)""thJ ..4SWASTeac
2. App....ed~or0ct0ber1.2001Intbe 9. A 1iaIl.~duaifiedF
lUIlOUDt orSS2P:2SL.l1. G &. tiODliJr DooDa
S. AppIV!ed'tl1e tuitiaD JBte liJr the 2001-02 ec:hool year , er 0 Iot.enDediate 1. eIl'ective 9-4-
atSi,261.;lCI. 10. A~ part-tiJll.,c1auilied po
. ~ed the.t.m>.... Report on Cunicul\JJD lDIltruc:- for ChristiM GuttenDBD. iDsA'UCCio...
'aqil~t1'erflmDaDC:L . tant-MidclIe Scbool.etfective 9-U.ol:
. PUaed a ~ appoiDt:iDC eiediGDjudgea for the ~l 1.""'I...Bf.""~"'~t . Se
~6.2001e1ectiaD. ...~ ; ...- iJIat;ruction
. Accepted a cIoaatioo of $1,000 Iiom'RichlieJd. Opti. ::,~iAt' High. elI'eci:i". 9-+01;
, Club. . lDu1qeriloI...ietaDt 0 Lio
9.26-01; aod. Jeuica VBDClerhsnt. In
rial..Jat&Dt - Mi4dle Scbool. effedi-
School District No. 280
(Official Pultlic:litioD)
MINU1'ES ~~. .
Regular Mee&U2a of the Board'1ltfEducatiOD .
lDdcpendeot School Dist.ri'o& 280.
, mcbl1eld PDblic Sch '
October 1. 2001
,city 01 Richfield
(OIfic:ial Pubticat:u.)
. ClTYO~RlCHFJELD
, s~ Meetinc Notice
Ci&y CoUDciI MeetiDa OD October 30, 2001
REGARDING:
The Richfield City Cwncil will hold a special meeting to
provide iDf'onoatioD to the public on the Best Buy DraA
SupplemeotaJ EaW'onmental Impu:c Stat8mel>t (SElSl
IlDd to receive public"commeota. Copies ot the SEIS are
available at City HalL the AvpburI Park Commuoity Li-
brary !'l100 Niconet Avenue) and the Southdale braDI:h lio
brary for',the public to renew. '"'.
WHEN:
Tue.lay. October 30. 200t
7:00 p.m.
WHERE:
Rit:bfield Cit)' Hall - Couocil Cbamben
6700 Portland :Avenue South "
QUESTIONS: .,' .
Coiuact.JoIm Stark. CmJimuoity DenlopmeriL M_ger
at 612-861-9760
NANCY GmSs
City Clerk
~ AIDS FOR INDlVlDUALS W1'l1IDlSABIL.
u__AREAVAILABLEUPONREQUEST. BEQUIl'STS -
TOMUS'r BE MADE AT LEAST 96 HOURS IN ADVANCE '
81" THEADMlN1STRATlVE SERVlCES DlRECTORAT"
" ..-861-9702..
(~ 2f. 2l!Ol)D2JBeat Buy Draft,
i
". ..'
.; ....
... .'
,....-.;.:... ' ..
Jan 10 02 02:09p
--=-
p.4
Yo." 0;' ..'.t'" < , ':"....:-.~.T':~~~~:.~~ .:~h-;:,-'~.~~}.~1r.:,;:.. .,..:,:~,.,:~~~~~~~.~~..~~~...~.:.:i.~~~
fr1;e:"~ss'l-:''''':-a'e''''l a" s" .::;'Ri.c' 'h'fi'''-:-I.'d'~~f~o-'~m'-:'" 'm' ,~.u".....ift.lhl:;;'~'-':-::<.f.:'~,
rr.-:',' n. _........,. ...~" "..' .....~~~.<,...:,.::...t_;_.
t1t~t;~:r-.:\::~;'?:.p,~!;!.~lri~t~~:~~:~ ,
For more information, call:
Julie Urban or John Stark
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Voice: 612-861-9760
FAX: 612-861-8974
For Release: December 8, 2001
Date: December 8, 2001
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, BEST BUY
CAMPUS
Notice is hereby given that a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(Final SEIS) on the Best Buy Campus project is available. The SEIS studies the
environmental impacts of the proposed Best Buy project as they relate to the potential
closure of portions of Trunk Highway 62 (the Crosstown) during construction and identifies
ways to mitigate impacts.
.'
The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final SEIS) consists of the
minor changes to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS), the
written comments received on the Draft SEIS and the responses to those comments.
The Final SEIS is available for review at Richfield City Han, 6700 Portland Avenue,
Richfield, Minnesota and at Augsburg Park Branch ofthe Hennepin County Library, 7100
Nicollet Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota, and at the Southdale Branch of the Hennepin County
Library, 7001 York Avenue, Edina, Minnesota.
Comments on the Final SEIS are invited from the public during the official comment
period which ends on December 26, 2001. Comments should be in writing and should be
addressed to:
Mr. John Stark
Community Development Manager
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Comments can be mailed to Mr. Stark or dropped off at Richfield City Hall. Questions
about the FEIS or the comment process will be answered by Mr. Stark or Julie Urban,
Community Development Specialist, at 612/861-9760. t#I#
a
"Il#~" ....... ......c... uc-. .a."'f"
o
~
f~ g~~ ~~ ~a
, ~o .fi= 0 ~~ =~
, !f i~ 1'S~ ~~t>> ~ ~~
~ = -ate a~a fIl ~~ oCP~
..- ~i9 '~1!! ~ = O~. ~-B~'
.Aa CD ~ ~:s.glf! s.. =i i :i'4i';i
~~O~~ ~ t>> ~~ ~~-o
_~~~~~. ~~ ~~ aCD~
.~ tlII::';~ i:I:- d' == P ga!> Illl~Z
.a Q lIS V cS/J:S ill .y - III ~ ; pC ~
c;i"84) is; 8 i~! !
-B a ;.1;~ b g 0 ~ ~ ~ C'I lIS
J:Sg;~6~t U !.~~. ~~
~ .8:a f; ! oS ~ ~. 0 J:S l> S 8 ~ If
~a~z~g~ - ~ 0 ;o~~
'~8 oS Ell! U..w ~Jj O~
to.S .... ;..~.,!...!; ~ ';'~!iS
lIS ~. ~ o~o -b-d'6D~
!ls:::...,8 .O~lD ....0 OIl)=Q)
_ lIS 0 = lIl"\.O ,&.~_as ~ CD
lIS ~ ~"c:l'3'.. 0 ~,.d lll:a 1$ ""..c:: Q) IS
f.. ~o'~~ ~~CDCD "i:ff:"'O~o
l~' ;~~.~ " ~ f' Le a il,e ai !~~;
.e ".sJ. 0.... ii"oS .am 'gO=CDtlII
~:::r gas........~ /,8 g:5':: ~ Q) a i t m oJ'
~'lIS:c:J:S 6}(~aCD~ 9=a~a~
lit%: . 5 8. .S ';t oS oS ::: CD fl ~::= t>,..!iI
,g b :a -d ..=....s..c:: ~.. ....cd
e 15 ]..;9 fii e'~ .;~ oS g :g 1 ~lla'~ ~
~;;' 8m Q.c Illl-~ . uo bllCo.t: III oS 0
~ e _~~a .-4=.~e..l:l-
0'" 8.:1 CJ s::: a~ c:i.~ .._,g"'O ...."0
>. 8 _ CD ~ 11> '" .... .... "'0 '1' &:I'~ CD
t: i1 ~ oS -;:sl :a 'Q -:. bII~ 8 If tiS:8 ~ ~
8.0'.s;S- u-l :B=~.a=lDU:aU.'=
~ E-'l at _ ~;:s cL CD';: lI)o<l~lIS' lIS
[Jr .-g . 8 ~~1i'E .~. ~.....8
Q.~cw:i Q> ,e.-SCD 'bb,g:+->.r;. ,t'da3l
o _~ ~ .....~ 8 ,...- s:l .- '-];:S
ii3~~= oc 0 ~~:tS ~o .13~ U o. III
~ CDU) ~ ep'5b lIS~ lD:D'~..a ~ Q
"'O~~ ~ d ~~~~~~~-~ ~lIS~
.e;.~::2 ..... = ~,.Q.~ s: ~ d CiS 1: ~ Q) Q) 6
....~ ~o '1_ ~ uG'ij"- ~.... :s!..d..
~"""O(l>'. ....... o~ -g ~ ... u~ ;.-"" po
a ~j~. 'i ~11J i ,J.8].~ ~ ~ ~
a<3,uS ' j GO cd ~'~..d~ :a ~ a~
~~~~ = ~l o/.s:g g ~l: !~ e
.sf;>(l> = "'j-i!13CDGlIS"'O IISCDCo
t'IJ~~ i:i 0 ~ ~ ~~ o~ea1i f .,g-E,t'
.g ~;~l m~ ~~.~ 1~]~:r:!i8]'
~ ~ e . . ~ ~ ~"'dO 0 .. a g lIS ~ ~ g,
01)..0 s;Q :a~~G""CD'C--O~1I)
:~o~ .~ 8=~~~as~ui~~~1
d Q) 0 ..... J~ =. = II) lIll.a CD e... ~ lIS
3la~ ~'~ 88~ &o~~.s ~b
"
~~
~ .~
OOe
~c8
~~
~-i
....:a
~ ~
= .eu
::~ -> ) . ~flt. ...:
... . ~ . .
.....ru,Q CDcD.....O · '0= cD
1:1 lB ~;l:l tlII ...d'" 0 bU .... ..c:: ~O'- .a
111 .,.Q::s ~ III III _ u;:!.-4 Co
9~t~o ~ld~g ~<~~CD~e
0'" . 0 s::I .... -~ ~ ~
_~ oS cD "'d ~ -rs t- ~ 8:g as Gi t'::= ~ ....
s::.sj~"'O a.~&tlIIl ..!!~~$~~
lD~~~1 J.=~i~ ~l~~i~
'j ~ t:I: tl CD 1 G) "'d os l o:e >.:8 < g
i !B.!S :-. ~ -:S oS" .~ cq * ell 0 ~ ::s ~ "'d
a.... - ~...lIll(l>CO ~=OOQ)
cD = ~t3 CD . 3l ~.9 >-Illl _:1 0 ::2 OJ ~-:S
-a. CD aJ ,.Q ~ III ~ U ar 9: OJ 0 a "'d .-4
!: ~ e'=i:::: d SG1 j:Q 'ii1 i .~ ir3 ~ s fii g g
..... 6.c= _ CD -- -till ~ . p" - 0 ~
11I.8 ~ ~ ~ .... -:a e {r'" - 0 -:0 -.:J
1=i~3'i~~~!s~&1~~~ii
=;s....Q m~~O"'dR~,t'lIS....aa
II) g, 2l ~ CD lD ID Q) j' ~.::; CD 0 P4..!!,.:; a
g:l ~ is' ~ ft i g3 tii _ c:f! t9:s :rg ! 0
. ~=~8~ ~. ~~ ~J~<
'.
... .... .....
.-:...-.._-"~ ~~
. r;;r-_.0It..~..
p.~
,.
;
." "..', ',.." '. .,3foo- . ...:-..\~......;...:-...-.- '_W._-:'_~,""'_"_"""._'.'.#..
;\ ;~'!}::.;8};:/';"":c, " '. .... ,':<
r}i~~~~~~':;~;;If.~Y;~t#St~f~~~i:~\;;<:t.
~~.~';ii;:~:. .~( 'i'!.~~~~;::: -':~' :z~:~.+;'..i::ff+ ~.':f:.:~:;,:~.,,;,:,)i.;,;..:~:,.< ~.: .,';""" ,.:.
I
Appendix D
Letter Regarding the 76th Street Entrance Ramp to 1-35W
(See office file for letter regarding 76th St. entrance ramp to 1-35W)
I
I
Supplemental EIS For The Best Buy Campus
Adequacy Determination And Record Of Decision
Appendices
Public Works Department
,
May 10, 2001
Ms. Vicki Groth
7221 Humboldt Ave. So.
Richfield, MN 55423
Subject: 1-494 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Including the 76th Street Entrance Ramp to 1-35W
Dear Ms. Groth:
>>
The Richfield City Council commented on the Draft 1-35W Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) on June 9, 1992. At that time the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT) had proposed Light Rail Transit or a High Occupancy
Vehicle Lane in the median of 1-35W and an additional lane in each direction, and
other altematives. The first two alternatives would have required significant right of
way acquisition. including all the homes along Humboldt Avenue from 76th Street to
the Wood Lake Nature Center.
The Council favored the High Occupancy Vehicle alternative and opposed the Light
Rail Transit alternative.
MnDOT chose not to pursue either altemative. Instead, a scaled back design was
proposed in December 1996 that added just the High 'Occupancy Vehicle Lane
without adding any additional lanes for general purpose traffic. The Addendum to the
Finall-35W Environmental Impact Statement dated December 1996 did not discuss
any changes in the right of way impacts along Humboldt Avenue from the original
Finall-35W EIS dated January 1995.
In February and March 2001 MnDOT held public information meetings in
communities affected by the proposed reconstruction of 1-494. These meetings were
held to inform the public of the preferred layout to be included in the Final 1-494 EIS.
According to MnDOT the document is scheduled to be published some time this
spring. The Final 1-494 EIS is needed before MnDOT can begin to reconstruct the
freeway.
~
The 76th Street entrance ramp to northbound 1-35W is a part of the reconstruction of
1-494. The design of the ramp is affected by the design of the 1-494/1-35W
interchange. MnDOT's preferred layout for the ramp will require the acquisition of
homes on Humboldt Avenue south of 73rd Street to 76th Street. This is a reduction
in the number of homes originally identified in the Finall-35W EIS dated January
1995.
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 612.861.9700 FAX: 612.861.9749
Vicki Groth
May 10, 2001
Page 2
,
Our Council has not been asked by MnDOT to comment on the preferred layout
being included in the Fjnall-494 EIS. However, based on comments from Council
members and the public at the public information meeting held in Richfield, MnDOT
staff has agreed to explore several design altematives that may reduce the amount of
right of way needed along Humboldt Avenue. This will be done in the summer after
MnDOT staff has completed design work needed elsewhere along 1-494.
Please call me at 612-861-9791 or Chris Roy, MnDOT Project Manager for 1-494, at
651-582-1305 if you have additional questions.
Sincerely,
Thomas Foley, Transportation Engineer
Public Works Department
TFF:ttf
Copy: Chris Roy, Minnesota Department of Transportation
-
~