The URL can be used to link to this page

02-12-01 AgendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2001 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5:30 P.M. Call to order Roll call Discussion of liquor sale policies • Review of Resolution 8808 specifying certain conduct of on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine and 3.2 malt liquor licensees and stating recommended discipline • Review of proposed ordinance allowing sale of intoxicating liquor at Richfield Community Center (Staff requests this item be deferred to March 12, 2001 Study Session) 2. Discussion of enforcement of ordinance violations Adjournment REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. RICHFIELD CITY- HALL 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Meeting of January 22, 2001; (2) Regular Council Meeting of January 22, 2001; (3) Special City Council Meeting of January 24, 2001; (4) Special City Council Meeting of January 27, 2001; and (5) Special City Council Meeting of January 27, 2001 PRESENTATION 1. Presentation of Certificate of Achievement for Financial Reporting to Finance Manager S Chris Regis 2. Council discussion items Notes: 3. Opportunity for citizens to address the Council on items not on the agenda (Limited to 15 minutes.) Speakers are asked to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Additional opportunity for citizens to address the Council on items not on the agenda will be at the end of this meeting. Individuals who wish to address the Council are requested to print their name and address on the Speaker's Register for the record. Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 4. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 5. Consent Calendar contains several separate items which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval A. Consideration of approval of first reading of transitory ordinance providing for expenditure of funds from Special Revenue Fund for certain capital improvements and scheduling public hearing and second reading. for March 12, 2001 S.R. No. 33 B. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordinance amendment to Section 315 allowing timely disposal of forfeited property acquired by City pursuant to civil and criminal forfeiture proceedings under State law and scheduling public hearing and second reading for March 12, 2001 S:R. No. 34 C. Consideration of approval of continuation of contract with City of Bloomington for various building inspections and code enforcement services for Richfield for 2001 and 2002 S.R. No. 35 . D. Consideration of approval of purchase of four new sedans for use by Public Safety administrative staff in amount of $70,026.40 S.R. No. 36 E. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing Richfield's application for 2001 Municipal Recycling Grant from Hennepin County and signing of 2001 recycling contract S.R. No. 37 F. Consideration of approval of plans and specifications, ordering project and authorizing bids for reconstruction of 7600 block. of Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 38 G. Consideration of approval of agreement with Richfield State Agency to maintain 67th Street between Pleasant and Harriet Avenues and with The Oaks L.L.C. to provide utility services at 66th Street and Pleasant Avenue S.R. No. 39 Notes: ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS 6. Receipt of City Clerk's certification of referendum and initiative petitions submitted January 19, 2001 by Sponsoring Committee of Dewayne Sietsema, Deb Nordmarken, Peggy Handt, Myrle Richter and Joseph Krzyzaniak Staff Report No. 40 Staff Report No. 41 Notes: 7. Consideration of actions related to following petitions for referendum and initiative: REFERENDUM • Petition for referendum on Transitory Ordinance No. 2000-19 approving City's Comprehensive Plan as amended concerning the Interchange West Area • Petition for referendum on Transitory Ordinance No. 2000-20 approving amendment to Section Appendix I of Ordinance Code of City of Richfield INITIATIVE • Petition for initiative proposing ordinance to establish traffic and parking regulations to protect public health, safety and general welfare • .Petition for initiative proposing ordinance to preserve housing stock of City of Richfield Staff Report No. 42 • Notes: • PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. Public hearing and second reading of amendment to Zoning Ordinance allowing reduction in required corner visibility area for fully controlled intersections Staff Report No. 43 Notes: 9. Public hearing and second reading of ordinance amendment to City Administrative Code Chapter III, Subsection 310.33 describing vacation leave Staff Report No. 44 Notes: 10. Public hearing and second reading of cable television ordinance for Everest Connections Corporation Staff Report No. 45 Notes: 11. Public hearing and second reading of cable television ordinance for WideOpenWest, LLC Staff Report No. 46 Notes: 12. Public hearing and second reading of transitory ordinance to change name of 73-1/2 Street to Pillsbury Lane Staff Report No. 47 • Notes: ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS 13. Discussion of final layout of I-494_ Reconstruction Project Staff Report No. 48 Notes: RESOLUTION 14. Consideration of resolution and findings of fact regarding request for supplemental environmental impact statement for Best Buy Campus project Staff Report No. 49 Notes: • ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS 15. Consideration of agreement between Bloomington and Richfield to acquire right of way needed to build Penn Avenue bridge over I-494 Staff Report No. 50 Notes: RESOLUTIONS 16. Consideration of resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing purchase of properties identified in Penn Avenue Bridge Project Staff Report No. 51 Notes: • 17. Consideration of resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing purchase of partial acquisition of properties identified to widen 76th Street from I-35W to Penn Avenue Project Staff Report No. 52 Notes: AIRPORT BUSINESS 18. Airport status report Notes: 19.Opportunity for citizens to address the Council on items not on the agenda (Limited to 15 minutes.) . Individuals who wish to address the Council are requested to print their name and address on the Speaker's Register for the record. Notes: COUNCIL CHOICE Notes: 20. Claims and payrolls. 21.Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 612-861-9702. • AGENDA SECTION: Resolutions AGENDA ITEM # j ] REPORT # rj2 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING • FEBRUARY 12, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: © ~~~ ~ ~ ~~- REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ /~~~~ti~Y~~ /off/~ ~ ~ n ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase of partial acquisition and easements at Saint Richard's Church at 7540 Penn Avenue,. a partial acquisition and easements at Colony Apartments at-1601 West 75th Street, a partial acquisition and easements from Fountainhead Apartments at 7611 Knox Avenue, and a partial acquisition and temporary easement from Floyd Sjostrand at 7539 Penn Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing purchase of a partial acquisition at Saint Richard's Church at 7540 Penn Avenue, a partial acquisition and easements at Colony Apartments at 1601,West 75th Street, a partial acquisition and easements from Fountainhead Apartments at 7611 Knox Avenue, and a partial acquisition and temporary easement from Floyd Sjostrand at 7539 Penn Avenue. • III. BACKGROUND ( The project to widen 76th Street from I-35W to Penn Avenue requires additional right of way. Four parcels affected by the .project are Saint Richard's Church at 7540 Penn Avenue, Fountainhead Apartments at 7611 Knox Avenue, Colony Apartments at 1601 West 75th Street and an apartment project owned by Floyd 0212-76thROWoffers Sjostrand at 7539 Penn Avenue. The land needed for the project involves a partial acquisition and temporary easements of all four parcels. A permanent easement is . needed on Colony Apartments property for the relocation of a 42-inch watermain that serves the City of Bloomington. Appraisal reports were prepared for the partial acquisition and easements from Saint Richard's Church. The review appraiser's recommended determination of just compensation is $93,200 for these interests. This amount will be the basis for the offer to the property owner. Appraisal reports were prepared for the partial acquisition and easements from Colony Apartments. The review appraiser's recommended determination. of just compensation is $39,800 as just compensation for these interests. This amount will be the basis for the offer for partial acquisition and easements to be purchased from the Colony Apartments. Appraisal reports were prepared for the partial acquisition and easements from Fountainhead Apartments. The review appraiser's recommended determination of just compensation for these interests is $394,100. This amount will be the basis for the offer to the owner of the Fountainhead Apartments. Based upon the independent appraiser's opinion of the fee value of land owned by the nearby Colony Apartments and the appraiser's opinion of damages per square foot for a similar temporary easement, staff estimates the damages caused by the taking of a small amount of right of way and a temporary easement over a small area from Floyd Sjostrand's apartment building at 7539 Penn Avenue to be $2,200. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The subject properties have been identified as necessary to be acquired for the widening of 76th Street from I-35W to Penn Avenue Project. • Right of way acquisition procedures set forth by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration are being. followed. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Offers will be made to the property owners upon Council's approval of just compensation and authorization to purchase. • Properties are being processed for Council's consideration for just compensation and purchase authorization as appraisals are received by staff. C. FINANCIAL Funding for the purchase of these parcels will be provided by the City of Richfield using its Municipal State Aid Street funds (gas tax revenues). • D. LEGAL • The City's attorneys have overseen the right of way acquisition process and will be available to answer any questions. E. TIMING • Closings will be scheduled as negotiations are completed. • Based on other right of way acquisition projects, owners will be able to remain in the property for an interim period to help make any required moving out of the affected areas as smooth as possible.. Vacation, however, must be completed by the time the construction contract is awarded in late spring 2001. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • .Council may choose. to delay approval of the just compensation and authorization to acquire the project properties or not approve them at this time. However, a delay in making offers may disrupt traffic on 76th Street when the Penn Avenue bridge is closed in 2002 for reconstruction. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing. purchase of real estate property located at 7540 Penn Avenue, 7611 Knox Avenue, 1601 . West 75th Street, and 7539 Penn Avenue. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7540 PENN AVENUE, AT 7611 KNOX AVENUE, AT 1601 WEST 75th STREET, AND AT 7539 PENN AVENUE (WIDENING OF 76th STREET FROM I-35W TO PENN AVENUE PROJECT) WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota desires to purchase certain real property and easements pursuant to and in furtherance of the Widening of 76th Street from I-35W to Penn Avenue Project (Project) heretofore adopted by the City of Richfield (City) said real property being described on Exhibit A, together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted a layout for Project improvements; and WHEREAS, the Project improvements necessitate the purchase of real property and easements appurtenant thereto; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes to acquire real property within its corporate boundaries; and • WHEREAS, the City has caused appraisals for the properties to be made by qualified independent .professional appraisers to determine fair market value of real estate; and WHEREAS, a qualified review appraiser has certified the real estate appraisal reports as being in conformity with appraisal standards; and WHEREAS, the Richfield Public Works Department and City Attorney have reviewed all appraisal reports and review appraisal reports prepared for the properties and the City staff recommendations of just compensation for the real estate and easements, and concur that such amounts should be determined by the City Council as the just compensation for such properties, as indicated in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Richfield Public Works Department has also recommended that the City proceed to make offers to the owners of the properties in the just compensation amounts of $93,200 for the Saint Richard's Church-real estate partial acquisition and easements, $39,800 for the Colony Apartments real estate partial acquisition and easements, $394,100 for the Fountainhead Apartments real estate partial acquisition and easements, and $2,200 for the Floyd Sjostrand real estate partial acquisition and easements. WHEREAS, the just compensation amounts indicated are consistent with said appraisal reports and review appraisal reports. • • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the total just compensation for each of the individual parcels of real estate and easements are found to be the amounts indicated in this resolution. 2. That the City's agent, Kennedy and Graven, is authorized and directed to submit to property owners the City's offer to pay such just compensation amount for all interests in each such property and commence negotiations for the purchase of said property interests. 3. That the City's agent, Kennedy and Graven, is hereby directed to notify, in writing, the owners of the properties that the City intends to acquire the property indicated in Exhibit A and establish eligibility for relocation benefits, if any. 4. That the City Manager and Mayor are authorized to execute purchase agreements in a form acceptable to them and take. all other actions necessary to complete the purchase of the properties for the amount of just compensation set forth in this resolution. Adopted by the. City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of February, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • I-- • m 2 W • O 0 N 00 0 N H ~ M ~ Ef} Ei3 ~ Efl d = ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ 6F} ~? Eft cf3 , ~ ~' W r +~'' 00 O O O y W N M r O N M ~ ~ d ~ ~' ~ ~ N (~ O ,F, N _ N ~ ~ O L N~- ~ ~ ~ L ~ 4-- ~ ~ ~ Q ~ L L O ~ ~ ~ L ~ t (V (V ~ li ~ ~ N (~ (V ' O O ~ N ~ ~ N ~ am' ~ ~ N ~ N ~ ( p I` tO i ~ ~ d N O ~ ~ C t~/ ~ 0 ti O ~~ M ~ O N ~ O ~ O ~ ~'~ O ~ O N ~ ~ a~ ~ o ~ L ~ a~ ag o +~ ~ E ~ ~ oo c ~ _ ~ Y ~ N n Y ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ Y ~ N j ~ ~ C N v. O 0 ~ f 0~ N ~ O O N ~~ 0 . O ~ u N E N ~ p LL ~' O LL f~ ~ ~ ~ lJ ~' O L L ~ ;~;, ~ ~ N ~ (6 ~ .. ~ ~ . N .L ~ C Q ~ O ti C C ~ _ ~ ~~ N C O ti Q. O ~, ~ ~ Y E L. N O ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .Y L E O Y ~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~"' N ~ r ~ Q ~ D N N ~ -'-' C O N N O ~ R M ~ N N 'O'' C O N N ~ f` LL (6 ~ L.L Q . 3 ~ to LL (B ~ LL .~ ~ N ~ ~ L ~ ~ i--/ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ Q ~ Q Q LL y-+ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ 4. O ~ r- rn ~ O r M ~ ~ ~ ti * ~~ d i . - ~- N M d' U a AGENDA SECTION: FEBRUARY 12, 2001 Resolutions 16 51 REPORT PREPARED BY: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER , REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NANtE, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ /~~ ~ ~.--~--- REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: _ .~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase of Citgo Service Station at 7744 Penn Avenue and a partial acquisition of Century Court Apartments at 7600-7720 Penn Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase of Citgo Service Station at 7744 Penn Avenue and authorizing the [~i~eeto~r-o~- ~fcs to determine just compensation for a partial acquisition fro Century Court Apartments at 7600-7720 Penn Avenue. IL BACKGROUND ' ~ 7~1 ~~'~ The Penn Avenue Bridge Project requires additional right of way. Two parcels affected by the project are the Citgo Service Station at 7744 Penn Avenue and the Century Court Apartments at 7600-7720 Penn Avenue. The Citgo Station is a total acquisition and the Century Court property is a partial acquisition. Appraisal. reports were prepared for the real estate, movable personal property and immovable • fixtures and equipment (fixtures). The review appraiser's recommended determination of just compensation for Citgo Service Station is $500,000 as just compensation for the real estate, $185,105 as just compensation for the fixtures, and $685,105 as total just compensation. These amounts will be the basis for the offer for property acquisition and for the immovable fixtures and equipment. 0212PennROWOffers The review appraiser's recommended determination of just compensation for partial acquisition of real estate from Century Court Apartments has not been received. In order • to expedite matters, it is requested that the City Manager determine just compensation based upon the review appraiser's opinion for that property when it is received (presumably before February 22,.2001). III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The subject properties have been identified as necessary to be acquired for construction of the new Penn Avenue bridge over I-494 project. • Right of way acquisition procedures set forth by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration are being followed. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Offers will be made to the property owners upon determination of just compensation and authorization to purchase. • Properties are being processed for Council's consideration for just compensation and purchase authorization as appraisals are received by staff. C. FINANCIAL • Funding for the purchase of these parcels will. be provided by the City of Richfield using funds furnished by the Best Buy Company as part of the Best Buy Redevelopment Project. D. LEGAL • The City's Attorneys have overseen the right of way acquisition process and will be available to answer any questions. Closings will be scheduled as negotiations are completed. Based on other right of way acquisition projects,. owners will be able to remain in the property for an interim period to help make moving as smooth as possible. Vacation, however, must be completed by June 30, 2001. ALTERNATIVE KECOMMENDATION(S) ~ • Council may choose to delay approval of the just compensation and authorization to acquire the project properties or not approve them at this-time. However, a delay in making offers may delay the. Penn Avenue Bridge Project by one year. TTACHMENTS Resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing purchase of real property located at 7744 Penn Avenue and authorizing the Director of Public Works to determine just compensation for a partial acquisition from Century Court Apartments at 7600-7720 Penn Avenue. ~ V 1. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~ • None. • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION AND AUTHORIZING • PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7600-7720 PENN AVENUE AND AT 7744 PENN AVENUE (PENN AVENUE BRIDGE AT 1-494 PROJECT) WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota desires to purchase certain. real property, immovable fixtures and equipment, pursuant to and in furtherance of the Penn Avenue Bridge at I-494 Project (Project) heretofore adopted by the City of Richfield (City) said real property being described on Exhibit A and on Exhibit B, together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto; and - WHEREAS, the City has adopted a layout for Project improvements; and WHEREAS, the Project improvements necessitate the purchase of real property, immovable fixtures and equipment appurtenant thereto; and WHEREAS, the-.City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes to acquire real property within its corporate boundaries; and WHEREAS, the Best Buy Company is initially funding the purchase of real estate for the .Project; and • WHEREAS, the City has caused appraisals for the properties to be made by qualified independent professional appraisers to determine fair market value of real estate and immovable fixtures and equipment appurtenant thereto; and WHEREAS, the review appraiser's opinion of just compensation has not yet been received with respect to the takings from Century Court Apartments; and WHEREAS, a qualified review appraiser has certified the real estate appraisal reports as being in conformity with appraisal standards; and WHEREAS, a qualified review appraiser has certified the immovable fixtures and equipment appraisal reports as being in conformity with appraisal standards; and WHEREAS, the Richfield Public Works Department and City Attorney have reviewed all appraisal reports and review appraisal reports prepared for the properties and the City staff recommendations of just compensation for the real estate, immovable fixtures and equipment relating thereto, and concur that such amounts should be determined by the City Council as the just compensation for such properties, as indicated in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Richfield Public Works .Department has also recommended that the City proceed to make offers to the owners of the properties in the just compensation . amounts of $685,105 for the Citgo Service Station real estate and fixtures; and WHEREAS, the just compensation amounts indicated are consistent with said. appraisal reports and review appraisal reports. WHEREAS, it is requested that the City Manager be granted the authority to determine just compensation for the takings from Century Court Apartments based upon the review appraiser's opinion when that opinion is received; and • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the total just compensation for each of the individual parcels of real estate and the immovable fixtures and equipment relating thereto are found to be the amounts indicated in Exhibit A. 2. That the City Manager be authorized to determine just compensation for the property described in Exhibit B when he receives the review appraiser's opinions for said property. 3. That the City's agent, Kennedy and Graven, is authorized and directed to submit to property owners the City's offer to pay such just compensation amount for all interests in each property listed on Exhibit A or Exhibit B and commence negotiations for the purchase of said properly. 4. That the City's agent, Kennedy and Graven is hereby directed to notify, in writing, the owners of the properties that the City intends to acquire the property indicated in Exhibit A and establish eligibility for relocation benefits. 5. That the City Manager and Mayor are authorized to execute purchase agreements in a form acceptable to them and take all other actions necessary to complete the purchase of the properties for the amount of just compensation set forth in this resolution or as to Exhibit B established by the Director of Public Works. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of February, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • • • C X W 0 ~ O ~ ~ .Q ~ ~ > H ~ 0 ~ O i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ r~+ O O W ~ 0 0 ~ ~ L ~ ~ V _ M W r~+ N i ~, ~ ~ Q. O O ~ N O Q W .v N c Y ~ 0 ~ ~ N N LL N N L a ~ ~' Q o ~ L a ~r ti ~~ va W M~ W_ X W L = O ~ ~ ~~ '~ '"' ~ N ~ O ~ N O i Q. ~ ~ O LL W d+ N W R L O L . yr L C ~ a Q ~ ~ •M~ W ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ L N Q- +• ~ M 00 ~ r ~ `~- C N C ~ ~ N i O .Y ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ `= N ~ N ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'v ~ ~ c ~ ~ Q Y ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ C ti N N ~ d' LL Q '~ N N d L ~ Q ~ a d o O N ~ a ti 0 0 ti ~, ~ L N va • AGENDA SECTION: Admin. Reports AGENDA ITEM # 15 REPORT # 5 0 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2001 • REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of an Agreement between the cities of Bloomington and Richfield for right of way needed for the Penn Avenue Bridge over I-494. I. .RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the agreement between the cities of Bloomington and Richfield to acquire the right of way needed- to build the Penn Avenue Bridge over 1-494. C~ II. BACKGROUND The cities of Bloomington and Richfield have -been working together to advance the construction of the Penn Avenue Bridge. Richfield has secured funds for the project and has asked Bloomington to acquire property needed for construction of the new Penn Avenue Bridge. There are five parcels in Bloomington to be purchased at a cost of approximately $2 million by the City of Bloomington. The parcels need to be acquired for construction of the Penn Avenue Bridge. Funding for the purchase of these parcels is included in the bridge project. The funding sources are as follows: • $7 million Best Buy Tax Increment Financing (TIF) • $7 million loan from Best Buy • $8.5 million Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) through a Transportation Revolving Loan Fund and $1.8 million in construction services 0212-PennROW-Agmt III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION • A. POLICY • The Penn Avenue Bridge needs to be replaced to accommodate future increases in traffic volume. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The new bridge will require the purchase of additional right of way in both Bloomington and Richfield. C. FINANCIAL • Funds to purchase property in Bloomington will come from the Best Buy Company and passed through the City of Richfield as part of the Best Buy Redevelopment Project. D. LEGAL • City .attorneys for both Bloomington and Richfield have reviewed and approved the proposed agreement. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • None.. • V. ATTACHMENTS • Cooperative Agreement between the Cities of Richfield and Bloomington Regarding Costs. Incurred in Connection with Penn Avenue Bridge Project. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. C, ~$-01-J1 1dl~i CItY !~ BLN. r~I~h'IIN. 53~'3638~d f~.~13~V76 COOPE&~iTiVE At~R11+d~1~` ~E'1'~~FN Ci'I`I1~S OF RiCF~ELD A11II~ SLOC?MENG'J'Q>~f iC~GGA1tffING CQS'~'S INCtTRREfl II~ C]NNECfil01~T ~ PENrii A'vi;Ptt~ ~Itt~GE P1tOJ~C')C T~#8 AG41~1V'"#', is made acrd ~ter~, iota es ttft3tis ~ of . ZO©f ~ by and ~ the CITY O~ Rf,~1, a l~ttesota trumicipal caapvra#iart ~`Richttedd"~, and ,th~e+ Ci2Y o1~'`~,,,~~,pynp,MtN~I't71~, a~Mira~ata ra~uaicipa! catpatatinrs ("81c~amin~a'~, ctrl#e~ively iGi~r~ ~ ~!. ~31C ~ 41tT~J. }~. Vi~Hi~R~idl$i ttie Cities desie~ that I~erut Avenue fridge (tlxe `~$ridge"~ lam tt21 the tron~dgrY of Cities be tate~trsttttctcd, {the "Pt+ujec!"}, grid • ~1~AS, tyke Project elan itsvtklves t~ carman afthe apprq~aclles to the Bridge, botPt irr ~.ich~i+afd gad iu ~lookni, she eic~sure or ttx+puting csf cxis6ttg $~ey frontage reads, and the r~lacation s~' utilities, ~ ~li5, the ~ scope ta~'tl~e Projcct is depicted art tl~ g~r,}~d ~xtubit A„ aad VV~1~,AS, foe project t~quites th$t right of way ba acgrtired its bads cities, artd ~ of the aad ' wiit be ~ to Mtiff~n~' fvr tzar~ct~t~otLparpvses, and i~ ~-. #E1t1~.A8, $~ is willir~ m utq~rire the nor tight at` way relating #a the pnttiatk bf the Bridge and atspraaches 2yif4~ ~+itlwt I#1~, but Duly reeeivit~ assurances from. l~iehfietd relating to teittth'tttsetttetrt by Riehiipld c~ eel costs askd cxptaaittstes incurred or to be iacurr~ by ~l~n; atkd as~gnces regar~ditkg the obligations of tFrc Cities in the e~trt that dst project is diseoritlau~d by Rirhfietd, 1~'t~'~V 'f'~EI~FGIt~, irk ec~nsidera~ot~t of the muttrat prtsmise~s and mutual obli~ii~ of the Cities yeti ham, each. of #twm does hereby :e~pnesRmt, r~v~nt ~rld agrem r~rith thRe es X11. • 1. ~~~'s--Cb~~ B~Ionm~gton s~u+ll be r~patts~`bie fc~ argtti~iug, ~ its name, apprapria~ irlttrests in the peels of lauud r~cessr.~y fdr the recimircd n#-af-way fa t1~ partibrs of tree Bridge atsd fSs apprrraches with#sa Bldome~tan. Such interests also it~cclutle, without lurritu, gll te~nparsxy tiger necessazy itt exktittectiort ~cviiik the cot~str~ #'the i~ Project. 1`}re extent vft'he areas to 1~ su>sject to scgttisitlaat. shalt be datermitted by g. rigikt-o~wa~y deliueaticrrk to 6s uprktt 6y tree Cities. Subject to delay gs desCrtiked iz> Seotitfri 6, Blonmbcm e,a to tt~. its tkest r~sottabie affects to e~t~ all sucb scgiic+ns by :mot bier thatk June 30, 2.001. ksQ-tsota~ r~ias-aos !9Y-d !0/90 d 9!q-! Ol£B!££219+ N3Ad8J ~ A43NN3}I-woad ~d9~ti0 10-10-~0 • FG$-zJ1~-~~701 ld ~ 31 C i tY ~i~ $LM. pf3M 11~. 95~SL38'7~t P. ~Q~gS Z. liia _ Id's Qblia~on. Su~eet to the provisions of this ~gteemes~l, Rield agt to provir~e Htoomio~tart ~ flmds necessary to a the nest of mid tigbcc-off acquisition. The cost is eurtatt#tq estin>sted by ttse Cif3es t+n be {1d0 OOO.Od, but the actv$t c may 1~ more or leis. T~ costs to be f~mdcd by R3rltfield will be the actltal +rosts 3sicurt+ad, expestc3ed ur rt7tnmitted tn- ~logtifi~tort for doe acquisition of the ne~s,~ty right of wap far the F+t+aject, including but not linsited to the fallciwitig: * Purchase price fit srttatesks it! ltd aCquirecl far tiic Itraject whether by vnius~ary ~ruhese dr by auxclemnation, ittclttdir~ severdn~ dat~ges aetd any reintburs~tettts regttited, to be made to property o~mcKS es past ofthe aa~isition. + paytster~t of elm fa tags datt~es alleged to insult from, the closure of txeevvay .~ ~ for other ~ ct~ndemnatirni claims and damages pstt~umtt to ttte 1~sject. • l7.elocatian pa j+metrts mss azxi. ~s ~c~ettt~ed ss g res~xlt of a~* skit acquisitions, includir~ any telbretinn pmts f~nr +tt3.lities cif uircd,~. ,`~ + t~rssts sad expos ittcuttc~d ~r ~' cnvit~men±tat issues ate firm the acgtiisitia~, it~cluclittg costs ~ ~ envimnme~ai review, t~Stt, mrmitari;tg, lemediation, and disposai, rile Cost6 imct~rred fixr environmental eorsuttsttts, and arty chimes iYtada by the MPCA. ~ Piliag fens, settrrice fees, aattstttissioner t~s, gttd similar fees and expenses irtcurted in cot~dtitu~ gctinns, r 1Z~1 9itdte t~[eb 0! ir~stal~ment5 D~ 5p~sial gSSesslYi that Sure to be paid es a reautt of can~eMtrattiotw + interest payments regtie~d ~ be pgid ~s a result of condentttaticm. • Absbcacting astd offer title expcrncs. • Recnrdiag ax-d flif~ fees, deed laar, and other closing casts grid expenses far all seal estate transfers. • Fees urged 1~lootnis>gtan 6y envimumelttal, gppraisat sad telcscatiors c~ttaultants. abd, hY auts~e counsel end afhet crts sud cal~sltants hired far the acquisitions. + fbr $~~~n staff time std tD the ~'taject tiler the h~nrly ~ rate, o~et'head, and $istga huts at the 2001 t~tca). 3. P~rn~ent ~~ E~cpr.~tdituses pivv°us~'~• Subject m ot~rnptying with rite pmcedtire described in i'aragraph 4te) below, Richfield shall xeim Blc~am%agtt~ta fvr glt ~ qua eycpenditw'as made prier td tF,e date oftltig ggrrcem~t_ 4. Raght»o `ytiay Put+nf>msei~cess. 7Ctmip~artd A ofPays • ~a) t3lootnirsgtcxt wl#1 select twq apprglsers ~ one revieuv appraiser fcr each parcel to be acquired in fie; ~r rlorl-fee aCgttisitions, nrte appr~iscr try be used. Selection sha11 be 8om I9sts t~im~d by the lvl'~aesota l~eparEtt of Transportation. t~ic~cstinn cansttltat~a, if treaded, wilt a1~ ]x selected try I31oagtott frpm that Itst. aat~t5otazv2 ~c~os.aas !9q-d lo19a d 9l9-1 al£B!£EZl9+ N3Atl89 t d03NN3A-woad Wdjg:gp lp-lO-Zp ~~,~~~1-~~~1 ld:~t cit~r ~' ~..rs. ~t~~w. ~s~~~~d ~.esse~ ~~ {c) ~lnomitsgfrsn shall not a to s an3+ cr~.dmr~tian sa#inn, ttot to enter into gr,3- purchase agreement, xscr ~ pgy xeinrstina beaters which. eyed i 109~e of th+r renrievv appraisal ~ i i Ofi6 of relocation cotsstaltant'g r~tersnination of benefits, without first ahtaiaing anthnrity to de so tom Rirh#leld It is understood that this paragraph (c is any ia#ettded to linut Richfifrld's payttteut dbli~aa, gnd does rlut prerct ~lcionuttgtCir~ $nm ~- ~Y a ~ ~~ confct with Iti1d • (e~ hl ¢Srp~y ire in Which $ pay!'IIent is beitig requested ifnder ~'ts a~ertierrt, ir-clerdirtg rdl cases where man is > undertaken by Rloumitagtou, ~laarttingtnn shall gave Richfield ~so# l~s fat 30 days rtotic~ afthe date when Richfield will be required ui prrn-ide Bloaraiagton with any ftmds. 7;7ae regaiest shall be accompanied by dr+cumentatian a~asonebly rleccs~ty to +-etify the amatmk of the claim artd wvliefhet rt is cxrvetx~ by 8~on ~ above. p-irlyfield shall make payment of the tequeshed ama~t hY the cnd of such petidd ar rs>ti~ l~Ioomisag~ri, in wtitityg why the segetest is not being paid. $e~ause tim-e1y svbauission and payzrtent u~ claims is of vitml impc~aitce ~ the Project, the Gities agree t'bat they will attempt to Fnrmnlats a clearly tzndetslaod pt+oeess t"or preparation, submission, ravi~-, and app:.+c~vs11 bf ell clairns_ 5. Completion of Acquisition. $lcaonu~aa agrees that, subject 47n delQy, gs described below, it will use its best seasonable e~arts !o o t4~ agreer! upgn right-c~fway by ~scrt later tl~ June 30, 2f3(?~, acid ae~vwledges that time is ofttx essence. 6. Slaami~toaa ids drat time is of the essenr~ with reslsxt #t~ the acquisition of ~ t~es5ary right of way fnr die prnjeck gad, rdii-, it agters to ifs best re~c~ble ~ to aogttite tint ri~tt of way by June 3C), Zt)41. 't'4ic pesti+ea ~ htxwever, shat the acgwtsifirms p4tgutiailY be dei~yed bar a ~variaiy of reasmfs; it is ~ widerateocl acid agreed: tint 131cottti~tgtnn carxtaat at~d dons 4ot ~ts~ tlu; c~mrpled+usi cif tha acquisit:arfs by mid dom. • 7. ~s~ritiiiuance by Richfield. Ric#s~eld tray st atry dine elect to discontinrte rids ~teerrtet~, a~ ' $loomingtcm iii writltig of such election. Tn such event, #~lchff eld's obligation to Bloomingtari sYsitll be limited to these rfcpet3ditures of I31tf~ tl~t ate subject m payrnen! by ~ie#~Jeld urtdet See#ion 1, lsut roily to the atitr~ttt~iat t'iiey moo! ba rrutigated by ~lo4mington follt~wing disooMtini~vace. $xattplgles at' l'tichfietd's eon~uing obli~tior- would include: • earnest mc~riey thtthited by Lectniftatiatl of purchase yenta JBL1-~9D1L7•~2 AC145•dtl~ 19q-d 1p190 d 91q-1 plEB1EEZl9+ N3AVa9 ~ dd3NN3?I-woad wdgg:gp Gp-Gp-Zp • FED-Ji-~E9~1 ~.~=32` Cttx 0~ $U°i, pUMIN. ~5~56'?"Sd p. ~f6r~6 ~ C(~pdrl 8w~rd~ iri eqy ~ acliarl in wh~Ch title p t0 $loasnit~g~bn prior La discafltit~tteliatf lry Richfield • Airy e~aunts assessrd agaitsgt Bioartds~tots far th,e disccmtittt~tiott of any pending rnndnninadan actions. • Any cot~ai~hant flees for work ~ prime Lo discdnc~. • Arty additional cysts car expel necess~y inc~nred by ~lvon gs g result ofdiscantian. ~r Blaomirigta~ stg$'t fxr# work performed prior to disrtmtitiu~cc of ~ tie~sazy following dist5otrtirtust~. ' B. i"'uttsse ~.ae a~Aca._Pta. As ~ smy sociuisitint~ ~t Ricl~eEd is rCqu3rrd to ~~r ~ fisrsd gs ~ r~tt of disccint~w~rtce, and sg to aay payrnettEs n h9 Ricl~ield a~ to airy scq~iti al ~ tFr~t $I~- elects to continue fbiiowhtg digcatilian by Richfiei lB ~ ~'"'~ r~aiburse Riehfleld fiar Richfield's peyrnettts as to sigh parcel, at Lire dime Itiasningtan ~ ~~ .. same or all such pssrel, ar ttatisfiers it Lo a titicd p~#}-: ~ '?'~ ~ ~ ~ p1~ 9. ,~cauisitian R,es4bitity [hilt'. Thus went relrttes arty to the acqulsifinti o r the ra~ht of way for the Project, and I~lonnw~tnn drys nct, try this a~reemer-t, vndertalce nr a_~ x ~Y respQnsr°isility fat the cangtruatltm of maiirte~ttce of the ~jeot. ~ ~~ , l4. i~ it Grill tratts~t to ,~ Mrd~o? s T fat tta~i.~ctttation ses. fist' 'ni+I't'N~ i~aF, the pasties have set their hands as of the day and year first gbas-e writEen, G'I'i'1f ©lr' ~iiC~Lb 8t' - - - - By CITY OF $LOOM~~G7AN gy Reviewvod and aped Its 1M~ror • ~y its c#ty lamer rnnt~ia~+a ttcras.~as City Attamey 't~tRL t'. H6 t9q-d !0!lO~d 92Y-1 O1E61£EZl9+ N3AVaJ ~ d03NN3A-~aoa~ wayg:ga l0-la-ZO • AGENDA SECTION: Resolution AGENDA ITEM # 14 REPORT # 49 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2001 • REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: JULIE URBAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Best Buy Campus project. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt a resolution and findings of fact denying a request. for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Best Buy Campus project. ~ II. BACKGROUND On January 17, 2001, Walser Automotive Group submitted a request for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Best Buy Campus project. The Walsers contend that there is substantial new information relating to the project that requires a supplement be prepared, including the following: • The Mall of America Expansion; • Redevelopment plans in the Airport South District; • An Alternative Urban Areawide Review Process underway in Bloomington for the Airport South District; • The planned shutdown of the Crosstown and diversion of traffic to I-494; and • The purchase of the Galyan's property by Best Buy. 0212suppElS BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE The Walsers also contend that the purchase of the Galyan's property constitutes a later phase of the Best Buy Campus project that was not evaluated in the EIS. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • A response to a request for a Supplemental EIS is not a matter of City policy; the criteria are established by Minnesota Rules. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • None of the arguments put forth by Walser meet the tests necessary to require a supplemental EIS. • Detailed responses to each claim are included in Attachment B and in the attached resolution. • The Walser request refers to the Mall of America Environmental Impact Statement which is included in Council Members' packets and the public copy and can also be found online at http://www. ci. bloomington. mn. us/cityhall/dept/commdev/planning/longr ang/enreview/moa/moa. htm. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • State rules allow any person to request that the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) prepare a supplemental EIS. The RGU must respond to the request within 30 days of receiving the request. • There are. two tests to determine whether or not a supplement should be prepared: 1) substantial. changes have been made in the project that affect the potential significant adverse environmental effects of the project; or 2) there is substantial new information that significantly affects the potential environmental effects from the project. In addition, a supplement must be prepared whenever a later phase of a project is proposed that was not evaluated in the initial EIS. 1 V . ALTERNATIVE KECOMMENDATION(S) ~ • Determine that a Supplemental EIS should be prepared for the Best Buy Campus project. A basis for the decision to prepare a supplement must be provided. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Attachment A: Request from Walser Automotive Group • Attachment B: Response to Evidence Presented by Walser • Attachment C: Best Buy Affidavit • Final Environmental impact Statement VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DENYING A REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE BEST BUY CAMPUS PROJECT AND ADOPTING A SET OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 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, the Project falls within the mandatory Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") category of Minn. Rules Part 4410.4400, subp. 11 b(3) because the Project involves the construction of an office facility in excess of 750,000 square feet in a-city of the second class; and WHEREAS, the City is the Responsible Governmental Unit ("RGU") pursuant to Minn. Rules Part 4410.4300, subp. 14; and WHEREAS, the Best Buy Campus Environmental Impact Statement ("Best Buy EIS") was prepared by the. City; and WHEREAS, on December 11, 2000, the City Council, acting as the RGU, found the Best Buy EIS project adequate; and WHEREAS, on January 17, 2001, WalserAutomotive Group, Inc., Moterwerks, Inc., Robert J. Walser, Paul Walser and Andrew Walser ("the Walsers") submitted a request to the City to prepare a Supplemental EIS for the Best Buy Project, pursuant to Minn. Rules Part 4410.3000; and WHEREAS, the Walsers purport that substantial new information and new circumstances exist that require preparation of a Supplemental EIS; and WHEREAS, the Walsers state that the Mall of America Expansion -Met Center Site Project and related environmental effects were not considered in the Best Buy EIS; and WHEREAS, the. City finds that the traffic projected for the Mall of America Expansion was included in the forecast traffic volumes used in the Best Buy EIS to analyze the traffic impacts on I-494; and WHEREAS, the Walsers state that redevelopment plans in the Airport South District will significantly exacerbate impacts from the Project and must be considered and that an Alternative Urban Areawide Review process underway in Bloomington for the Airport South District will provide new information that may significantly affect the potential environmental effects from the Project; and WHEREAS, the City finds that traffic from future development in the Airport South District was included in the forecast traffic volumes- used in the Best -Buy EIS to analyze the traffic impacts on I-494, and further that the proposed projects within the Airport South District are remote and, aside from the Mall of America Expansion, are speculative, and therefore, were not required to be included in the Best Buy EIS; and WHEREAS, the Walsers state that the planned shutdown of the Crosstown (Trunk Highway 62) and diversion of traffic to I-494 constitute new information and circumstances dramatically enhancing the potential environmental effects from the- Best Buy project; and WHEREAS, the City finds that the Minnesota Department of Transportation planned shutdown of the Crosstown and diversion of traffic to I-494 is a temporary impact of that. project and was not required to be studied or mitigated in the Best Buy EIS; and WHEREAS, the City finds that it is the responsibility of the Minnesota Department of Transportation as the proposer of the Crosstown project to analyze temporary construction impacts; and WHEREAS, the Walsers contend that the Galyan's property will be effectively incorporated into the Best Buy Campus. and that this poses new information and new circumstances that require supplemental review by Richfield; and WHEREAS, the Walsers purport that the addition of the Galyan's property to the Best Buy Campus either constitutes a substantial change in the Project affecting the potential for significant adverse environmental effects, or constitutes a later phase or component of a phased or connected action that was not evaluated in the Best Buy EIS; and WHEREAS, the City finds that the Galyan's property was not purchased by Best Buy as a later phase of the Project, and, as is indicated in an Affidavit included as Attachment B, Best Buy has no plans to change the present use of the Galyan's property from its current retail operation; and WHEREAS, the Walsers purport that the cumulative effects of the new information and new circumstances presented require preparation of a Supplemental EIS; and WHEREAS, the City finds that neither the rules nor standard practice require the temporary construction impacts from the Crosstown reconstruction or any other highway construction project to be included in the cumulative impact analysis of the Best Buy EIS. The MOA Expansion. and Airport South District Redevelopment have been included in the Best Buy EIS traffic analysis. The Galyan's property is not part of the Project and therefore does not need to be studied in the cumulative impact analysis of the Best Buy EIS; and WHEREAS, the City finds that the items raised by Walser neither individually nor cumulatively require the preparation of a Supplemental EIS; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for a Su lemental EIS. pp NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City Council adopts as its Findings of Fact the WHEREAS clauses set forth above and the information contained in Attachment B. 2. The request by the Walsers for a Supplemental EIS does .not meet the tests .set out in Minn. Rules Part 4410.3000, subp. 3 and is hereby denied. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of February, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • • ATTACHMENT A LEONARD,. STREET AND DEINARD PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION VIA HAND DELIVERY January 17, 2001 Carolyn v. Wolski 612-335-1641 Carolyn. wolski@leonard. com Christopher M. McGlincey 612-335-1490 chris.mcglincey@leonard. com Julie Urban City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Re: Request for Supplemental EIS on the Best Buy Campus Project Dear Ms. Urban: This firm represents Walser Automotive Group, Inc., Motorwerks, Inc., Robert J. Walser, Paul Walser and Andrew Walser (collectively "the Walsers"), who either operate car dealerships in Richfield or own the real property on which those dealerships are located. As you know, the City of Richfield ("Richfield") recently concluded that the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) it issued for the Best Buy Campus Project (the "Best Buy Project"} is adequate. Pursuant to Minnesota Rule 4410.3000 and based on the evidence presented with this letter, including the accompanying Affidavit of James A. Benshoof, the Walsers hereby request that Richfield prepare a Supplemental EIS for the Best Buy Project. I. Substantial New Information and New Circumstances Require Preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement A. The Mall of America Expansion Met Center Site Project and Related Environmental Effects Were Not Considered in the Best Buy FEIS. On or about November 6, 2000, the City of Bloomington issued an FEIS for the proposed Mall of America Expansion-Met Center Site (MOA Expansion FEIS).. Exhibit 1. A notice concerning the availability of the MOA Expansion FEIS was published in the EQB Monitor on November 13, 2000, stating that written comments would be accepted by the RGU (City of Bloomington) through November 29, 2000. The City of Bloomington passed resolution No. 2000-158 on December 18, 2000, finding the MOA Expansion FEIS adequate. See EQB. Monitor, January 8, 2001 at 3. 150 SOUTH FIFTH STREET $VITE 2j00 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TEL 61z-335-1500 FAx 61z-33S-1657 2033966v3 LAW OFFICES IN MINNEAPOLIS, SAINT PAUL AND MANKATO Julie Urban January 17, 2001 Page 2 The FEIS for the Best Buy Project was issued on October 30, 2000-a week before the MOA Expansion FEIS was issued. Richfield decided that the FEIS was adequate on December 11, 2000-a week before the City of Bloomington declared that the MOA Expansion FEIS was adequate. The Best Buy FEIS did not take into consideration the Mall of America expansion that is the subject of the MOA Expansion FEIS. The Mall of America expansion is a major project planned for property very close to Interstate 494 at Trunk Highway 77 in Bloomington, approximately 2'/2 to 3 miles east of the proposed Best Buy Project. The Mall of America expansion, which is sited on the former Met Center property, contemplates the construction of hotels, retail shops, offices and residential units. The "preferred alternative" for the Mall of America expansion is described as follows in the MOA Expansion FEIS: The preferred alternative *** entails construction of 5.6 million: square feet of mixed use development on the Met Center site. Uses will include an approximately 3,425,000-square foot retaiUentertainment component similar to the existing MOA; 600,000 gross square feet of general office space; 300 units of residential apartments and condominiums; and 1,650 hotel rooms. Exhibit 1, p. 2. (emphasis added). The Mall of America expansion is expected to have a significant impact on the regional roadway system and, specifically, will contribute to existing traffic congestion along Interstate 494. See, e.g., Exhibit 1, Appendix B, Letter A (Mn/DOT) and Response to Comment A3. Further, -the Draft EIS for the Mall of America expansion ("MOA Expansion DEIS") documents that the heaviest current roadway usage to and from the existing Mall is along the Interstate 494 corridor. t Specifically, 30% of current trips to and from the Mall use Interstate 494; moreover, 17% of the current trips use Interstate 494 to a~td from points west of the Mall, i.e., the direction of the Best Buy Project. This means Interstate 494 west of the Mall is currently the single most heavily used corridor for traffic going to and coming from the Mall. Exhibit 2, Figure 6. The MOA Expansion DEIS assumes that even under its no-build analysis, the level of service along Interstate 494 (both "West of Portland" and "West of Penn") will be level F at the P.M. peak hour in the Year 2007 (i.e., before any Mn/DOT programmed improvements to I-494 will take place). Exhibit 2, Table 10. This poorest level of service is projected to occur precisely in the Best Buy Project area, notwithstanding the fact that plaruied improvements to the I-494 and Penn Avenue interchange were taken into account in the MOA Expansion FEIS. Exhibit 1, Appendix B, Letter C (MAC letter) and Response to Comment C.3. `The MOA Expansion DEIS was prepared in August 2000. Where, in this letter, that DEIS is cited, there was either no substantive change regarding the issue in the MOA Expansion FEIS, or the relevant portion of the FEIS refers directly to the DEIS. 2033966v3 Julie Urban January 17, 2001 Page 3 Finally, the MOA Expansion DEIS projects that the preferred alternative Mall of America expansion will, in and of itself, contribute substantially topeak-hour traffic in the area of the Best Buy Project in 2007.2 In the "West of Portland" segment of Interstate 494, the Mall of America expansion will increase the annual average daily traffic and one-way peak-hour volume by 4%. In the "West of Penn Ave" segment, these same parameters will increase by over 3.5% in 2007 as a direct result of the Mall of America expansion.3 The Mall of America expansion is even projected to cause peak-hour level of service impacts on highway segments near the Best Buy Project in 2020-after sigi:ificaiit planned upgrades to Interstate 494 are assumed to have beep: put in place. Exhibit 2, Table 18 ("West of Portland" segment drops from projected 2020 level of service D under "no build," to level E under the preferred expansion alternative). Mall expansion will also contribute significantly to congestion on ramps within the Interstate 494- Interstate 35W interchange area in 2020. Exhibit 2, Table 19. A responsible governmental unit (RGU) "shall prepare. a supplement to an EIS whenever after a final EIS has been determined adequate, *** the RGU determines that *** there. is substantial new information or new circumstances that significantly affect the potential environmental effects from the proposed project that have not been considered in the final EIS or that significantly affect the availability of prudent. and feasible alternatives with lesser environmental effects ***." Minn. R. 4410.3000, subp. 3(A)(2). The projected traffic impacts from the Mall of America expansion were not considered by Richfield. This omission caused projected traffic and related environmental impacts from the Best Buy Project to be substantially understated. First, the MOA Expansion DEIS projections show that the .existing highway system (and particularly Interstate 494) will not be able to handle the traffic expected to be generated by the Mall of America expansion project. Second, the decreased level of service in the vicinity of the Best Buy Project will result in increased air emissions, significantly affecting environmental air quality. Since the Best Buy Project scoping document, DEIS and FEIS all identified traffic and related impacts as the most critical concern arising from the Best Buy Project, the omission of the MOA Expansion information represents a failure to effectively evaluate concerns that were at the very heart of this environmental review effort. Thus, the Best Buy FEIS does not adequately consider the likely environmental consequences that are evident upon consideration of this new information. For these reasons, Richfield is required to prepare a supplemental EIS pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.3000, subp. 3(A)(2)• 2 The projected 2007 traffic impacts and, in some cases, the projected levels of service, are even worse throughout the region under Mall of America Expansion Alternative 3B, which calls for less intensive development of the Met Center site, but more intensive development of adjacent parcels east of the existing Mall and additional development on the existing Mall block. Exhibit 2, Table 12; see also id., pages 7-8, Tables 10 and 11. ' It is also worth noting that the Mall of America expansion will substantially contribute to annual average daily traffic and peak-hour volumes along Interstate 35W, just north of the 76'a' Street interchange, a segment that will also be substantially impacted by the Best Buy Project. 2033966v3 Julie Urban January 17, 2001 Page 4 B. Redevelopnte~rt Plaits in the Airport Sout: District Will Significa~:tly Exacerbate Impacts from the Best Buy Project and Must Be Considered. The "no build" traffic-impact projections in the MOA Expansion DEIS are based, in part, on projections of traffic that will be generated by other anticipated developments in what is generally referred to as the "Airport South District." The Airport South District, bounded in approximation by 34th Avenue South on the west, Interstate 494 on the north and the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge on the south and east, is in the process of dramatic change. The completion of the new north-south runway at the airport, which is necessitating land-use alterations due to height restrictions in certain parts of the District, along with the prospect of increased activity associated with the Mall of America expansion, are among the factors contributing to proposed development and redevelopment within the District. The MOA Expansion DEIS shows that Airport South District trip generation will increase by 10% in the next 20 years, even under the "no build" alternative. Exhibit 2, Figure 5. Further, the vast majority (about 85%) of trips "generated" (as either origin or destination) within the Airport South District are expected to start or end outside the District, thereby impacting regional roadways. Exhibit 2, Table 7. Richfield did not consider the traffic impacts from these proposed developments or the cumulative effects of these developments when coupled with the Best Buy Project. While some of this information was certainly available to Richfield and should have been considered in its environmental review of the Best Buy Project,4 other components of these projects, including those bearing on traffic volumes, continue to be developed and therefore constitute new. information or new circumstances that significantly affect the potential environmental effects of the Best Buy Project. Without considering this new information and new circumstances, the potential significant impacts from the Best Buy Project cannot be effectively and reasonably evaluated. Richfield is thus required to prepare a supplemental EIS pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.3000, subp. 3(A)(2). C. An Alternative Urban Areawide Review Process Underway in Bloomington Will Provide New Information that May Significantly Affect the Potential Environmental Effects from the Best Buy Project.. The City of Bloomington is currently undertaking a process known as an alternative urban areawide review (AUAR) for the Airport South District (Airport South AUAR). See, e.g., http://www.ci.bloomington.mn.us/cityhalUcommiss/pc/pcminute/OOpcmin/pm101900.htm. This process is governed by Minn. R. 4410.3610 and is intended as an alternative to preparing a mandatory EAW or mandatory EIS. The AUAR process provides, inpart, that an RGU may a The Walsers have sued Richfield for declaratory and other relief in Hennepin County District Court because the City erred when it found the FEIS adequate. The Walsers allege that the Best Buy Project FEIS failed to adequately consider alternatives, and failed to consider information from a variety of sources concerning the Best Buy Project's potential for significant environmental impacts, including traffic impacts. 2033966v3 Julie Urban January 17, 2001 Page 5 exempt specific development projects from the typical mandatory review processes "so long as the approval and construction of the project complies with the conditions of the plan for mitigation developed under [the AUAR process]." Minn. R. 4410.3610, subp. 2. The RGU must prepare an environmental analysis document for the whole area which shall include *** a plan for mitigation specifying the mitigation measures that will be imposed upon future development within the area in .order to avoid or mitigate potential environmental impacts. The plan shall contain a description of how each mitigation measure will be implemented, including a description of the involvement of other agencies, if appropriate. Minn. R. 4410.3610, subp. 5(C). The Best Buy Project FEIS failed to consider the Airport South AUAR. Supplementation of the FEIS is therefore required under Minn. R. 4410.3000, subp.3(A)(2) to consider how development in the Airport South District affects or contributes to the potential environmental impacts of the Best Buy Project. Further, because of the plan for mitigation that must be developed as part of the Airport South AUAR, new information has been and will continue to be generated by the Airport South AUAR that may significantly affect the availability of prudent and feasible alternatives to theBest Buy Project. Therefore, Minn. R. 4410.3000,. subp.3(A)(2) requires supplementation ofthe Best Buy Project FEIS. D. The Planned Shutdown of the Crosstown (Trunk Highway 62) and Diversion of Traffic to Interstate 494 Constitute New bzformato>z and .Circumstances Dramatically Enhancing the Potential Environmental Effects from the Best Buy Project. Mn/DOT's plan to close the Trunk Highway 62/Crosstown Freeway ("Crosstown") from Penn Avenue to Portland Avenue was just recently announced. See "Crosstown Highway Will Be Closed for Repairs Beginning in 2002," StarTribune, January 10, 2001. Under the plan, westbound lanes will be closed for three to four years, while eastbound lanes will be closed from a year and a half to two years, starting in the spring of 2002. Thus, westbound closure of the Penn-Portland segment could continue through spring of 2006. The official Mn/DOT detour route during the Crosstown shutdown is Interstate 494. Currently, the Crosstown at Penn Avenue carries approximately 42,000 vehicles a day westbound and 36,000 vehicles a day eastbound. Demolition work is scheduled to commence on theBest Buy Project as early as April 2001, and construction maybe complete by November 2002. Thus, closure of the Crosstown may coincide with the fully built and operational Best Buy Project for as long as three and one half years. 2033966v3 Julie Urban January 17, 2001 Page 6 The closure of the Crosstown and the diversion of traffic to Interstate 494 was not considered as part of Richfield's traffic impact analysis. Although Richfield could have and should have obtained information regarding planned closure of the Crosstown before Mn/DOT's recent announcement, Mn/DOT's closure plan is nonetheless new information and presents new circumstances from those existing at the time Richfield considered the Best Buy Project EIS. Common sense dictates that the Crosstown shutdown will cause dramatic impacts to the traffic along Interstate 494, particularly between Penn Avenue and Portland Avenue. The potential impacts are so readily apparent that two state senators immediately called for a Senate Transportation Committee hearing to grapple with the severe traffic congestion that is sure to emerge from the Crosstown shutdown plan. See "Crosstown Shutdown Plan Irks Motorists, Businesses," StarTribune, Jan. 11, 2001 at Al. Further, the threat that the shutdown poses to traffic operations on the Interstate 494 corridor has been recognized by public officials and employees who are intimately involved with the Crosstown reconstruction project and planned improvements to Interstate 494. See id. (reporting statement by Mn/DOT engineer Wayne Norris that 494 is operating at capacity before any Crosstown shutdown related detours); see also "Crosstown Highway Will Be Closed for Repairs Beginning in 2002," StarTribune, Jan. 10, 2001 (quoting Crosstown reconstruction project manager Adam Josephson as stating "494 has traffic problems" that will be exacerbated by the Crosstown closure and "[t]here is no single route that can take all .the traffic that has to go somewhere else," and quoting other sources as saying that the closure will increase traffic along T.H. 100, Cedar Avenue/T.H. 77, I-494, as well as segments of Penn Avenue, Portland Avenue and 66`h Street within Richfield). The expected dramatic increases in traffic volumes around the Best Buy Project will clearly affect the potential for. environmental impacts from the Best Buy Project. The Crosstown closure will have a significant effect on the environment in a manner not previously evaluated or considered by Richfield. Therefore, a supplemental EIS is required under Minn. R. 4410.3000, subp. 3(A)(2). E. The Disclosure that the Galyan's Property Will Be Effectively Licorporated into the Best Buy Project Poses New IHformation and New Circumstances that Require Supplemental Review by Richfield. In a deposition conducted on November 9, 2000, Richfield's Community Development Manager, John Stark, testified that Best Buy Corporation has negotiated a purchase of the Galyan's property located east of Knox Avenue, in the northwest quadrant of the Interstate 494 and 35W interchange. Exhibit 3, p. 82. This property is not within the Best Buy Project (as defined) and is not within the coextensive Interchange West TIF Districts ' On information and belief, the Galyan's property is within a separate tax increment financing district known as the Interchange Redevelopment TIF District. That 25-year district provides approximately $16 million in increment for the purpose of redeveloping the former :~Taegle Building into the existing Galyan's two-story retail facility. 2033966v3 Julie Urban January 17, 2001 Page 7 According to Mr. Stark, Richfield does not know how Best Buy intends to utilize the existing structure on the Galyan's property. Best Buy's intended use could differ substantially from the current commercial retail use of the Galyan's property. The introduction of a new use could lead to substantially different traffic demand, as more users might arrive and leave at the same time (and more so on weekdays), as compared to the more evenly distributed flow and heavier weekend traffic associated with the current retail use. The volume of traffic and the degree of coordination with Best Buy's operations could create substantial differences in the number of trips and related traffic impacts that will be generated by Best Buy's use of the Galyan's property. The Best Buy Project FEIS did not consider the trip generation and traffic impacts that will be generated by Best Buy's use of the Galyan's property. The mere fact of the limited disclosure made to the Walsers through the deposition testimony of John Stark constitutes substantial new information or new circumstances that significantly affects the potential environmental effects of the Best Buy Project. Because the potential effects of Best Buy's use of the Galyan's property were not considered in the FEIS, a supplemental EIS is required under Minn. R. 4410.3000, subp. 3(A)(2). Further, the new information and new circumstances presented by Best Buy's future use of the Galyan's property significantly affect the availability of prudent and feasible alternatives. The combination of environmental effects resulting from Best Buy's proposed use on the Best Buy Project property, with those from the proposed use of the adjoining Galyan's property, must be evaluated to determine whether the combined effects maybe mitigated by alternatives to the existing Best Buy Project proposal.. This potential to significantly affect the availability of prudent and feasible alternatives also. requires Richfield to prepare a supplemental EIS under Minn. R. 4410.3000, subp. 3(A)(2). II. The Addition of the Galyan's Property to the Best Buv Project Either Constitutes a Substantial Change in the Best Buv Project Affecting the Potential for Significant Adverse Environmental Effects, or Constitutes a Later Phase or Component of a Phased or Connected Action that Was Not Evaluated in the FEIS A. The Addition of the Galyai:'s Property is a Substa~ztial Cha~zge i~z tl:e Best Buy Project Requiring Richfield to Prepare a Suppleme~ttal EIS u~zder Mims. R. 4410.3000, Subp. 3(A)(1). Under EQB rules, an RGU is required to prepare a supplemental EIS if substantial changes -are made to the proposed project that affect the potential significant adverse environmental effects of the project. Minn. R. 4410.3000, subp. 3(A)(1). Best Buy's purchase of the Galyan's property constitutes a substantial change in the project requiring preparation of a supplemental EIS. As previously noted, Best Buy apparently purchased the Galyan's property sometime in 2000. On information and belief, Best Buy did so by purchasing the stock of the company holding title 2033966v3 Julie Urban January 17, 2001 Page 8 • to the property, thereby escaping various public notice and real estate recording requirements that might otherwise be required. Thus, little is known about the Best Buy purchase, apparently even at City Hall, raising serious questions about how Best Buy's future use of the Galyan's property will interface with operations at the Best Buy Project Site. Based on the timing of the Galyan's property purchase (within a year of the advent of Best Buy Project demolition and construction), the proximity of the Galyan's property to the Best Buy Project, and the Galyan's property's marquis location at the intersection of two interstate highways, one would logically conclude that Best Buy intends to utilize the Galyan's property in a manner highlighting the company's neighboring headquarters.. Use of the property will thus become at least effectively incorporated into the company's overall Best Buy Project operational plan. The addition of the Galyan's property component is a substantial change to the Best Buy Project that affects the potential for the overall, combined project to produce adverse environmental impacts. This is so because although traffic that will be generated by the Galyan's property component of the combined project may not be known, it may, depending on a number of factors, substantially contribute to trip generation at peak hours, thereby leading to adverse impacts on surface transportation and leading to adverse air-emissions impacts. Best Buy's purchase. and. future. use of the Galyan's property is a substantial change in the Best Buy Project and Richfield is required to prepare a supplemental EIS under Minn. R. 4410.3000, subp. 3(A)(1). B. The Addition of the Galyan's Property to the Best Buy Project Is Either a Phase of a Phased Action or a Component of a Connected Action, Requiring Richfield to Prepare a Supplemental EIS under Minn. R. 4410.3000, Subp. 3(C). Under EQB rules, a supplement to an EIS. must be prepared whenever an EIS has been prepared for one of more phases of a phased action, and a later phase or another component is proposed that was not evaluated in the initial EIS. Minn. R. 4410.3000, subp. 3(C). The following. definitions apply for purposes of this requirement: Connected actions. Two projects are "connected actions" if a responsible governmental unit determines they are related in any of the following ways: A. one project would directly induce the other; B. one project is a prerequisite for the other; or C. neither project is justified by itself. Phased action. "Phased action" means two or more .projects to be undertaken by the same proposer that the RGU determines: 2033966v3 Julie Urban January 17, 2001 Page 9 A. will have environmental effects on the same geographic area; and B. are substantially certain to be undertaken sequentially over a limited period of time. Minn. R. § 4410.0200, subps. 9b and 60. Best Buy's purchase and future use of the Galyan's property constitutes either phased or connected action (or both) within the meaning of the EQB regulations. As a result, Richfield must require Best Buy to provide detailed plans regarding the intended use and timing of its proposal for the Galyan's property, so that action maybe evaluated in a supplemental EIS as required by Minn. R. 4410.3000, subp. 3(C). III. The Cumulative Effects of the New Information and New Circumstances Presented in This Letter Require Preparation of a Supplemental EIS Each category of new information. or new circumstances described in this letter, in and of itself, requires Richf eld to prepare a supplemental EIS. However, the combined effects of the new information and new circumstances leave no question that a supplemental EIS is required. It is self-evident from Minn. R. 4410.3000 that even if individual pieces of new information or descriptions of new circumstances are not by themselves deemed significant by the RGU, a supplemental EIS is nonetheless mandatory if, when viewed together, the information and/or circumstances are "significant" within the meaning of the rule. This conclusion is supported by the stated. purpose and policies underlying the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act. See, e.g., Minn.. Stat. §§ 116D.01 and 116D.02 (announcing the legislative purpose and state policy to use "all practicable means and measures" to create and maintain conditions .supporting productive harmony between humans and the environment and to, among other things, assure safe, healthful productive and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings, discourage ecologically unsound economic growth and development, and minimize noise, particularly in urbanized areas); see also Minn. R. 4410.0200, subp. 11 (describing "cumulative impact" as impact on environment resulting from incremental effects of the project, together with effects from past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, regardless of the proposer, and explaining that individually minor impacts can be collectively significant). Further, as a subdivision of the state, Richfield has a heightened duty to see that the policies and purposes of Minnesota's environmental laws are being faithfully carried out. See County of Freeborn, by Tuveson v. Bryson, 309 Minn. 178, 188, 243 N.W.Zd 316, 321 (1976) (political subdivision has "a greater duty than does a private individual to see that legislative policy is carried out" and "should play a leadership role in carrying out legislative policy"). Finally, the EQB rules make it clear that acumulative-effects analysis cannot be avoided by an • RGU balkanizing large projects within its control or by turning a blind eye to relevant information about the combined potential adverse effects that may result from multiple projects, 2033966v3 Julie Urban January 17, 2001 Page 10 LJ regardless of who is proposing them. See, e.g., Minn. R. 4410.2000, subp. 4 ("[m]ultiple projects and multiple stages of a single project that are connected actions or phased actions must be considered in total when determining the need for an EIS and in preparing an EIS" and scoping decisions "must be logical in relation to the design of the total system or network and must not be made merely to divide a large system into exempted segments"). To satisfy its environmental review burdens, it is not enough for Richfield to offer only a generalized analysis of the combined impacts of the Best Buy Project and other developments and circumstances described herein. Rather, Richfield must take the kind of "hard look" at all relevant issues that our environmental laws require. Thus, even if Richfield concludes that the Best Buy Project stands alone and the new information and circumstances the Walsers have presented do not individually change the conclusion reached in the FEIS, MEPA nonetheless requires Richfield to supplement the EIS in order to analyze what are undeniably significant collective changes in the facts and circumstances. Because the analysis in the FEIS did not adequately address (indeed, did not address at all) the changed circumstances and new information presented. here, such a hard look cannot be achieved without conducting a supplemental EIS. CONCLUSION The Walsers request that Richfield prepare a supplemental EIS regarding the Best Buy Project for all of the reasons set forth in this letter and in the accompanying materials. The Walsers have presented material evidence of five categories of new information and/or new circumstances that affect the significant environmental effects expected to result from the Best Buy Project. Any one of these categories of new information or circumstances requires that Richfield prepare a supplemental EIS. Taken together, the new information and circumstances leave no room for serious doubt that supplementation is required under EQB rules. Finally, the addition of the Galyan's property to the Best Buy Project, or alternatively, its existence as a phase or component of a phased or connected action, also requires a supplemental EIS. Very truly yours, LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD B ~ Y arolyn o ski Christopher M. McGlincey Enclosures cc: Ted Mondale, Metropolitan Council (w/encl.) Environmental Quality Board (wBenshoof Aff. only) 2033966x3 • Affidavit of James A. Benshoof James A. Benshoof, being sworn on oath, states as follows: I am a registered professional engineer in the State of Minnesota, and president of Benshoof & Associates, Inc., a professional services firm that provides transportation engineering and planning. ~I hold master's degrees in transportation engineering and traffic engineering, and I have substantial experience in traffic engineering analyses and traffic operations design projects. 2. I have been asked by Walser Auto Sales, Inc. to make comments and render my' professional judgment in connection with its request to the City of Richfield to supplement the final EIS ("FEIS") on the proposed Best Buy Corporate Campus ("Best Buy Project") 3. I have personally reviewed scoping documents, the draft EIS ("DEIS") and FEIS issued by the City of Richfield on: the proposed Best Buy Project. I have also reviewed scoping documents and the DEIS issued by the City of Bloomington on the proposed Mall of America ("MOA") Expansion. In particulaz, I have read the two memoranda attached to Appendix 2 of the MOA Expansion DEIS, titled "Traffic Forecasting Methods and Results" and "Traffic Study for the Mall of America Expansion." 4. It is evident that the Best Buy Project FEIS did not take into consideration the traffic impacts expected to result to Interstate 494 from the MOA Expansion. This deficiency is exemplified regazding the segment of Interstate 494 between Xerxes and Penn Avenues. The MOA Expansion DEIS indicates that the existing volume on this segment is 174,000 vehicles per day. Table 5.11 in the Best Buy Project FEIS states that the 2003 no-build volume on this segment will be 177,950 vehicles per day.. However, if one considers the portion of the MOA • Expansion and the portion of additional development in the Airport South area anticipated to be • completed by 2003, then traffic on that same segment of Interstate 494 in yeaz 2003 will be 190,800 vehicles per day assuming the Best Buy Project is not built. This 2003 no-build volume is 7.2 percent greater than the 2003 no-build volume presented in the Best Buy Project FEIS. S. Because the Best Buy Project FEIS does not take into account the planned MOA expansion, its traffic projections are underestimated, and its conclusions aze inaccurate. 6. The IVtinnesota Department of Transportation's planned closure of Highway 62 ("the Crosstown") was also not considered in the Best Buy FEIS. Though the duration and exact timing of the Crosstown closure may be amended through Legislative action, in any event, this planned closure will have major consequences for roadways in the azea and will cause substantial increases in the traffic volumes using Interstate 494. These increases have not been accounted for in the Best Buy FEIS. • 7. It is myprofessional belief that if the MOA Expansion and Best Buy Project aze both developed as planned, the cumulative effect will be distinctly greater congestion on Interstate 494 than was reported in the Best Buy FEIS. Specifically, it is my opinion that these projects will cause Interstate 494 to experience greater incidents of stop-and-go traffic, more standstill traffic, increased dissatisfaction on the part of motorists, and a quality of traffic operations that is mazkedly below standazds applied by the State of Minnesota and the Metropolitan Council. 8. Assuming. amulti-yeaz closing of the Crosstown as planned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), the effects on Interstate 494 that aze described in the preceding pazagraph will be significantly compounded. 9. The congestion that would inevitably result on Interstate 494 from the MOA Expansion and Best Buy Project would, in turn, lead to increased use of local streets by • 2 C] motorists-both azterial and purely residential. streets. An example of motorists seeking alternative routes through neighborhoods now occurs as traffic leaves the Opus Development located in the northwest quadrant of Highway 169 and Highway 62 in Minnetonka. Motorists frustrated by the time it takes to get onto Highway 169 aze using residential streets in Edina and Hopkins, much to the irritation of residents in those two cities. 10. Assuming amulti-yeaz closing. of the Crosstown as planned. by Mn/DOT, the use of local streets described in the preceding pazagraph will be significantly compounded. 11. I have read the January 17, 2001 letter by Leonard, Street and Deinard requesting • a supplemental EIS be prepazed for the Best Buy Project. To my understanding, the information set out in that letter is accurate, and I concur with the concerns it expresses. In my professional opinion, the traffic impacts on Interstate 494 that aze expected to result from the MOA Expansion.will significantly affect the potential environmental effects of the proposed Best Buy Project. Further affiant sayeth not. ~~ J es A Benshoof Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~ day of January, 2001. Notary Public • .r • ANNE M. NELSON NOTARY ~~~NNESOTA MY COMMISgION EXPIRES 11$006 3 The House, et al. vs Walser, et al. Depo of John Stark 11-09-00 Page 1 to Page 134 I i i CONDENSED TRANSCRIPT AND CONCORDANCE PREPARED BY: PAT CARL & ASSOCIATES LITIGATION SUPPORT SERVICES 10911 Highway 55, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55441 Phone: (612) 591-0535 FAX: (612) 591-0538 ~Oo p~ -'. ~_ • The House, et al. vs Walser, et al. Depo of John Stark 11-09-00 xr,~nx(z~n~) Page 81 j A. Well, one of the factors that they were "(Z) looking for in a way is changing. They were `t3) looking for a certain sized parcel, and the (4) parcel that we originally showed them has (s) since shrunk. (6) Q. How so? (~) A. To accommodate the widening of 76th Street, (s) and to accommodate portions of the Penn Avenue (91 bridge and right turn lanes. Things of that ~ (io) nature. So it's -- as the public improvements (11) around it have grown, the site as shrunk. (i2) Q• How much has it shrunk? (13) A. I don't want to guess, but it's shrunk by an (i4) amount that was enough to cause them concern. (is) Q• Are we talking about an acre? (16) A. 1 would. say -- I really don't want to guess, ~ (i~) you know, it came in by anywhere from 15 to 25 tie) feet along the entire north edge of the (19) property; and when you consider the length of (yo) the property from Penn Avenue to Knox Avenue (21j multiplied by 15 to 25 feet, I think that's a , (22j sizeable amount. (23j Q. How big were some of the other sites they were ( ; 12i 1 looking. at? I , (23`~;; A. ~. 1 don't'know for sure: - - ~. .. ~", Page 82 ~ :;'~: Q. Do you know if Richfield's site was the .~ smallest one? `` A. I believe it was. -; ..r~Q. Did Best Buypurchase the Galyan's property? ,: A. That's my understanding. Yes. Q. I7~ A. When did that happen? I don't know. (ej O. Do you know approximately when it happened? t9), A. I don't think - I don't want to guess because iol .; that's what it would be would be a guess. It li)''.: happened right after they -1 heard about it 12~t~; after they selected the Richfield site. Other la '.;. ; than that, l really don't know. ' 4. So it happened sometime this year? 5~ A. Yeah. I would say so. 6 ~ ' Q. ~"~ If Best Buy were to move to a new site at this 7 (. point, that new site would -new city would ", have to begin the whole process of environmental impact statement, perhaps tax increment financing. They would be back where Richfield was if not six months ago something ~~ more than that; correct? , ~~_ MR. LeFEVRE: Object. Lack of foundation. Calls for speculation. • BY MR. GUNN: (1) Q. (2) A. (3) (4) (5) (6) (~) (e) (9) tio) (11) (iz) (13) (14) cis) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (zi) (22) (23) (24) (is) Q. Page 83 You can go ahead and answer. 1 think I'm going to disagree with that. 1 don't know what requirements they would have in Eden Prairie or at their existing location. 1 would also say that often times Richfield is more strict in our -- in zoning and land use approvals than other cities. 1 think it could probably occur quicker in some. communities particularly if they found a site that was properly zo_a+ed for example in the Eden Prairie location adding onto an existing building. 1 don't know what that would trigger in terms of an EIS. My guess is it wouldn't create the need for an EIS. MR. LeFEVRE: I don't think he wants you to guess. THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MR. GUNN: Do you know if adding onto an existing office would create the need for an EAW? A• It depends on the -how many square feet were added onto it. Q. You're talking about adding -Best Buy adding onto its existing facility in Eden Prairie; correct? Page 84 (i) A. Yes. (2J Q• Do you know if that would trigger the need for (3) an EAW? (4 > A. No. I don't know. I (s > i Q. If Best Buy were to move anywhere other than (6) adjacent to its existing facility in Eden (~) Prairie, the project would almost certainly i (a) trigger the need for an environmental impact (9) statement would it not? (io) A. I don't know. (ia) Q. Can you imagine circumstances where it I (i2) wouldn't require an EIS? (13) MR. LeFEVRE: Objection. Lack of (14 > foundation., Calls for speculation. (is) BY MR. GUNN: (16) Q• Go ahead. ~ (1~) A. I seem to recall, and I'm not sure, but I seem (ia) to recall discussions that Best Buy may (19> potentially have looked at other states, (20) northern Iowa for example or eastern (21> Wisconsin, and I just don't know what that (22) would create the need for in terms of an EIS. (23) Q. Do you know if Best Buy has architectural I c24) plans or designs for any site other than the (2s) Richfield site? 612-591-0535 or 800-591-9PCA {722) c L U Q • • >, -p a~ c c o Qm ~ o o ~ ~ ~ c`o ~ ` cv~ c ~ ~~. ~ 3c o c o- • O f0~ Q Y O O C N O N ~'= O N C N L ~ L N N O C~ C O }' C 'C N p H 'p .«, ~ ~ >, y C r- O L .. -• ~ . +L-' t U ;C ~ COO ~ ~ ~ • O C O O~ N C~ O C C C to C N O ~ O C N t O O U L ~ N ~ O~ O y 7 O . ...~ > O C C O . ~ O V ~ L .a L "'' +r .0. O N U O ~ O 'C E •• ,~, -. ~ C ~ - ~ ~. N C w U ~ N O d a Q C p N.L.. v ~" .~ fl. p +~ ~ • + > ~ .0.. - ~ ~ ~ N N p U L°L G. ~ • ~ ~ ~~ y ~ ~ ~ C~ O 7 O~ p~~~~ O C N N ~ C d ~ ~ L O ao~°.. ,c:-3 O~ 'oN U m E~~~zo--a~ c 0 o'rnO-cx N N c~~~ i rn ~ E"-~ >:N-c- stn a o ~ o~ > ~ n i ° ,° ° °~rn °"_ N~ N ~ ' ~` c ~ °g~ m m o ~Q rn~ -a >,~- 'ate o . a iW N c~ o ~. co °~> N c v N ~ ° m m c a { w i Y c ~ ~ c~ a~ °-'Nw~~~ n ° v v) ~ c ~~ , . c a ° ~ 3 E- >•o a c Q- 7L ~ N 0 ~. ~ a~ L ''"' - o E: co 0 ++ ~ ~ 4- C ~ u- C . 0 •' C ~ N N , W c ~ •- ' +~ N Q- ~ y -• ~ O . ~` y O C a~ 7 O N~ ~- ~ N p, dl O co O ~~ C y N N !/~ N N a_ ~ - L N co C~ w C C ~ . y O A O O O I_ ~ ` ~ N C Q~°co ~-cto~~cow~a 0' O ~ N °a~0 ~~° a~ ~ N mcn - O C M O n•m° O 0 O O o f o C 3.C ,O - °~ 3 ~- c c c~ ° Q N to ° >,~- N ''c ° °'m t~ ~ L C '~ o ° ° ° m W O o ~ a i >, ~ N ~~c^a~ 3 U d o o E N c~ m e ai"~ -• • - 3 ~U-° a°'i °° Q O °~~ N ~ O W ~ C ~ N fl ' C O p . N O ' O ''' '~ ~.' v v~'° 3WY ~ ° o a°w Q ~ ~ ~Q ~O~ a~i ` ~ ~` ~ „ ~ fl. - ca o ca N ° v ~ c ~° O O O .O N p cob.- `;_' 3 ° ° °` ~ ~ C N ' C a0- ~ ~ a wa OQ °• o a~ pc O L ~ • ~ ~ C > N N ~ C ,o ~~ p ~ i a C O N O C N C ~ ~ a i c o +4 ~ N } Q' a^ • o c o v, N ~ ~ d M N + • c O t 3 U to L ~L~ v~Q O O NL Ot.C d !- to m N 'O C. A ~ N L I- _ p ~ N N~~. 0O V N ~ ~ > N `O ta.NCL~ N d G ~ 1- ~ L.- ~` I- E F"' C ~ ~. .- a f .+ ..+ ... a.. . ... ... ~ . M d ~ • • • • .O L C L L ~ r•+ ~.. y ~ ~ f/1 • N V ii ~ ~ C C O~ .O O O N C C d AWN m a~ c l c a C .r~ w N m ~ 'O'' c0.1 C _ ~ N N N .y d~ O~ C ~3 N O o cEm•~,..~~~3 _ c c,o~~°~c~o C W >m x'~ ~v N c W N V QW=Q•x 0 c Q- ~+ O N t9 x ~W = t/1 U ~ a~ ~ ~ d `'' ~ L ? sC O J : ~ N y V O ~ ~ - ~ O C i v3cno tri d E ~ _'~w.~« ~ o~W, ~ a ~ ° N-ar 3~ ~ ~ a Q odV~~vorn~m C +'' N . N ~ ~~ N O -.. C V (j ~ m N ~ ~ ~ ~° c a t °r m ~'o o ~~ ~L°- ~ ~ `'' 1-tl)3 aa w~ 0 a m ~ • C N U Q • • U t ~O C L Q ~~ C y Q ~ t ~ ~ •p ,C .C ~ t y .~~. ~ ~ ~ C X C _ .•+ L. c c~ v•~n~m~NCYici •~ ~~ a.~ Z.~N ~ mc.. ~!~ c ~ ~Z' c`oo ~a o L jai c ca o w~ c~ a~i o >~• E c m a,3 ° ca o m•~, ,aim c~«- c ~ ~ ~, •- ~• a;•~, O" mp ~ ° ~W ~ x c ° m o~ ~ rnm N~ ~ c c ~ °c aNi~s c"- > >'Q •v~•.~-.. ~-~ o c~a E o c°i•c °~ ~ r'~ mt•ao°o.m0 Ica v~cn `oar :a-~•~2~ v~ •=f"c~a~>c~vN~ x~ ANC ~~c ~a~mc~ ~ E "-oN•- 3m m a~ O a~ •c oQ ca c?' ~ o > c_~" N° O O H c6 Yp~ N f_~ U N~ (~ c0 L O O p ~j O -a ~~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ U m W C ~ ~ ~ x ~ ° 'C .gyp-' f~C C y ~° O •c°.. ~ 1=}~wQc°~w a QQ ~~o.. n. H c° a N ~~ v °c a • • • • • ~ ~- ~ .. Z o o '~ ~ m ~m m~,Q-aci ~~ a~°~ ;a dim a~i o o ~Z ~W c~ ~ 3 c a m~~Y3w c cm v c~ o ~° p v; c Off- C C ~w ~~ ~ ~~~ j.~a~• a m p ~~ p N O ~~~ O p C ~, ~ Qj t~ ~.r o ~ Ri ~ C ~ ~ Q• 7 ~ V C ~ ~ ~ ~ p O E ~ c mm ` c~ N C~ CWF-Woo.aci c c o ~m~ ~ ~ N a c~~° o o ~w> m >~or E~ c o~ N as ~aat~ ~ a ~c =ww~~ti ~m O O O w O a ~~o ~~ ~pNai 7 ._ ~ ~_ y ~ ~ ((o~j W •~ ~ ~c-?'NioO oc0occ~c ai a~~ c~ 3 ° ~~'i~ Hsi a° ~ o N= ca ^O~QQ°E o~Qc~a~co a~ c ~ ~~.~ a~ w~E~~N2 o ~~Q~cp ~o.E~o~c~c O ~~ ~ ~ ~ a C +•+ C N°~aiN°y a~2=°N~a~ t.•,cUNOt vscl~~~c~m I I I I t V Q ~ ~ N c>,t.~a ° ~~ i ca o O O a >,v i OtnN ~~°~° m~~ d c~ U `~ w Q. ~~ ~ ~ ~' 'O L O N R O N-~ 0 ,,.,, 4; G~ ~.~ O ,~~-:° ~ 0 O.O N ~ c m ~ ~n o ~° p y L as a a~ m ~ ~- m 3 a~ c c~ p ; a~w ° ~~ ~ ~ N ° o ia °-- o =`c' M .. mm a~C~ cam t C L +r E -° °-c°°' ~°~v~°c~~ ~ cam . ~ ,~WU'~~ ~~~~mr:° cca 22c ca Q' ~ ~~ ~ m ~ ~ N ~ Q .O O ca > ~ Q~ .y ~ D. w CC ~. ~ y_ ~v ~ ~ .ns ca ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~M~~' ~ O ~O ~C~ ON O N ~~ ~~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~` 3 m O O~~ L ~ ,~~ ca w o Q. ~ N G N~ ~ ~~ O ~ c w L ~ ~ rn c ~w' ` o ai C c c c c ~ ~ N N N~ c a C c.~m~ ~ N w N~ N C~ ~ ~ N c.a; ~ O N~ O L~ .0. 4 .0+ N L ca N ~ ca ~ O O N .. O W N •-> E-'c~~ncr~~na t-v~ci~t~L~ z ~a ~~ ~~ .~ ~, ~_ c o R a c -o~m~ a~ c°oa~m Q c ~ ° ~ Sa a ~~ ~°''r~~ ~ ~ N '~- L a €L ~m ~ t ~ N~ N w L Opp `~ ~~.~ C ~ ~ `d•- ~ CEO c ~m , a m~ m •o m ~ m~~ ~a m cs >w o c"a~ a ~ Z~v m ~,oZ~~~~~~ as t~c~e~~~.~cao- ~ ~ ~m O m~ c c~ c ca d ~~0 ~0~~ :~dW >.d a ' p~ cam 0 W t~ 07mc 4~~0 v d >~m r a . ~ccy~ctim~m .+w~ o >,~ ~m~~~~ > > a C O N v `~- . ~ Q G''"' N~ v1 ~~ 7 ~ v m ~, m o- ~ a cn m a V(~N i O ~~ o >,ca m FsWas.~ v~ cca am Q m ca Fs-Z O Attachment C C: AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES E. ISTAS James E. Istas hereby states under oath that he is the Associate General Counsel of Best Buy Co., Inca ("Best Buy"), and that as Associate General Counsel of Best Buy, he was the person responsible for the acquisition by Best Buy of CP Gal. Ritchfield, LLC, the limited liability company that owns the property upon which the Galyan's store in Richfield, Minnesota is located. Accordingly, James E. Istas states as follows: 1. That Best Buy acquired CP Gal Ritchfield, LLC on June 29, 2000, . 2. That the sole asset owned by CP Gal Ritchfield, LLC is the property upon which the Galyan's store in Richfield, Minnesota is located. 3. That the property owned by CP -Gal Ritchfield, LLC is subject to a lease with Galyan's Trading Company, Inc., an Indiana corporation, dated August 31, 1999. The initial term of the Lease is for a period of twenty. (20) years with a termination date of August 31, 2019. Galyan's Trading Company, Inc. has options to renew the lease for eight (8) additional five (5) year periods. 4. That a lease amendment was negotiated between CP Gal Ritchfield, LLC and • ~ Galyan's Trading Company, Inc.:: which provided that in the event that Galyan's - Trading Company, Inc. would ever cease operating the property as a Galyan's store that either CP Gal Ritchfield, LLC or Galyan's Trading Company, Inca could terminate the lease. The amendment does not affect or limit in any way the .rights of Galyan's Trading Company, Inc. to continue to operate the property as a Galyan's store for the entire term of the lease, including the option periods. 5. That neither Best Buy nor CP Gal Ritchfield, LLC has any knowledge or information which would lead them to believe that Galyan's Trading Company, Inc. has any plans to cease operating the property as a Galyan's store. 6. That Best Buy acquired CP Gal Ritchfield, LLC, the entity that owned the property upon which Galyan's store is located, and amended the lease between Galyan's Trading Company, Inc. and CP Gal Ritchfield, LLC' for the following reasons: (a) In order to control what businesses were located next to our proposed new. corporate office campus in Richfield, Minnesota. For example, Best Buy would not have liked a gun club, an automobile dealership or a large Circuit City store located next to them. (b) In order to obtain a favorable return on its investment. The yield. to CP • Gal Ritchfield, LLC from the lease with Galyan's Trading Company equates to an average return of 11.6% annually on Best Buy's investment. • • 7. That Best Buy has no right, nor has it ever attempted,. to terminate the lease between Galyan's Trading Company, Inc. and. CP Gal Ritchfield, LLC and use the property for a training facility or any other use. Dated: February 6, 2001 ~~i. a J s E. Istas Associate General Counsel Best Buy Co., Inc. STATE OF NIINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On February 6, 2001, before me, Denise K. Heinbuch, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared James E. Istas, Associate General Counsel of BEST BLTY CO., INC., a Minnesota corporation, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be .the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that. by his signature on the instrument the person, of the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS:myhand and official seal. DENISE K HEINBUCH • ~ ~ `" . NOTARY PUBLIC • MINNESOTA DAKOTA COUNTY My Comm. E~ires Jan 31, 20~ ~~ Notary Public My Commission Expires: January 31, 2005 • i ! ~.::. _ f a E . - } ,., 3 :_., c:? ". .. ~~~~ ~~G 11 /Iet C r S s 3 ,~ ..~ ~} E r ~_ ,~ r _~.. F s~ ~ r ~ :5 z ~~~ ~~ .~r: ,, nuironmen~al~ lmpac#'Statemen~ F~~ ~ ,y~F~- __. ~ ~ .. ,~ .._~. .:a ~R... .... ... _, _ .. .. y ~- ?' ,~ ~~ ~ Prepared by: = ~, ~ ~_ i K» y T~ '~~ CITI( OF BLOOMINGTON, MN ;_ ~.: ®C ONSULTING G ROUP INC ,~ . a i FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MALL OF AMERICA EXPANSION -MET CENTER SITE City of Bloomington, Hennepin County, Minnesota PROPOSER MALL OF AMERICA COMPANY Contact person Mr. Bill Griffith Title Legal Counsel Address Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 1500 Norwest Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South City, state, ZIP Bloomington, MN 55431 Phone (612) 896-3290 Fax (612) 896-3333 E-mail w~riffithnu,lhdl.com RGU CITY OF BLOOMINGTON Contact person Title Address City, state, ZIP Phone Fax E-mail ABSTRACT Mr. Clark Arneson Planning Manager 2215 West Old Shakopee Road Bloomington, MN 55431 (612) 948-8921 (612) 948-8949 carneson(a~ci.bloomington.mn.us This Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) provides information to supplement the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) analysis of the environmental. impacts of the proposed expansion of the existing Mall of America. development onto the old Met Center site in the City of Bloomington, Minnesota. The uses proposed as part of this development. include retail, office, hotel, and residential (condominium) units. The Scoping Decision. for the project (approved on February 7, 2000) identified traffic, air quality, traffic noise, and surface water quality and quantity as issues to be addressed in detail in the Draft EIS.. Four development alternatives, in addition to a No Build alternative, were considered in Draft EIS analysis and mitigation measures for potential environmental impacts were identified. This Final EIS summarizes and responds to the comments received on the Draft EIS as well as noting minor modifications to the project proposed in the Draft EIS. It also establishes a schedule for the completion of the environmental review process and lists permits and approvals which are or may be required for the completion of the project. Mall ofAmerica Expansion -Met Center Site Final EIS November 2000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY T DESCRIPTION PROJEC The proposed project is an expansion of the retail and entertainment: complex known as the Mall of America (MOA) development located north of Killebrew Drive and west of 24th Avenue South in the City of Bloomington, Minnesota. The project proposer, Mall of America Company (MOAC), has future development rights for construction of a total of 5.3 million square feet of development to be divided between a parcel east of the present mall known as the Adjoining Lands and on the existing MOA Phase 1 site. The Met Center site, currently used as a temporary surface parking lot, has been identified as an alternative site for MOA expansion since development on the Adjoining Lands site is potentially constrained by operations of the new north-south runway to be operated by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). Completion of an Environmental Impact Statement is one condition of an Exchange Agreement executed in July 1999 to exchange the MAC-owned Met Center. site for the MOAC-owned Adjoining Lands site. The .Met .Center site is located within Hennepin County, in the City of Bloomington. .Site boundaries aze as follows: East 79th Street to the north; 24th Avenue to the east; Lindau Lane to the south; and, Trunk Highway 77 (TH 77) to the west. The. proposed Mall of America expansion would include a maximum. of 5.6 million square feet of mixed-use development with up to 13,154 parking spaces provided. Uses will include an approximately 3,425,000-square- foot retail/entertainment component similar to the .existing MOA; 600,000 gross. square feet of general office space; 300 units of residential apartments and condominiums; and 1,650 hotel rooms. MAJOR FINDINGS Regional Transportation System Impacts Increased intensity of development within developed areas of the region is one of the objectives of the Metropolitan. Council's regional growth policies. Intensity of development and a mix of land uses increases the ability to share or "link" trips and optimize the use of transit service for trips to and from the site. In so doing, the total number of trips generated by the site is reduced (compared to the same land uses of "typical" development densities). Although segments of the regional transportation system within the MOA travelshed are forecast to operate under congested conditions in year 2020, many of these segments would experience congestion regardless of whether MOA expansion took place, i.e., under Build and No Build conditions alike. Those segments forecast to experience congestion only under Build conditions are already approaching the congestion threshold, and traffic attributable to MOA expansion is a minor contributor on a regional basis. As such, no regional system improvements beyond those already made by the City and Mn/DOT (based on previous forecasts which included both existing MOA traffic and MOA expansion traffic) are proposed in conjunction with the proposed MOA expansion. Mall o. f America Expansion -Met Center Site Final EIS ES-1 November 2000 Local Transportation System Impacts Based on the analysis of local transportation system impacts, .this MOA expansion and other "background" development assumed to occur in the Airport South District can be supported by the existing roadway system with minor modifications. Vehicle-Related Air Emissions The air-quality analysis to evaluate projected concentrations of carbon monoxide at selected study area intersections indicates that State air quality standards would not be exceeded with this project. Traffic Noise All of the Build Alternatives will increase traffic volumes in the study area; however, no perceptible increases in traffic noise levels are anticipated to result at sensitive receptors. Airport Noise All proposed Build Alternative land uses will be constructed with provisions for indoor noise reduction as required to comply with both Metropolitan Council and Federal Aviation Administration land use compatibility guidelines. Surface Water/Water Quality Surface water quantity and quality modeling results show that no significant negative impacts would result from this MOA expansion compared to existing site conditions. However, to minimize surface water impacts from the proposed development, site design, operation and maintenance will include surface water mitigation measures. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY Storm Water The United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in previous comments on the proposed MOA expansion, has expressed concerns with the potential regional impacts of storm water runoff in the Airport South District. Although, as noted above, there are no significant storm water impacts anticipated to occur from this MOA expansion, the City of Bloomington will complete an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) of the Airport South District to also analyze impacts of proposed and existing development in the area. The storm water issue will also be addressed as part of the AUAR environmental review process, allowing potential storm water impacts of the MOA expansion to be analyzed cumulatively with impacts related to development in the Airport South area and to identify appropriate mitigation measures for the area. Mall of America Expansion -Met Center Site Final EIS ES-2 November 2000 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - MET CENTER SITE MALL OF AMERICA EXPANSION City of Bloomington, Hennepin County, Minnesota TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... ....................................................................................... ES-1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................:.................................................... ES-1 MAJOR FINDINGS ................................................................................................. ES-1 Regional Transportation System Impacts ...............................................:..... ES-1 Local Transportation System Impacts ........................................:................. ES-2 Vehicle-Related Air Emissions ....................................:................................ ES-2 Traffic Noise ................................................................................................. ES-2 Airport Noise ................. ..:................................................:.............:.......... ES-2 Surface Water/Water Quality ........................:.........:..................................... ES-2 AREAS OF CONCERN ...........' ................................................................................ ES-2 Storm Water . ............................................................................... ........ ES-2 1.0 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Environmental Review Process ........................:.........................................:. 1 1.2 Information Contained in the Final EIS ........:.....:........................................ 2 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ........................................ 2 3.0 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ...........................................................:....... 15 3.1 Summary of Issues Raised in Comments .................................................... 15 3.2 Additional Analysis of Issues for Final EIS ................................................. 16 3.2.1 Introduction ............:....................................................................... 16 3.2.2 Local Traffic ...........................................................:...................... 16 3.2.2.1 Assumptions .................................................................. 16 3.2.2.2 Analysis ..............:.......................................................... 17 3.2.2.3 Internal Site Circulation Issues ...................................... 17 3.2.3 Vehicle-Related Air Emissions and Noise Impacts .:..................... 18 4.0 SCHEDULE ......................................................................................................... 18 5.0 PERMITS AND APPROVALS ............................................................................ . 19 6.0 CERTIFICATION ................................................................................................. . 20 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Mall of America Expansion Preferred Alternative Concept -October 2000 APPENDIX B: Comments on Draft EIS. Responses to Comments APPENDIX C: Record of Public Meetingfor Draft EIS -September 14, 2000 Mall of America Expansion -Met Center Site Final EIS i November 2000 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS The environmental review process for the expansion of Mall of America development to the former Met Center site began in December 1999. On December 6, 1999, the Bloomington City Council, the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU), approved the submission and publication of the Mall of America Expansion-Met Center Site Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Draft Scoping Decision Document. Pursuant to Minn. Rules 4410.1500, this Scoping EAW/Draft Scoping Decision Document was distributed to all parties on the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) distribution list and notification of the availability of the Mall of America Expansion -Met Center Site Scoping EAW/Draft Scoping Decision Document was published in the EQB Monitor on December 27, 1999, serving as formal notification of the beginning of a 30-day period of agency and public review. A scoping public meeting was held on January 20, 2000 to receive public comment on the Scoping EAW at the Bloomington City Hall. No verbal or written comments were received at this scoping meeting. All written comments received during the 30-day continents period were evaluated and included in the Scoping Decision. The Scoping Decision on the Mall of America Expansion-Met Center Site was approved by the City Council on February 7, 2000 and distributed in accordance with EQB distribution requirements. .Announcement of the Scoping Decision and EIS Preparation Notice were published in the EQB Monitor on March 6, 2000. The Draft EIS was approved by the Bloomington City Council on August 7, 2000. The Draft EIS was distributed and notice of its availability and the date of the public informational meeting were published in the EQB Monitor on August 21, 2000. A public meeting was held on September 14, 2000 at Bloomington City Hall to discuss the Draft EIS. No written comments on the Draft EIS were received at this meeting. Written continents received during the course of the comment period (through September 29, 2000) were compiled, and responses to comments are included in this Final EIS. The Final EIS was approved for submission to the EQB by the City Council on November 6, 2000 and distributed in accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.2700. Notice of the availability of the Final EIS will be published in the EQB Monitor on November 13, 2000. The Bloomington City Council and the EQB are scheduled to consider adequacy decisions on the Final EIS on December 4, 2000 and December 21, 2000, respectively. Notice of the decisions will be published in the EQB Monitor and distributed in accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.2800. Mall of America Expansion -Met Center Site Final EIS 1 November 2000 1.2 INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE FINAL EIS he ma'ori of information rovided in the Draft EIS regarding the description of the intensity T ~ ty p of development proposed for the Preferred Alternative, the potential environmental impacts, and the proposed mitigation measures has not changed since the Draft EIS. Therefore, this Final EIS incorporates the information contained in the Draft EIS by reference and provides the following supplemental information. • Additional information/clarification regarding the Preferred Alternative • Summary of written comments received on the Draft EIS and responses. to substantive comments _ • Supplemental information on potential environmental impacts from the Preferred Alternative • Anticipated project approval schedule • List of permits/approvals that may be required before the project can be implemented 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The preferred alternative for the Mall of America (MOA) expansion entails construction of 5.6 million square feet of .mixed-use development on the Met Center site.. Uses will include an approximately 3,425,000-square-foot retaiUentertainment component similar to .the existing MOA; 600,000 gross square feet of general .office space; 300 units of residential apartments and condominiums; and 1,650 hotel rooms. The intensity of development and types of uses proposed in the Preferred Alternative have not changed from. those described in the Draft EIS. However, an alternative site concept layout for those uses. has been developed. that would accommodate .the potential reconfiguration of the intersection at 24th Avenue and 79th/80th Street currently being considered by City staff. This alternative site concept is shown in Figures lA through 1L, and the proposed square feet of each land use is listed in the table in Appendix A. In the Draft EIS, the intersection of 24th Avenue and 79th/80th Street was anticipated to be at- grade, controlled by a traffic signal. -Based on further analysis and discussion between the City of Bloomington and the project .proposer, this intersection is now being considered for construction as a single-point grade-separated- intersection, with 24th Avenue passing over 79th/80th Street. This change in intersection configuration, while still allowing fora continuous 79th/80th Street, eliminates the potential traffic conflicts occurring at an at-grade intersection while expediting traffic flow to the Mall of America Expansion site. Traffic flow to other areas ' within the Airport South District is also expedited by eliminating the 24th Avenue signal at 79th/80th Street. Mall of America Expansion -Met Center Site Final EIS 2 November 2000 D ll Z O n $ o m Z H c N 2 Cf ,. 0 z n O C r m n -~ Z Z ' ~ D ~ r 3 m p ~- 71 wit cn Z ~ ~ r m rn n n x 0 z `~I - ~ ~~~' ~,- _ 'I ~ Ij ~ - -= ~~ ..~ -~ _~- -- _ ,_=~ RIJJL~PCJ:iGGk~WAY 0 .. ~. ~:~\, ~''~ 11' I ICI ! ^~' o~ICE `'fi`t ~`.i ~ I~! ~i ~~j} r'~~ sERwce 1 r uu u~~}Q~~~}}H~ _ 1 ( ! ~" ,! I I ~ ~~II ~ I I HI1~~ .~ I I I' ~ l 1 1 ~,~ ~. ~. iI ( 1 1 :,~`~ I (I ~ I ~ m p Rn e `~~\,rt I I ( , r m T 1 C '!~ ~ I I ~~ ~ - (~ '~ ~ ,~ /II I I i c_ - ooac RErw~ 11I I1I I I1I1 ~~1i ~p ~ ~~ I~f I ( i ~S ~ IIIIIIITIII~g k~ 7 ~ "~ .f ~ '> ~~ ,,~~ '•%~~ ~ ~ ~~ D6Da RESIDENTIAL STORAGE AREA O ~ "'~ v~ - ~~, j ~`~ ( 1 ~~ I ---- t ~ 1 ~--- -are wr I j HOTEL al!2 . _ C ( i 8ERVICE DOCK D0~ ~~ r / ~ 1 j ; ~ • are NA7 - O ( z J I i o6 z I t ~z ' y p I 1 ~ ~ art war - r I I O ( I __J 1 ( ao I ~ I ~ HOTELIr1 DOCK ~~ ~ I SERVICE oa 1 ----- L-- __i ~~ I ,, T~ ( ~_ A~ ~ ~\~ .~\ ~ II' ~ i' ANCHOR RETAIL ~ ~~ ~ ;, • t~` 1 SERVICE /~;/ ~ 1 3' 1 I~~ `\ ~ 1'r ~~ ~ ~ l ,J ~r ~m~ '- ~...i~ I I ~ NTI~ N~ F I :~--.- . .._ ~,. f , { ~ I ~ ~ ` j ,, ~- , (~ .~.~ -.~ .-.. .°j _ s ;) U ~ I' =1 I~ ~~~ ~~ r l i'~~- ~ `°' Cfi ~!~~ I ~~. ~ I ~) I~ I ~- ~ ~ II II `7 ~^: "~/ I( I ~. I~ 1 I' :. r..;'t ~I f { ~I I I ~ !I (I I~ I II . li ~i -( ~., I I ~ I( 1.~. i It=`_~ ` 1111 ~ ' - iii- _ ~ ~.; . ~ ' ~ ~. ~. ~. ~- ~~ . ~.~ ~~ ~a~ ~' C ~_ _ r ~ ~- !; rA~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~pmmm ~o ~ O ~~ 5 ~ _~ ~ ~y~ ~ to m o ~ s ~ oo J o l~ a -~ - ~iili~ii ~ _ci~m T Mrna~wm mm ~~ t+oto~+ ~ `~mtn ;nom uiltia .n ?n 1_ ~~ ~ , ~ `~-~a n ~ o m z i e r y z n 0 M ~ ~ ~-n n ~ , C r m ~ -I Z n ~~ ~ o m ~ ~ ~ r o _~ m O 3 -n '71 cn Z a p m rr1 ~ ao n a X a ~ o Z rr ~ td ~~ ~~ m~ o° ~~ ~~ o n a a ~~ d O t~ t~ --- _-~ ~=_-~f~ ~ =----_- - _~_-~-_~-_ __-_ ....,~ ~ i ~ ~ / / •1}!111} ''.\ ~~\-~,' ~ ~ ~a/ ~ i _'~~.}~'~.~,.{'~{L^t 9/',•' • 111111 V I1~I11Y1~ ' •` \ i ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~.: 1.~ i ~~ ~- ~ I~~ HtI~H+Nt~H~tN ~~ , o ~'~~ ! t ~ ,jI ~ I ! ~ ~ ~ '' I g ~~ $~~ ! i~ _~ ~ r ~ ~ , J ~ ~~~ 3 ~ ~ i~ ~~ f + ~`~~ l ._._.~ ~ • ._ tt ~.• .. ;_~ '~` ~ ~ II ~ ~$ `~~ ~~~ 'i ''~", ~I~,~~ ~~ ~~ w ~ ~~_;~ . .. ~ ~ ~ i ~ `~~ I ~ I 1 I I /I ~~~;: ~/ ~~ ~ ~ ~, `~~_.. ~- !~ HtNttl- ~3 ~ `` s~ r I~Jf~ 1111111 ~p HI111I IN III 1111 H~Ni ullluminuun nuullrnfl~unnnn r .. _~ _ ~ I i ~ , ~~ I - -- Z ~) _ M ~- ~ g (~A .. " ~O ~, ~ .___.• (r ; :---. 14 ~~`~\ I I I i ! i I i 'I ~~ (~~1 D g n ~O ... G .....I+1111 HtHt~H~tN N~HfHff~+HtH~ ~~ _T. I ~``l,. J 1~~ ° i. r 0 ~ 3 00~ r- ~ ~ ~ ~ '~1 IIIZ `O,j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~rf ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~9 2 ~QIII ~i ~ t7 r-O ~ ~~~ , ~ ~ O .. ~;~~ ~ =any .~ y ~ O C y~p~ z "~ m O ~y rn ~ ~ ~+ rn • r ~j ~O~ ~WlA NOI COAA 80~OC/ mA~O b000 A m fA CAN wmrnwln 11 ;11 T;t1 '}I tnmtntn ?I 71 ?I 71 . 19 0 ~ n m x e H z n Ct !i O c z n m m ~ m 1 z ~ m ~ °•. ~ ~ .~ -~ ~ 3 ,m Zap ~~ m 177 ~ ~ n a N~ ~ O Z 11 1 ` ~~ (^r) ~ \ L s ~55 7 `ice I I i I ' 1 a I~ 1 r- n I ,. I ~ ~~ r;' 1 1r 1 •~, . I I II -- Q ~ 'o ~ ~ m ~ 1,11 _ " 7y (~ . r~ ~-i N pl~ir~t~ir„ !!~ ~o-Zi !N ~?$~ N r1 O Z p ~3~. ~ ~WN'~ ~ Z~~r. D ~ZOZ ~"~`1t O `^~l ~~I O ~ ~ D .o .. p N 0~~ ~ O, N; ~] ~1. 1 a o m•• ~ a~D m ~y ~ ~g ~ O tr 00+ QN fSd~~Q5A QA $~~.A $O~ NQW 00 ~ ~ ~ D ~ D>D ?5XZ525 7503 g2Sg~ ~[ ~ N T rN y ~ ;1 7f ?I 11 ?I ?I ;1 ;1 ~I II 11 ~~` _ .. ~ 1- _ - ~ ~_.t' -_-_ _-~_-_ _ __ .=.~Rk1~fC~i[Gf~•~f1TAa(~7 + a --~ I ~'' _ •~\ ,.R i .~ (ml Y k ~: 1 ~ ~ / e `~ 11 ' I I Ir ' j O ~ O -\ ~:• .~ 1! I I ' '~ ~ J m ` dot i 11 i 1 ~~ \! ~ ti i I I j ,, { i{ ~ j °v `i ~~I 131 j ~ ~ z ' i { 1' ~ r-li ,y ~~~ 1' '~ Z p s T ~~ j 1 0 m C~ O ~ ~~ / , ~ . ; ~~ r • NON ~ ~ Z ~_ r- I a r 4 ATTRACTIONS ~ n~ a/ t t ~ ~:. _ ~~ RETAIL SHOPS / RESTAURANTS ! ~ ~. o O ~ ~s ® CONCOURSE ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~P t t • MIXEORETAII./ RESTAURANTS/ ~ ~ • _ ~ +$~ ATTRACTIONS 8 ~ ~ ;. o ~ ~ g Z o ~, rn • ' • O ~ N i ~ ~ y ' J 1 _ / ~ ~~, ~,, ~~ ° C to I I h ~NN.N~N/a `S I I :~ t_~ ~ I 1 :- v1 ~ ~ ~~.~~ ~ yy a ~~, _ ~ ~ Z 3 O G ~ I I ~~~~ ~ ~_ ~ I t g (' ~ ~ ~ ' I ~TfTI~ ~~ °v ~ --~-- ,, ~N O ~•~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 1 . ~I .~ ~ i~ / 1 s T Z 0 m 8 m n 0 z e z n ,. 0 7 2 n 0 r r ~a m IZ ~' m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'ro ~ O ~~ _ TI cn~ Z ~ ~ r _m m n D X a _~ O Z r^ '~ X11 -~- ---- ~~~' _ ~ '\ O \~. ~ ~_ 1 \~ 4~\ 3 °II~iIHi~ ~- o e ~ _ t j~~l O ~-~- ~ ~ ~~Ilc -, D '~`'~~~` `'f=I ~ .; 4 ~`~~! ;~ ~~- z ~I ~ l~ ~ ~ ) ~ I I I, $~T //~ y j ,~ O . = ,; ;' %%% 'J == • , _' .. ~ t- __ ~~" :~_- ===G=_-___ =- - /~~ / I ~ /a / rwa.~r maw imi c~'j ~ r~ ~~i ~~~ ~ .. cif i ®o ~ ~ a~ ~ ' ' RETAIL SHOPS ! RESTAURANT$ / ' EL.880 OPEN CONCOURSE y ~ O ' MTXEO RETAIL / RESTAURANTS / 1 t ,~ d~ v1 `:l?;•; ;> m '~;. a G ~n ; ~" ~A~\ 'v~J~' ~~jj!!''jiiLLL!!! T ,,, ~ --- ~. ~~ ~~~-~ .%1 G "~"-__ _' ~_ ~ __ O !~ ~~ O S ~~.;~ to m = o Z O PA O N ATTRACTIONS N A m ~ z~ ~~~ o ~ ~_ m 4TTRACTIONS ~~ r .. r. r _ ~ w ~~~~~ m (1$n ~~ ~ s~ ~~ EL 880 ~-. o ~~ r ~~ O 00 A . ~ n ~ ~ ~~ 1 ~ O N [ - ~ ~ ~~~ Hf~N~±~} Htl~l 8 ~~~ °~ 01111 NIIIIIIi111IlAlIIIIN Illlllllit ~w~.~a~ i I r J L ~_ -~ -,-= :!' ~I 1 ~~ ~ ' I. I ~ ~... ~ ';/'~~ ~I ! {\ \~ r ~•` I I 1 I I i l~ t ,- '~ ~r -i ~ ~~ ~ ~o~o P "~~~ o a 0 ~~ ~ m~~~ = AO y rr~r m ~i1 g D ~ ~0 l 1 r {3 ~ &i33R ~i8~i Rf3m P3$8o ~' q y $ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~ m .,~~ ~~~ aotnww tna~m tatnrotn ~ (O (A !O 91 91 71 I'll 111 11 ll ?I 71 T ~I T 2 m m m n 0 z e H z n O p 0 z n n n ~ r m n ~ Z z t '~ ~,O ~ ~ ~ ~ I' o° T O cQ. Zap r m IT1 ~ ~_ n ~m Z 0 z __ ~'= ~~ y ----~_~----- _ ~\ ~ . ~~ _ •` ~ ~ O ~ \ .~ .~ t ~ - ~ li I I ~~I O ,. _, l.,F i i i 1 ~ `~ ti~ ' i III ~` ~~ ~ ~ ~ I ~~` ~ ~ Z ~ ~~ y.l $ Q i ` ~ y =~ n ~' ! I ~ ~ /~ ~ ~~ f ~ f ~ ~1 . `~f~l` i ;f ,~ , . :~ '' ~ ~ + o~~ y i 1 ------- v''•4 ` h _~ :: .tt~t ~~ ~ n ~'-;: ; e~ ~ ~~ v~` i ! 1 ~;/tc~T~ ~' ~ ~ ' ~: ~~~~~ . , ~ ~.,._ t ~ , .E.~ ' ~1 .=-____ i ~~ `? !,~ ~~ O • / / ~ ~ f J ~ ~~•~ J / I ~I ! ~ / ~ ' ~ i= ~ --~~ -~w Iml ~ ~/~ ~' 1`1} ~.11~~~ y l .L / 11u 1l IIII1111~~1111 ~ ~j 1 ~ O c, HTfII LLUu uulllltl~tl~ ~~W IIIIL~711T1ft~ITTI T ~ ~ m jt l ~~ i ~ o ~ \~ 4 \~ ~~ ; ~~~ ', ~, . M~N10 ' u ' • r~ uNr~ e ~ 5 O m ~ z v i p 2 ~~ ~.~~ Nit~~f}H g ~ I~Httl ~., ~z _. r. f, 2~ A ~ ~~ _ v~~ ~ a ~3~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~1 ~1 I ~ i i ~' a J r o(f ~1 L. ~~ ~L~ , ~ I ~^. i !f ~--` 1 '~\ \ L" I 1 I I ._ ~~ i !~~ !~ ~~ ~~~ ~b a n 0 n ~ ~ Q 2 a G r ~1 z I ~ ~ CI a { Z n n z m a r ~ r ~a Z n C7 -I ~?, o a ~° ~ fi °o -~ 3 17 '11 fQ Zap m m ~ ao X a z Z u ^1/~'~ r ~1, • • -- ---~ _ _ _ --~ ~ Ir- - -_' ' `= ~ _ _ _ _ ~m~r~r~Y-ter ;; , -- ~=~ 111f / -`W I `Z'j :Il+~itl~~ ' •'~:`- ,~ 1 ~ t~l =~~ ~ it~ftftltfft}H~f1~H~ N ;~ I ~ bpi ''~ ~ ~ `'' ice. .;~ ~~ ~ I I I~ 1 ~ l ~ ~ 1iii1 fll ~ ~ ~ O O ~„~~ t~• 111 1 ~ 1 m C Q .~ iil i f {~ I I m~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~J{ I • ~ ~i ~{ If I m I :v 1 ( ~~ Z ~~ n ~ r ~~~ ~ ~ ( r J~ ~ r r `• '~~ ~~ a a = ~~ ` ~~ ~~~~ ` ~ MN~pN O O QI-_~ ~ - '~' ~ ~~ O D O ~ e - - ~ ~ ~ .~ .. ~ I _ m ~ ~~ . ~ ~~ ~ • j. ~ ~ ; ~, ;~~ ~- NN~M~ `. ~~~~ 1` ~ ~~:~ , ~ ~ ~~~ i ~=:` ':-' ~. ~• `~'~~• 1 >_ , _ T ~ ,• _ .; 1 ~_ i ~ •. «. N y ti `~ ~ __ ~ '' r ~ _ ,-1}-~.j- X11 :. 4' ~~ R 1 0 S ~ - ~ Z i O ~p~ a n~~ ~ u ~~ a O .~~ ~ w p~ N'~ O p ~ rtl ~ p ~ y v 0 m ~ muse ~ wW $ $ ~$ " DDD °O m n A yw Nvi '~ tmA ~ tmn ;w ,~ ~ ?n ~ ~~ D~=mvmAO O ~~~~~T ~~o~~ ~ p ~ ~ ~~Zm ~ %b D-iD y "~ Q ~ ~« > ~ h ~~ m mzm ~ ~0 y~w m ~~ ~ g y ?1 D T O t°o m A $ o m = m e w z n 0 7 Z n ., r ~Z m n -I Z m _ I c~ -zi m ~ °, ~ ~ ~ ~ r o° ~ -fin ~- m 171 ~ ~` n X a •~Z/~ VJ O Z -._ _ ----• O ~ ~' /C~'': -i n ' Y ~~ ill ~ / U ~~ iii 't'~ ~~;( ®o ~~. =~.. i ~ ~ i ~ 1 i~ m Heil ~~• i~ ~: i z r ,li `i; ~ ~° ~ o ~ ~ ;{ ~ '~ (~ a~ ~ i ~ N lay l ! 1~ O ,' e 1 , f~ /~ ~f ~ ~ [7~~ ww~u .. ~ a • ~~ m .. : ~ l Z ~ .: O y~$ ~mA ~ ~ z O$ 2 _ R a~ I ~ ~ 20 4 ``_V t :`,;^ v , ~~ ~ i`ti~\ .~ ~ ~~~ ~' '~ i ;'',~'./ 1~ `~t~1~ ``. ~ ~\ E ~ !' I ~ ~ ~ ~t ~ v _~ L ~__.___ 1 l -,-----~ _ ~ ~' ~~ ~~ . ~~~ 0 S Q ~~ mz ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ II ~~ w ROOFTOP ®~„~ HfN+H~ m :~ H+N~+i s ~{~}}}}}}}1 _ u ~~ ~' I LJ 1 = ~ 9 ~ ;-- t I l I i~ i I ~' 1 ;~ l ~ `~ C I r i ~ ' i 1- r- .. - ~,, f ~' D - - - - "s Ord m TO m ~~ ~ > mm ~ ~ ~ O ~ r ~ ~_~ O lIy O ~ a ~ ~ ~~ p '~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q~~ D ~ ~ b ~ m ~ h m ~ f Q ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ fgg3g$~ s~~ ~ ~ D D 2S a 25 2S m ~ n~ am mm y ~ " ~iw :~~ ?nom ~ T p~ 0 A O m Z a G r N z 0 0 z n ~? z m C r m a z .~ Z ~ `~. m ~ °~ ~ ~ W ~~~ m O -n 't'1 c~ Z ~ ~ r m 171 ~ ~ n X a z 0 z r~~ ii-------~------~ ~~~ ~~ m~ o° ~~ ~~ o~ a (~ o~ ~ m ~+ i , ~~`` Z { { r. ~, ~1 - I, II i ~ ~lil~ ~ l T t ~ f m~ ~~ rT !" W((~~iiII~IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIillll~ilt llil , . { ~~~ , ~ ! ~ n'i t ~ IT1 f1T!!~!!!lI111 .'... I s ~: , .. ! , ~ ~~ ~ { ~ j ~ o , .. { !i - ~ . x ~> ; ~{~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~~ z ~ ` :~y ~~ J 1 ,~ ~ ~'.~-' £r....~...... `~ `-~.~~-- Q .. _ D > D aaDO ~$ ~ m m~$ ~~s ~ z m ,o - ~ ~~ ~~ • 1) ~~ ~~ • "'4~e c ~ , ~x ~~, \', x~v :~ ~\ .'~` ~ ! ~~ ~ ~ _,i(L ~~ ~ . ROOFTOP ®F.L 908 ~tO t ~j%~..--; ~ 80 ~~,. '~1 ~ ROOFTOP ®EL 89B ~+~ ~ ', _ ~ ~ ` ~ I~~~I~1I~H1It11N11~11NI Ht~f~~fHl I~11HI1~IIN1 ~ Y ~ _ ~. ~) N~THTfI11ITTffTI a1111~N+111111111111 ~ fit. ~......~.1~ - .~ ~~~ 111~~ ~ ~a ~~; - ---~ ;~ {! ~_ 9 { ;= J r, ~-- {~ ~ U ~, r \\ f i I t i 1~ ! ! ~~ r 0 g F F °o z ~ 5 r r A~ ~ ~ ~ o~ ~ D ~~=s ~ ~ O Y9 ~i ~ ~ ~ m~3 ~ ^i ~7 ~ ~ ® ~ ~ m cDi ~ cDi v ~ O b~ m ® p ~ i \ Op a'm ~'~'' . ~~ ~~ g8 ~ t] Sf 4! f4 f0 t0 (n fA In _ ;11 91 ;1 11 11 ~y ~D ~Z 0 g 8 m n 0 z e M z n 0 c z n O n. a r m a ~z z ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~'r~ m p ~' ?t '77 cQ zap m 177 ~ ~ n X V/ ~o z i•^~ 1..11 i ~ ~ ~~ ~~ m~ °o ~~ ~~ ,~`' o~ a C~ a ~~ m ,~ --_-_ _=====1~1~~--------.-------- ~______--- '-_____ --_..=='!{~~; ~_`~~ `.~S _ _ -'-_T~-H~-- f-~-`-ra=y' ~it:i~i~~ ~•;~:;;~ _~1~ iii ~;~~, \ g _ ~~1 1 ~ 1'p ~ _ j ~ ;,iii !-i ~~ s I ®1no u 111I11111111 ~. ( i i i i ~ ~ ( ~ !'3 ~~ T[Tffl IIIIIItI®11111® ilfl!` ~ lum i `~~ , ,~ ~~ .i I~~ ~ A ~ i ~~~~ i i i o $ g ~~ ~~ x ~; 9 s q :f / I \ ~, 'O '0 y ,~ ~j I~ ~ ~~ 1 i ~ z ~;, r 4~ ~~ ~= - _ t~s, ~: cm-° o ~. - I I ;~~ p vig m'g 8 m~o ~~o ~ 4 .. o~ Z o~ Z ~ ~: ~ j :~ / ~ _. ~ _ ~~ ~ , _` -__ - _ ~ ,r......_.... ~• ~ Q ~~ )/ `` !n\ ~ _ ~~~`~~' ~.-____ _ ~ _~ , f ;~~= ~ ~~- ROOFTOP ~ EL l308 ROOFTOP ®EL 898 ~~~~' ~~~~ ~~ ~ r } `, ~ ~L _ i-s- ~l ~$ ~~ g~ ~~ ~~ ~~ s O ~, 8 ~~ f I 9 ~ ~ ~r r ~~ i. I ~ ~ ~~~ t -. ,:. i i iI L~ g ~, ~d~'~. 7 - 2 ~~ o S s oo ~ oa ~ O O ~~~~~~~ o~ a ~ o w ~ K.. = c fn O A ~ o ' ~ ~, y r p o a1 m o ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ h ~~ N u' OI W ~ N ~~ ~~ fA fA fA f0 N N 11 11 ?I ;1;11 ?1 'D ~1 tm.+ A S O m Z m C H Z n O G M 2 n 0 n C r ~ r ~a z m I n m ~ °~ r O m O3 -n '11 cQ ~ ~ 7 r m m n a n V' O Z f-'1 - • __,,,. - __-_ _- - ~ J ~. _. • •`~ ;, I'C,' _ _~ O • 1 ~~IIII111^ , ~t~`~ `,`~I 1l~ii~li~ '~~ ~`~ ~ ~~ ` ', ` \ 1, 1 ~ ' III '+I ~ ... i i, ~ i Il I O /--=--.-~ ~ i~ ~ i i O ~=~ ~ I ,,` `, I `~~~~ i 1~ '~ ICI z i !I ~b ~~,~ ~~ I c ~~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ " '~~ / I ~~~% // ti ~~ ;~:~~ ~~ ~ ~__ -~ r~ . ' ~~ • , - v~ -, I ~ ~~ ~ j ,._---- ----- I ~ ~ // ~i _ /7 ~ 1 ~~ ~.~~_ I ~I i ml ~ ~ ~ V ~! ~ Z ~ j ( r f ®~ o uuin 1 ['T ~ ~~ l d I ~ I S ®~ o ~ " ~ ~~ o~ ~ \~ 4 \~e.`. ~\~,.~ ~~ ;.~ ~ z IN~MN~M~ X24 3 ~ 11 j gT tp J~.( ~ ~ V O ~ ~ O ~ ~ b ( AN m Rz` -Di ~ g m~ y .. ~$ ~$ ~ I i~ ~ ~_ ii ®s ~~ m~ m J i I '+.. ~ ~\ Ya....b.....a .` u _ ~` :-~~ ~~ ~' ;~~ ~ t ROOFTOP ®Et. 808 %~~~ RppFTpp ®EL 888 l:;'f~g'' Lam{ ~~~'~ ~~ J tI11IItIII11I1II11 ~ 1~-'' "~~ ~ 1 ~~ffllfli1111111. C ~- ~ I ~, --I , : ~ \Y_ C ~' I I I r Il~t~ a r = ~ - ''' _~~~ i I~= ~ -~- ~ ; ~ ~~ .. ~tii ~ ~J /~ O - - - ~~ ~~ ~ • y ~ y . ~ . ~ 1 I ~ I -~-I i r~li - - --1}-~U -1'i ~~ 1 ~~ o~ ~Zo ~Q ~N ~~ m AW 8 r I I -~ 1 ~ a l I II i r J I, u I ~ ----. 1 ,~---~. j~, I .~` r ~. r i I 1 ''~I L~ 1~1- ~- g~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~ V ~ V ~ O ® ~ b ~ P ~ ® ~ ~ A ~ `j ~ P~ ~ W ~ P3 Q ~~ ~~ w w ro rn m rA ?~ i~ n ;n ~ `.n z 0 m 8 m n 0 z e ~1 Z n L1 z 0 e m Z n \ / O Z m C . ~ r m ~ ~ Z Z I ~ '~ ~' O ~ ~ ~ ~ 1"' o° m ® ~• rn ~~ ~a~ r rn m u> >_D n a X _~ O Z ''~1 M~ ~~ -_._~ ___ ~~r: ~ ___ _ __- __ _._ _- ~- ~_. ~-. - - - ~i I - ~% r - - - - _- - _- - 1 O ~`~1 \ ~ , / ~ / / r `~'~ ~ _ ~ 11~! I I~ Il r~ i O -_ ~ ~- - Iiiiil ~ ~ ' r,~ ~~ ff~flllllllllfllll lllllllllllltlltll < ~~<• lillll 1 j O z 1i !11 j!, ~ z C~ 1 1 i I ~~ i ~ A ~RJ I~ ~1 !h g ®y ^ I . ~ I ~ '~ ~ p~p A Tm- ~ #~"' /~ i ~ O O ~O ~~ %~; i . • 171 i 1• , O ~ • 'y . . :~ m$ a~ ~O o '° z • `ti ` ~~.---=-~ ,,a m ~~ \'i• ~. ~ t ='~I>~ 1 -~. .n ~~..-~ }~~~_, ~ y ~ I; - - ~ ~ ~~! ~ ~~~s ~ I - --~ /,• i'ti• -__=- -----~ J~ _ -,~ , r i~ ~ ~ ,~ 1 0 8 ti S ~O w~ pp N D ~ mp ~ ~ m 0 ~ '~ O ~ z r ~_ ~° J ~~ 0 O _ m 2 =_ Z - ~O D~ -i ~~ N ~$. m r~ m 0 v, ROOFTOP ROOFTOP ®~-~ ~ (~ ®EL896 .~___ ~ ~~~11I1IIIIIII~ a N~HTf ITI1TTTi1T1 ~~~T~ I f 111111111111 ~~~~ s 0 t"~ r• ?. 1 ~' ~~ _ ~~r1 ~ ~ ~ i r T ~ 00 A ~ m ~ T N~ O ~ ~ ~ P ~ ~~ ~ ~~ :~ I ~ it i' ~~ i I I i I I. ~l ~ ~ 9 i . I ',:._ I L 1 L, ,/ . -`1 ~j. .~ I S `~~` L I i I, .. 1 I i~ l t- r ~ I z ~ ~ ~~. C °~ ~o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ z ® ~ h y ~ b ao ~ b 9 _ _. ._ ~ _ _ _ _ _ Z 0 m , - ~ A g u m Z N /: r ~i Z n z 7 ~- "~~ `\ ~4 ~l r ~ ;' ~- `- -_ _ = _ -_ _ ~ Rt1~1ECHI~EIWJ~Y-7-7 ate' '~ _.1 ~ ~ ! ' ~ _ `~ \ Z ' I ~~~1 iil ~~; ~~ 1 O iiiiil ; 1 ~ ~ r~ ~m H~~~ Ililliil®II111111 •\~ ~ `~~jl~~:i11 ~ J $ r r i z ~~~~I I" - ~i i j1~ i! i= ~ a ~ ~~tin i~ I ~p0 ~~ r~ A y ~ ~~ o ; ,~ , .,, ~ g ~, . g fir ~_ ~~~~'--- ~.«. ..... • ~~~~~N1n~N~I~N/~ l O. - 0 ~, ~, .~ G A _ ~i\ o N i ' ~ , y O - .,I Z ~` _ -mp ~~~~i ~ 3~g g~8 $ ~ r ~ t r -i ~7 ~$ ~$ ~ I ~ i - $$ _ (~~ Z$ -mj D t "~`_~ ~i m~ ~ ~ t Z ~ m~ ( ~~ m I n ~ ; t - 1~ . ~-' i ; ~ ~ . v„~i-~~ --. o i m --h ~, ~............~ - mg ~ (n O mow'-. ~ _ 0 1 Z ~ ~ i~~~ ~ ~ ~ S D ~ ~ U~~ ` ROOFTOP ®t1. fi08 t- f 11 ,.--=~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ t i ROOFTOP ®EL 8B8 v I~ ~ ' '', 1 l = _ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~tl~tH#H - m X ~ ~ c T~ I i~ ~ uH~~'NT(T~TH $ ~ I •~ - _ t , ~ fTff~~fH ~ ~ E ~ „ .. Q ~ ~, Z ` - - - i~r. ~ ~ -~• ~ 3 _ s ~ ~ ~~~~~~ a~ ~p~~ O p n rt'1 v ® ~ ~ t+1 [' 3 ~ ~ Z~ ~~. I~ ~ O ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~; ,~ ~ y~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ "'~~ii 1t ;O ;1171 1~ Another benefit of changing the at-grade intersection concept (analyzed in the Draft EIS) to the single-point concept is that it better maintains the integrity of the Met Center. Site parcel As shown in Figure 3A in the Dra$ EIS, if the intersection of .24th Avenue and 79th/80th Street remains at-grade, the extreme northeast portion of the Met Center Site would be isolated from the remainder of the parcel. A remnant parcel in this corner would be cut-off by 79th Street as it passed through the Met Center Site to connect. to 80th Street. The alternative intersection configuration shown in Figure lA of this Final EIS- allows for 79th/80th Street to tie-in to 24th Avenue slightly farther to the north allowing. for more productive use of the Met Center parcel. Section 3.2.2 of this Final EIS describes the revised traffic operations analysis performed for the single-point concept at 79th/80th and 24th Avenue. Figures lA and 1B also show an alternative concept for grade-separated access from southbound TH 77 to eastbound Lindau Lane for a direct access into .the Met Center site. This concept shows an underpass separation, in lieu of the "fly over" ramp shown in Figures 3A and 3B in the Draft EIS. This change would not change the .Draft EIS traffic operation analyses for Lindau Lane intersections. Because the City of Bloomington has not made a decision on the planned roadway geometry to be constructed at the 79th/80th Street and 24th Avenue :intersection, and because the detailed design of the MOA expansion have not been completed, a .final determination of :roadway configurations and, therefore, for the exact. configuration of development .for MOA expansion, has not been made. However, the intensity of development for the Preferred Alternative (5.6 msf of mixed-use development), the potential environmental impacts and the proposed mitigation for ..impacts remain the same in the Final EIS as the Draft EIS... 3.0 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION As described in Section 1.2, there are few substantive changes to the information contained in the Draft EIS. The Final EIS describes the issues raised in written comments on the Draft EIS and responds to those comments (Section 3.1 below). It also provides additional information and clarification regarding the potential impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative if the roadway and site configurations shown in Figure lA through 1L are implemented instead of the. concept shown in Figure 3A through 3G in the Draft EIS .(Section 3.2 below). 3.1 SUMMARY OF ISSUES RAISED IN COMMENTS During the Draft EIS comment period, five written letters of comment were received. Letters of comment were from the following agencies: Minnesota Department of Transportation; Minnesota Pollution .Control Agency; Metropolitan Airports Commission; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; and, Metropolitan Council. In addition, one representative from the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District attended the public meeting held. September 14, 2000 and discussed the proposed project with City and project proposer staff. The majority of comments dealt with transportation issues (development assumptions for trip generation and regional system transportation impacts) and storm water issues. Other topics of Mall of America Expansion -Met Center Site Final EIS 1 S November 2000. comment included air quality, wastewater, building height: restrictions in the Airport South area in relation to MSP International Airport operations, and governmental approvals required for project implementation. 3.2 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS OF ISSUES FOR FINAL EIS 3.2.1 INTRODUCTION Comments received on the Draft EIS did not raise issues that required new or updated data collection, technical analysis or mitigation in the Final EIS. Therefore, the analysis of issues in the Final EIS is limited to an assessment of the potential for new/additional impacts arising from a new site concept being considered to accommodate potential changes in roadway configurations in the vicinity of the Met Center site (see Section 2.0 and Figures 1A and 1B). The intensity of development proposed on the site remains unchanged (5.6 million square feet) from that proposed in the Draft EIS. As such, issues addressed in the following sections are limited to potential environmental impacts arising from the proposed reconfiguration of the local streets immediately surrounding the site, namely local traffic (operations and access) and related vehicle air emissions and noise. 3.2.2 LOCAL TRAFFIC 3.2.2.1 Assumptions Traffic operations analyses in the vicinity of the Met Center site were revised/updated to reflect revisions made to the Mall of America (MOA) concept site plan, as shown in Figures lA and 1B. These revisions include a change in the southbound TH 77 to eastbound Lindau Lane access to the Met Center site from a "fly-over" to an underpass grade-separated movement, improved Met Center site circulation and the addition of agrade-separated single-point interchange at the intersection of 24th Avenue/79th-80th Street. City staff and the developer have proposed the single-point intersection at 24th Avenue to promote free-flow traffic conditions and improve overall operation of 24th Avenue/79th-80th Street intersection. The grade-separation would also eliminate the 24th Avenue/79th Street eastbound left turn to I-494/24th Avenue northbound right-turn weave that currently exists. The 24th Avenue grade-separation would originate from Lindau Lane and continue to I-494. The connection of 79th and 80th Streets would take place under 24th Avenue. Specific improvements to Met Center site circulation include two additional access locations: a .separate entrance ramp from the southbound 24th Avenue/79th-80th Street on-ramp, and aright- in/right-out access driveway located in the northwest quadrant of 24th Avenue/Lindau Lane intersection. Both access locations are intended to serve future ramp parking located in the southeast quadrant of the proposed Met Center site. A grade-separated 24~' Avenue and 79a'-80"' Street intersection and an added access to the site from 24`~ Avenue would not affect the regional travel patterns (direction of approach) of trips destined to the MOA or MOA Expansion project. Motorists will continue to choose the same travel paths regardless of the improvements to the roadway network. Mall of America Expansion -Met Center Site Final EIS 16 November 2000 The grade-separated 24`s Avenue and 79`h-80`n Street intersection and added access to the site will result in additional roadway capacity and more efficient local roadway operations. The revision of the southbound TH 77 to eastbound Lindau Lane to the MOA Expansion on the Met Center site from anabove-grade roadway to a below-grade roadway is not anticipated to affect regional traffic patterns or local intersection operations. 3.2.2.2 Analysis Traffic operations were analyzed for 2020 Preferred Alternative Build conditions for the following intersections to determine traffic impacts to key intersections due to the roadway configuration revisions discussed above: ^ I-494 and 24th Avenue Lindau Lane and 22nd Avenue ^ 24th Avenue and 79th-80th Street Lindau Lane and 20th Avenue ^ 24th Avenue and Lindau Lane Based on the operations analysis,. the 24th Avenue/79th-80th Street single-point intersection and 24th Avenue/I-494 interchange are expected to operate at LOS B and LOS D, respectively, with the proposed geometrics shown in the revised MOA concept site plan. The level of service for 24th Avenue/79th-80th Street intersection improves from LOS C (for the at-grade intersection shown in previous plans) to LOS B with grade separation, while the 24th Avenue/I-494 intersection LOS remains the same, LOS D. Besides the impact of the single-point intersection at 24th Avenue/79th-80th Street, the addition of the 24th Avenue entrance ramp to the Met Center parking facility would reduce right-turn traffic demand for the southbound right-turn movement at 24th Avenue/Lindau Lane and westbound right-turn movements at Lindau Lane and 20th/22th Street .intersections. In addition, the intensity of vehicle weaving will lessen on 24th Avenue from the southbound on-ramp from 79th-80th .Street to the southbound lanes at 24th Avenue/Lindau lane intersection. Due to the reallocation of some southbound right-turn traffic at 24th Avenue/Lindau Lane to the entrance ramps of the proposed Met Center parking facility, a minor reduction in intersection delay would. be expected for the Lindau Lane intersections. Since these intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better in year 2020 (includes agrade-separated ramp at the intersection of Lindau Lane/20th Avenue), no capacity analysis was performed because the added parking ramp accesses would improve operations of the three key intersections on Lindau Lane. 3.2.2.3 Internal Site Circulation Issues The Draft EIS identified the potential for limited vehicle storage and internal site circulation problems if the Preferred Alternative site concept shown in the Draft EIS were implemented. The .concept shown in Figures lA and 1B of this Final EIS would likely have more room available for onsite queue storage and potentially have better internal site circulation. Since both site concepts are still in the early stages of development, no more specific information on internal Mall of America Expansion -Met Center Site Final EIS 17 November 2000 site traffic conditions is available for analysis. As concept plans are developed in greater detail, City staff will work with the developers to address any potential onsite circulation/storage issues prior to approval of any development plans for construction. As stated in the Draft EIS, this issue would not affect local street system operations. 3.2.3 VEHICLE-RELATED AIR EMISSIONS AND NOISE IMPACTS As described in the Draft EIS, the analysis of vehicle-related air quality impacts in the project area was based on a carbon monoxide analysis performed at all intersections projected to operate at level of service D or worse for year 2007. As shown in Section 3.2.2 above and in Tables 23 and 24 (pages 53 and 54) of the Draft EIS, the most recent site/street configuration concept (Figures lA and 1B of the Final EIS) would result in traffic operations the same as, or potentially better than the Draft EIS concept. Therefore, the Draft EIS findings of no potential air quality impacts would not change. Similarly, traffic noise impacts related to the new roadway configurations would not change from those described in the Draft EIS, since the receptor locations and traffic volumes would not change. As noted in the Draft EIS and in Section 5.0 below, construction of the proposed MOA expansion would require approval of modifications to the existing Indirect Source Permit (ISP) for the project area. 4.0 SCHEDULE The following schedule shows the anticipated dates of occurrence. for the remaining steps in the Environmental Impact Statement process. November 6, 2000 City Council .approves Final EIS for submission to EQB November 13, 2000 Notice of Final EIS availability published in EQB Monitor and Final EIS distributed November 28, 2000 FEIS comment period closes December 4, 2000 City Council makes EIS adequacy decision December 21, 2000 EQB makes EIS adequacy decision December 27, 2000 Adequacy decision distributed January 8, 2001 Notice of adequacy decision published in EQB Monitor Mall of America Expansion -Met Center Site Final EIS 18 November 2000 • • ~i 5.0 PERMITS AND APPROVALS The following governmental approvals are or may be required before the project can be implemented. Unit of Government Federal Aviation Administration Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Metropolitan Council Minnesota Department of Health Minnesota Department of Transportation Minnesota Department of Natural Resources City of Bloomington Tvne of Anulication Status Air Space Review (Form 7460) Future No Hazard to Navigation Determination Future Indirect Source Permit (modification) Future Sewer Extension Permit Future Surface Water Discharge (NPDES) Permit(s) • Construction Activities Future • Temporary dewatering discharge Future (if required) (if required) Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit Future Water Main Review (possible permit) Future (if required) Review of roadway improvements Future (if required) impacting State TH 77 or I-494 (if required) Permit for work within Trunk Highway right-of--way (if required) Water Appropriation (temporary dewatering) Rezoning to Planned Development Amend HX-2 zoning district Amend Tax Increment Financing District Amend Restated Contract for Redevelopment Preliminary and Final Development Plan Approval Grading, Drainage, Utility, and Erosion Control Plan Approval Landscape Plan Approval Utility Permit Future Future Future Future Future Future Future Future November 2000 Mall of America Expansion -Met Center Site Final EIS 19 Future (if required) Future (if required) Unit of Government City of Bloomington Tvpe of Application Grading Permit Building Permit Preliminary and Final Plat Bloomington/Richfield Watershed Grading and Drainage Management Organization Plan Approval Lower Minnesota River Watershed District Grading and Drainage Plan Approval 6.0 CERTIFICATION Status Future Future Future Future Future I hereby certify that the information contained in this document is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and that copies of this Final EIS have been made available to all points on the Environmental Quality Boazd distribution list. Signature: ~Q ~ `~~~''`~~ `"~ Clazk Arneson, City of Bloomington Planning Manager Date: ~~'~~..`-es.~'' ~ , .~~c-t~ Mall of.4rnerica Expansion -Met Center Site Final EIS 10 November 1000 • APPENDIX A MALL OF AMERICA EXPANSION PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT OCTOBER 200D • • W F 6 2 V F 7 ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ < Q K a' W 0 LL ~ t O J ~ Q g a 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ S 8 R R e 8 Y 55~~ 8 fpt 6 QQ S QQ S qQ S pQ E Qp S yR b o i 0 ~ R ~ ~ ^. ffi e 8 ~ 7 8 o p 3 a Q a Q Q Q p S o o Q 3 a ~ ~ S ~ ° ~ ~ S3 Q Q Q E Q 8 e q a o o p a ~ ~ Q b o Q E R pp 6 QQ S pp O Qp b o pp a o o Q S ~ °~ n o o i i QQ D pp S 4 25 p b e QQ S o Q b n & ~ °1 ~ 'n r e S 5 $ $ g :i Q Q p a p Q b e o R ~ 9 $ 9 R S ~ ~ tf ~ QQ b ~ e ~° ~ Z B E X R p ~ e e ~ a s ~ ~ ~ s s ~ a s A s a ~ R ~ ~ ~ ~ $ s "` i H ~ 8 : 9 R S 8 ~ X 8 8 ~ S _ S 8 7 E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~t 5 a Q E ~ QQ S a pp a Q b pp 3 e Qp 2S QQ 6 Q S Q S Q6 ~QQ $~g m 0 g ~ W ~ p ~ ~ ~ m ~ 'c ~ ~ ~ ~+ ~ ~ ~ 7 G ~ ¢ FF t EE CG `IjS ~ry w ~q$ ~ V~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ IS ~ ~i a ~ ~ ( ~ W J ~ _ 3 ~ ~ Yl 3 ffi ~ ~ s ~ Q C j t [J APPENDIX B COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIS RESPONSES TO COMMENTS • • COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIS RESPONSES TO COMMENTS NOTE: Numbering of these responses corresponds to the numbers in the margin of the comment letters received. (Copies of the annotated letters follow these responses.) LETTER A: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Al: Pond C is located within Mn/DOT right-of--way, but the pond is maintained by the City of Bloomington. No significant changes in flows to Pond C are anticipated in conjunction with the proposed Mall of America expansion on the. Met Center site and, therefore, no work involving Mn/DOT's Pond C would be required. An Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) will be prepared by the City of Bloomington for the Airport South District (which includes the Mall of America expansion site), a portion of which drains to Pond C. Any proposed changes to Pond C that result from the AUAR process will be coordinated with Mn/DOT staff. A2: Construction of an improved connection for eastbound Lindau Lane traffic (from TH 77) to the Mall of America expansion on the Met Center site may result in construction extending into Mn/DOT TH 77 right of way. If so, the appropriate permit(s) will be acquired from Mn/DOT, as noted in the comment. A3: Follow-up with Mn/DOT staff contacts were made to clarify the concerns expressed in this comment. The difference between Mn/DOT and the MOA Draft EIS traffic forecasts for I-494 were acknowledged by Mn/DOT staff to have resulted from differences in forecasting methodology. Mn/DOT staff clarified that the main point of the comment was not that the Draft EIS forecasts were low, but that the effect of MOA expansion traffic on I-494 was understated in the Draft EIS. They agreed that the large number of trips generated by the MOA expansion, appear low when compared to the high volumes of traffic on I-494. Mn/DOT staff emphasized that there are still a large number of trips that will be generated by the MOA expansion, and that they would. affect the regional roadway system operation. Mn/DOT's current schedule for planned improvements to I-494 indicates that the earliest that the congested segment of I-494 in the vicinity of Airport South/Mall of America could be improved is 2010 to-2011. Mn/DOT is encouraged to move this scheduled improvement up as much as possible. As stated in Draft EIS Section 4.1.5.1 (page 55), the effects of both MOA Phase I (existing) and Phase II (expansion) traffic were anticipated in the MOA EIS prepared in 1985, and substantial regional and local roadway improvements were made at the time that Phase I was constructed to accommodate the forecast traffic. Therefore, no additional mitigation for regional system traffic impacts is proposed in conjunction with the MOA expansion project. It was also noted in Draft EIS Section 4.1.2.3 (page 32) and Section 4.1.5.1 (page 55) that there is a high rate of transit use at the existing MOA, and that trend is anticipated to continue with the MOA expansion. A high rate of transit use decreases the total number of vehicle trips generated by the proposed MOA expansion project. Mall of America Expansion -Met Center Site Final EIS B-1 November 2000 A4: Any work on 24th Avenue, ..79th Street and/or 81st Street (Lindau Lane) would be performed in conformance with State Aid requirements and coordinated with Mn/DOT State Aid staff. Proposed work on 24th Avenue (CSAH 1) will also be coordinated with Hennepin County staff. LETTER B: MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL. AGENCY Bl: The City of Bloomington plans to prepare an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the Airport South District in the near future, to address the cumulative effects of anticipated development in the District. In addition, the .Indirect. Source Permit for the District will be revised in the near future to reflect the revised development assumptions. B2: Although on-site ponding is not planned for the proposed re-development of the :Met Center site, Draft EIS Section 4.5.4 (page 78} noted that the Mall of America expansion will include the use of grit chambers as a primary. treatment device for site runoff. In addition, drainage from the enclosed portions of the parking ramps will be routed to the City sanitary sewer after passing through on-site flammable waste traps. LETTER C: METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION C1: The office development scenario is utilized for traffic, air and noise impact analyses as it represents the "worst case" scenario in regards to vehicle trip generation.. Table 3 (page 23) and Table 5 (page 26) in the Draft EIS identify Metro Office Park as office land use. C2: The proposed Olnick development "worst case" scenario for vehicle trip generation is the office-only development alternative that substitutes an office building for a proposed hotel development in the northeast portion of the site. The office-only development alternative was utilized for the Draft EIS traffic, air and noise analyses, as noted in Table 3 (page 23) and Table 5 (page 26) in the Draft EIS. C3: The reconstruction of the Penn Avenue/I-494 interchange was not listed as a separate improvement assumed for the traffic forecasting and operational analyses as shown in Table 2 of the Draft EIS (page 20). At the time the Draft EIS traffic analyses were performed, the Penn Avenue interchange reconstruction was anticipated to occur as part of the I-494. corridor improvements scheduled for completion after year 2006. Since it was included in the I-494 corridor improvements, the interchange was included in the forecast and operations analyses assumptions for the Draft EIS. C4: Only the afternoon peak hour traffic was analyzed because it represents the "worst case" traffic scenario in the vicinity of the Mall of America (i.e. when work trips and retail trips would coincide). The Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) [Item #21, page 20] and the Scoping Decision Document for the Mall of America Expansion EIS (Section 3.3.1, page 8) identified the intention of the Draft EIS to analyze only afternoon peak hour traffic conditions. • Mall of America Expansion -Met Center Site Final EIS B-2 November 2000 C5: The proximity of the 1.0 msf retail development on the Adjoining Lands to the Mall of America would likely result in shared regional trips to the MOA and Adjoining Lands developments. This would result in a decrease in the number of regional system trips to the Airport South District. Therefore, the estimated ITE trip generation rate fora 1.0 msf shopping center on the Adjoining Lands was. reduced for TAZ assignments for re final modeling purposes. The numbers included in Table 5 (page 26) and Table 6 (pages 27 and 28) of the Draft EIS reflect the reduction for regional forecasting. The number of trips used for the intersection operations analysis in Section 4.1.4.3 (pages 52-54) of the Draft EIS reflect the ITE estimated peak hour trip generation numbers -which were not reduced as the regional trips were. C6: Section 4.1.5.1 (page 55) of the Draft EIS discusses why regional system mitigation for freeway segments that aze congested for the Build alternatives and not for the No Build alternative is not planned in conjunction with the proposed Mall of America expansion: 1) these segments are already approaching the congestion threshold under the No Build alternative, 2) the Mall of America expansion traffic is a relatively minor contributor to the total traffic volumes in the segments, and 3) substantial improvements to the regional system related to Mall of America development have .already been made by the City and Mn/DOT (based on traffic analyses for Phases 1 and 2 of the Mall of America as part of the 1985 Mall of America EIS process). C7: There is no conventional "congestion standard" used for metered ramps, since the timing used at ramp meters is dependent upon how well the regional highway system (e.g. TH 77, I-494, etc.) is working. As future traffic on the regional highways increases, ramp metering will likely result in increased meter delays, as noted in the Draft EIS (Sections 4.1.3.3 and 4.1.3.4, pages 43-47). The increased volume of traffic generated by the Build alternatives would result in increased demand at the ramps and this, combined with increasing delay from meters, could result in longer queues for Build than No Build conditions. The City has already addressed some of the problems related to this issue (based on anticipated traffic volumes for MOA Phases I and II from the 1985 EIS process) through the. construction of the Integrated Corridor Traffic Management System (ICTMS). The ICTMS assists the I-494 traffic demand by optimizing signal timing and associated aspects of a systems approach to transportation including the local roadways leading to I-494 and TH 77. No additional mitigation is proposed specific to the current MOA expansion proposal. C8: Table 34 (page 73) in the Draft EIS summarizes the assumed conditions and includes the Robert Muir Co. property. Mall of America Expansion -Met Center Site Final EIS B-3 November 2000 .LETTER D: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Dl: The storm water analyses for the Draft EIS were based on an assumption that minimal landscaping and other pervious areas would be provided as part of the development of the site. However, given the intensity of the proposed development, the provision of pervious surface areas is not anticipated to significantly decrease runoff volumes. from the site. City of Bloomington preliminary and final development plan review for the project will include an assessment of storm water impacts and the need to minimize dischazge rates as part of the planning process. D2: The Preferred Alternative does not include expansion of the Mall of America at the Adjoining Lands site. LETTER E: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL El: The 1981. Bloomington Sanitary Sewer Policy Plan (SSPP) projected peak flow from Sanitary Sewer District A to be 2.116 mgd (page 8 of plan). The 1998 SSPP projects peak flow from District A to be 5.152 mgd with a peaking factor of 2 included. Public Works staff has worked with Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) staff on the updated , policy plan to resolve the flow issues from District A. The 1981 Bloomington SSPP included a City total peak flow projection of 30.070 mgd. The Current 1998 SSPP projects total peak flow to MCES facilities to be 24.122 mgd. There are some variations regarding flows from various districts, but overall peak flow is projected to be substantially less. Therefore, the Mall of America expansion is accounted for within the projected flows from Sewer District A. A concern regarding the sewer flow capacity of MCES Interceptor 7804, as it relates to Airport South redevelopment, was stated by Met Council Staff at a meeting with City Staff on October 26, 2000. An analysis of the system was run using computer-modeling softwaze in December 1999 as .part of the MOA Expansion EIS scoping studies. The analysis included proposed Airport South redevelopment as outlined by the 1999 Scoping EAW .for the MOA Expansion,. including redevelopment of the Olnick property, the Met Center site, and the "Adjoining Lands" east of the Mall of America. Existing conditions as submitted in Bloomington's Comprehensive Plan (Sanitary Sewer element) were used along with a revised peak flow factor of two. Results of the analysis indicate that a minor surchazge may occur in the 36" interceptor near the intersection with MCES Interceptor BN-499 (just north of East Old Shakopee Road) during -the peak flow conditions of 24 mgd. A revised analysis of the City system for expected 2020 flows (including these newer Airport South redevelopment projections) will be conducted and submitted to the MCES for a comparison to the Comprehensive plan. E2: As site development plans are still at a conceptual level and exact building elevations aze not finalized, the details of the heights limits were not included in the Draft EIS. As stated in the Draft EIS (Section 1.4, page 5), the Mall of America expansion building heights will conform to the MAC height restrictions. Mall of America Expansion -Met Center Site Final EIS B-4 November 2000 E3: The project will require a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation from the Federal Aviation Administration. This requirement will be added to the list of governmental approvals required in the Final EIS. E4: The 1,800 employee parking spaces and 6,000 to 8,000 public spaces (total of 7,800 to 9,800 spaces) included in the Metropolitan Airports Commission Capital Improvement Program for the HHH parking facility include a number of long-term parking spaces. Long- term spaces have a lower rate of turnover than a daily parking facility. The influence of the long-term spaces was factored into the trip generation assumptions, accounting for the "7,800 peak parking demand spaces" assumed in the Draft EIS traffic analysis. E5: The 2005 Part 150 mitigated noise contours were used in preparing the analysis described in Section 4.4 (page 70) in the Draft EIS. E6: The Metropolitan Council sanitary sewer extension permit will be added to the Final EIS List of approvals required. E7: The recommendations included in the memorandum in Appendix 3 (Storm Water Technical Memoranda) of the Draft EIS are intended to address overall water quality issues in the Airport South District. These recommendations will be incorporated into the analysis and proposed mitigation strategies in the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the Airport South District that the City plans to conduct following completion of the Mall of America expansion EIS process. E8: As noted in the Draft EIS (Section 4.5.4, page 78), the site design for the Mall of America expansion will include the use of grit chambers as a primary treatment device for site runoff. In addition, drainage from the enclosed portions of the parking ramps will be routed to the City sanitary sewer after passing through on-site flammable waste traps. Mall of America Expansion -Met Center Site Final EIS B-S .November 2000 ~ Minnosota Department of Transportation ,° ~ Letter A ~, ~ Metropolitan Division °""- Waters Edge .1500 West County Road B2 - - Roseville, MN 551't3 ~'~ `~ September 27, 2000 Mr. Clazk Arneson, Planning Manager . City of Bloomington 2215 Old Shakopee Road ~. ,.~, O ~,;., "' 'r ti, ~„ ~ Bloomington, Minnesota 55413 Subject: Mall of America Expansion (Met Center Site) EIS Mn1DOT Review # EIS00-005 Southeast Quadrant of I-494 and Trunk Highway 77 Bloomington, Hennepin County Control Section 2785 Dear Mr. Arneson: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above referenced draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Before any further development, please address the following issues: ^ Any proposed drainage changes or work involving "Pond C" will need to be coordinated with I 1 and permitted by Mn/DOT. Please direct questions concerning this issue to Brian Kelly (763- 797-3054) of Mn/DOT's Water Resources section. ^ .Any impact to MnIDOT right of way will require a permit. Questions regarding permit 12 applications including grading and drainage may be directed to Keith Van Wagner (651-582- 1443) of Mn/DOT's Permits section. • The future 2020 traffic forecasts appear to be low which is an important issue as this development will contribute a lot of traffic to an already congested area. Please contact Gene 13 Hicks (651-582-1402) with Mn/DOT's Planning section concerning traffic forecasting. • 79~' and 82~` are Minnesota State Aid (NiSA) routes 399 and 444, respectively. Also, 24~' Avenue is County State Aid Highway (CSAH). Any work on a MSA route or CSAH must 4 comply with State Aid rules and policies: Please direct questions concerning these issues to Thomas Leibli (651-582-1372) of MnlDOT's State Aid section. Please address all future correspondence for development activity such as plats, site plans, environmental reviews, and comprehensive plan amendments to: Sherry Nazusiewicz Mn/DOT -Metro Division _ Waters Edge ,~ t ~ n :. 1500 West County Road B-2 .- ~r ;,;,3 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 '~~~ ' `~ ~ -( N SL~ ~:1~ ,, An equal opportunity employer G, ~ ~•.~lL~='' Please note that Mn/DOT document subnttal 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) 582-1771 if shouldhave any questions. Sincerely, ~~ Paul Czech Senior Transportation Planner/Local Government Liaison Copy: Pete TuIkki, Hennepin County Surveys Section Dave Zetterstrom, Hennepin County Public Works Bill Grifftth, Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. SRF Consulting Group Mn/DOT Division File - C.S. 2785 Mn/DOT LGL -Bloomington ~, .N, iii,. 'L. September 29, 2000 Letter B Minnesota- Pollution Control Agency Mr. Clark Arneson, .Planning Manager City of Bloomington 2215 West Old Shakopee Road Bloomington, MN 55431 REC~IV~~ DlV1SI~N Cr• CIiY PLAU~Y;IG ScP 2 9 2fl~70 G{TY OF BLOOMINGTON NIINN>=SOYA RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statemert (DEIS), Mall of America (MOA) Expansion -Met Center Site Dear Mr. Arneson: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIS for the MOA expansion project. The proposed MOA expansion would include a maximum of 5.6 million square feet of mixed-used development with up to 13,154 parking spaces. The land uses proposed for this expansion are similaz to the existing MOA, which include entertainment and retail, plus general office space, residential apartment and condominiums, a hotel, and conference center complex. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has reviewed the DEIS for this project. We have the following comments for consideration and response by the city of Bloomington in preparing the final EIS for the project. General Comments Regarding Traffic and Air Quality Impacts The NLPCA staff recognizes that all the alternatives proposed would meet the state carbon monoxide (CO) ambient standards. The preferred Alternative (Alternative 1) does not differ substantially from. the other high intensity proposal (Alternative Sub-alternative 3B) in terms of CO values in parts per million. Nevertheless, the choice of alternatives posed in the DEIS have overall implications for air quality because of the assumptions on which they are based. Increased traffic. volumes affect the amount of pollutants emitted. Apart from this high-intensity development proposed for this expansion project, several other ~ , developments have also been planned within the same analysis period on several parcels within 1 the Airport South District. These could have some implications in traffic-and air quality due to expected increases in trip generation and other local access demands. TheMPCA staff recommends that the city of Bloomington prepare as Alternative Urban Area Review (AUAR) that would include the cumulative impacts of the proposed MOA expansion and all the anticipated developments expected in the Airport South. District within the same analysis period. • 520 Lafayette Rd. N.; St. Paul, MN 55155-4194; (651) 296.6300 (Voice); (651 } 292-5332 (TTY) St. Paul Brainerd Detroit Lakes Duluth Mankato h1arshail Rochester Willmar; www.pca.state.mn.us Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on recycled paper costa:.^.irg at least 20% fibers from paper recycled by consumers. Mr. Clazk Arneson Fage Three Air Quality Analysis The DEIS conducted a detailed CO analysis based on forecast traffic volumes and optimized signal timing at three congested intersections. The analysis was done for No Build alternative, the preferred alternative and Alternative 3B. While the preferred alternative would result in increased CO concentrations from the No Build condition, no violations of the state ambient CO standards are predicted as a result ofthe MOA expansion. Please call Innocent Eyoh, at (652) 296-7739, if you have any questions regarding the comments concerning traffic. Storm ~i~'ater Treatment We would encourage the addition of on-site stone water ponding, although we understand that 2 most of the water is treated by the basins below the bluff. Please call Jay Michels, at (651) 296-7036, if you would Like further information about this topic. We look forward to receiving your written responses to these comments as well as the final EIS when it is available. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact me at (651) 296-6703. Sincerely, ~,t,bah.R. ~~ Bazbara Conti Planner Principal Operations and Planning Section Metro District BC:SJS cc: Bill Griffith, Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Gregg Downing, Environmental Quality Board Innocent Eyoh, MPCA, PP/CAP Jay Michels, MPCA, MD/CAP METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION ,~;: ,5 ,<-ti,q 1~iinneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport Letter C r ~ * °- 600 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799 t z Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296 _' ~ '~ ~~r.r-1VEQ F Or:viJ`~ u= .,,TY PLAMIV(NG . q^ * ~ `0- (::~ i ° ! ~ ~~Qd L::~ ~ . ;i~INGTQ~I September 29, 2000 i4t ~ r r ~ r ~S OTA Clark Arneson, Planning Manager BY FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Ciry of Bloomington - 2215 West Old Shakopee Road Bloomington, M~' 55431 RE: Comments On TEte Mall of America ExpansionlMet Center Site Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr~n: We have received and reviewed the Mall Of America Expansion/Met Center Site Draft Environmental Impact Statement, dated August 21, 2000, .prepared by the Ciry of Bloomington ("Draft EIS"). The Metropolitan, Airports Commission ("MAC"} makes the following comments on the Draft EIS. T. Section 3.0 Alternatives, Background Assumptions (p. 76): In the paragraph entitled "Metro Office Park," the Draft EIS describes two possible development assumptions for the Metro Office Park site - a hotel scenario and an office scenario. The Draft EIS then indicates the "worst-case" development scenario will be used for each potential impact. Later impact sections of the Draft EIS, however, do not state which scenario is being used and why.. Either that should be done here or in the various impact sections. See No. 4 8~ 11 below for related comments. 2. Section 3.0 Alternatives, Background Assumptions (p. 16}: !n the paragraph entitled "Olnick Property," the Oraft EIS describes two possible development assumptions for 2 the Olnick site - an office development scenario and a mixed office-hotel scenario. The Draft EIS then indicates the `worst-case" development scenario will be used for each potential impact. Later impact sections of the Draft ElS, however, do not state which scenario is being used and why. Either that should be done here or in the various impact sections. See No. 4 8~ 12 below for related comments. 3. Section 3.0 Alternatives, Background Assumptions (p. 20): In Table 2 -Summary Of Roadway Improvements To Be Included in Traffic Forecasting And Operation Analysis. the 3 reconstruction of the Penn Avenue/1-494 Interchange being proposed by the City of Richfield and the Minnesota Department of Transportation is not listed. The ~fetropolitaa Airports Commission is an affirmative action employer. Etnliever Airports: P.~~IiF. • .~~OTiA COUtiTY.~BLAINE • CRYSTAL • FLYi1vG CI.000 • LAKE ELbtO • SAI\T PAUL DOtY`7'I'OwN Mr. Clark Arneson September 29, 2000 Page 2 4. Section 4.1.9.2 Development Assumpfions {pp. 22 & 23): In the text on page 22 and Table 3 on page 23, no mention is made of which development scenarios for Metro Office Park 1, 2 and the Olnick Property were chosen for the traffic analysis and why. One can infer the choices from Table 3, but an explicit statement would be preferable. See No. 1 & 2 above for related comments. 5. Section 4.1.1.4 Trip Generafion (p. 25): In most traffic analyses, both a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic is analyzed. Here only p.m, peak hour traffic is discussed. The decision not to ( 4 analyze the a.m. peak hour should be stated and justified here. 6. Section 4.1.1.4 Trip Generation (pp. 26, 27 & 28): In Table 5 -Trip Generation By Development Alternatives, the 1,000,000 sq. ft shopping center on the. Adjoining Lands is projected to generate 20,975 trips per day. In Table 6 PM Peak Hour Generation. the shopping center is projected to generate 2,000 trips in the p.m. peak hour. The MAC's traffic consultant for review of the Draft EIS, James A. Benshoof of Benshoof & Associates, Inc., cannot reconcile these numbers with the trip generation fomiulas for shopping centers .published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers which he believes yield 29,9fi0 trip ends and 2,870 p.m. trip ends. The Final EIS should reconcile this discrepancy. 7. Section 4.1.3.1 Congesfed Roadway Segments (2007) (p. 39): In Table 13 - 2007 Congesfed Roadway Segments By Altemative, it is projected that two freeway segments will become congested under Build Altemative 1 as compared to the No Build Altemative, i.e., 1-35W north of 60~' Street and 1-494 west of 24~' Avenue. No mitigation measures are discussed, however, to address this project impact. The Final EIS should discuss appropriate mitigation measures. 8. Section 4,9.3.2 Congesfed Roadway Segments (2020) (p. 43}: In Table 17 - 2020 Congested Roadway Segments By Alternative, it is projected that one freeway segments -will become congested under Build Altemative 1 as compared 'to the No Build Alternative, i.e., 1-494 from 34"' Avenue west to Portland Avenue. No mitigation measures are discussed, however, to address this project impact. The Final EIS should discuss appropriate mitigation measures. 9. Secfion 4.1.3.3 Impacts On Freeway-to-Freeway Interchanges (p. 46): In .the paragraph entitled "Congested Freeway .Interchanges Under Build Alternatives 1 and 36," it is projected that the ramp connecting northbound TH 77 to westbound TH 62 will become congested under Build Altematives~l and 3B as compared to the No Build Altemative. No mitigation measures are discussed, however, to address this project impact. The Final EI5 should discuss appropriate mitigation measures. 10. Secfion 4.9.3.4 Impacts On Local Access Ramps {pp. 47 & 48): The analysis on page 47 and Table 20 - 2020 Forecast Volumes On selected Freeway Ramps on page 48 indicate that, due to ramp metering, some local access ramps will become congested under Build Alternatives 1 and 3B as compared to the No Build Altemative.-But the analysis does not clearly articulate the congestion standard or specify which ramps will exceed capacity due to the Build Alternatives. Nor are mitigation measures discussed to address these project .impacts. The Final EIS should clarify the impacts and discuss appropriate mitigation measures. 6 7 Mr. Ctark Arneson September 29,-2000 Page 3 99. Secfion 4.3.9 Alternatives Analyzed (p. 72): Under Number 2 relating to Metro Office I 1 Park, the specific development scenario being referred to is not identified. See No. 1 above for a related comment. 92. Section 4.3.9 Alternatives Analyzed (p. 72): Under Number 3 relating to the Olnick 12 Property, the specific development scenario being referred to is not identified. See No. 2 above for a related comment. 93. Secfion 4.3.9 Alternatives Analyzed (p. 72): Under Number 4 relating to the Muir I g property, no assumption is identified. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIS. We look forward to working with the City as it prepares the Final EIS. Sincerely yours: ;. ~~~r Nigel D. Finney Deputy Executive Director Planning and Environment • • Letter D Minnesota Department of Natural Resources itH1 LaCctyrttc Rnad 10 St. Paul, ~iinn~suta Si I ~a-~itl, G C (-" _ ` ,' J, ',;.. September 29, 2000 _, ~. t Clark Arneson, Planning Manager City of Bloomington CITY ~, . 2215 West Otd Shakopee Road ~~~' ~'-• • - ~~ Bloomington, MN 55431 RE: Mall of America Expansion on the Met Center Site Draft Environmental Impact Statement {DEIS) Dear Mr. Arneson: The Department of Natural Resources (DNR} has reviewed the DEIS for the Mall of America Expansion on the Met Center Site project. We offer the fallowing comments for your consideration. Our only comment pertains to issues of storm water runoff management discussed in Section ~l..i. Table 34 indicates that both the Proposed Action and the No-Build Action reduce impervious surface co~~er at the site 1 and accordingly result in reduced generation of storm water runoff; this is a positive feature of both alternatives. Any further opportunities to reduce imperviousness at the size that arise during final permitting should be aggressively pursued. In addition, if the expansion were to occur under the Adjoining Lands scenario as noted in Section 4.5.4, Mitigation, then the onsite ponding should utilize infiltration-based 2 approaches to the greatest extent feasible. Adoption of infiltration-based designs can substantiall~~ reduce runoff volumes, which in turn is an important form of mitigation for runoff-related- impacts. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. We look forward to receiving the Final EIS at a future date. Please contact Bill Johnson of my staff at (651) 296-9229 if you have questions about this letter. Sincerely, Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor Environments! Planning and Review Section Office of Management and Budget Services c: Kathleen Wallace Con Christianson Joe Oschwald Russ Peterson, USFWS Jon Larsen, EQB Bill Griffith, Legal Counsel ft2000050'7-0003 MALLDEtS.WPD DNR Information: 651-296-6157 1-888-646-667 TTY: 651-296-5484 1-800-657-:9?9 An Equal Opportunity Employer If printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Who Values Diversity ~~ Minimum of 10%. Post-Consumer Waste Metropolitan Council Le>~er E Working for the Region, Planning for the Future October 6, 2000 R ~ C ~) V DIVISION Of CITY P!<ANN1N0 Clark Arneson ACT ~ ~ 2~~0 Planning Manager CiryofBloomington CITY 0~ BLOOMINGTON 2215 West Oid Shakopee Road MINNES~Tl4 Bloomington, MN 55431 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Mall of America Expansion Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 18143-2 Metropolitan Council District 5 Dear Mr. Arneson: Thank you for submitting this environmental document to us for review. The Metropolitan Council received the draft EIS for review on August 24, 2000. The EIS information indicates the city of Bloomington is proposing an expansion to the existing Mall of America development on the old Met Center site. The uses proposed as part of this. development include retail, office, hotel and residential (condominium) units. four development alternatives, in addition to a No Build alternative. The Council reviewed an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the project in January of 2000. Staff had comments in the area of water quality and wastewater. Staff finds that the EIS information is currently incomplete for the following reasons: Wastewater (RogerJanzig, 651-602-1119) After reviewing the EAW, information was not available to deternline the_increase in potential . flow from the City of Bloomington's sewer district A. If the city is projecting a flow higher than 2.115 mgd for sewer district A, then the new projected flow may impact the Metropolitan Disposal System.. Council staff requested that this information be included in the DEIS and Bloomington's comprehensive plan. Staff offers the following advisory comments: Transportation (Chauncey Case 651-602-1724) The Mall of America (MOA) is within the influence area of MSP International airport. It is affected by the 2010 airport development plan. There are two major impacts of the airport expansion plan upon the MOA -one, is atl increase in airport ground traffic and roadway improvements in and around the Airport South Planning District; and secondly, safety and aircraft operational .effects from the new runway 17!35. DEIS Section 1.4 The DEIS overview properly identifies the new runway safety zoning of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA} and MnDOT Aeronautics. It is recognized that the specific application of these zones is still under discussion; however, nowhere in the document is there a general reap or diagram included that depicts the relationship of the-MOA to these safety areas. The Metropolitan'Airpoi-ts Comrriission (MAC) has previously prepared a 3D graphic that visually portrays'the potential height Limitations on the site area and could be effectively used in conjunction with the text on page 5 of the DEIS.. ~ . ~~ 230 East Ftfth Stmt St. Paul. Minnesota 5510 1-1626 (6511 602-1000 Fax 602-1550 TDD/T1Y 291.0904 Metro Info Line 602.1888 M Equal Opportunity Empltrjer Mr. Arneson September 29, 2000 Page 2 DEIS Section 2.0 In addition to height considerations there is a need to protect airport operations from visual and electronic interference that may result due to the proposed project. It is indicated on pages 6 and 7 that there will be future FAA air space review approval and city building permit requirements. It is recognized that the issue of potential visual and electronic interference i~°as addressed in the first phase development of the MOA. A similar or increased level of attention is needed for this project since there are several changes since initial mall development that need to be considered: - location of the MOA expansion site is closer to an extended existing runtivay, - location closer to the ne~v runway 17/35 end, - location closer to aircraft operations and landing aids, - relocation of MSP ATCT. The DEIS should clarify when, where and by whom the review fimction for these considerarions will occur. 3 DEIS Section 4.1.1.2 The background traffic assumptions for HHH Passenger Terminal parking facilities is identified at 7,800 peak parking demand spaces. The MAC 2001 CIP indicates plans 4 for HIiH which propose sizing of the facility to accommodate 1,800 employee spaces and 6000 to 8000 public spaces. These numbers should be reviewed and clarified as needed, including section 4.1.3.4. DEIS Section 4.4 This section could use a noise map diagram to better relate the text information. The MSP Noise Policy Area map will be used by the Council to conduct reviews and make decisions until the Aviation Policy Plan Update is completed/adopted in about mid- 2001;this map includes the 2005 noise contour for runway 17/35. The Council will incorporate the entire 2005 Part 150 mitigated noise contours in the guide update. For the MOA site expansion area the noise impact is not expected to change substantively from the Part -150 2005 mitigated contours. Environment (Judy Sventek, 651-60?-1156) This project provides a great opportunity to improve the existing en~zronment by retrofitting the stormwater system in the project area. Staff provides the following comments for your consideration. DEIS 2.0 -Governmental Approvals The DEIS fails to mention that the project proposer will need to get a permit from the 6 Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Division as well as the Minnesota Follution Control Agency for the sanitary sewer extension and/or changes. DEIS 4.5 Water Quality/Surface Water Runoff The DEIS addressed surface water runoff as the differential from existing or no build conditions. The DEIS has demonstrated that there is no significant increase in water quality runoff from these conditions. However, the question becomes, what is the existing quality of Long Meadow Lake and the other riparian basins can ently receiving runoff from the area? Since the quality of water in the basin is marginal due to pollutants in stormwater runoff from existing development, redevelopment needs to utilize this opportunity to improve its quality. There are a number of recommendations contained in Appendix 3 that do not appear to be contained in the proposed mitigation contained in Section 4.5.4 on Page 78 of the DEIS. The recommendations in 7 Mr. Arneson September 29, 2000 Page 3 Appendix 3 include construction of additional ponds prior to discharge to Long Meadow Lake, ~ enhancements of Pond C, and installation of innovative stormwater systems in conjunction with the planned development. Retrofitting sites as redevelopment occurs is critical in azeas such as this, that were developed before hest management practices were required to treat stormwater ntnoff prior to leaving the site. Long Meadow Lake eventually dischazges into the Minnesota River. The Metropolitan Council has expended millions of dollars over the past ten years to develop solutions, and implement projects that will increase the quality of the water in the Minnesota River. The Council expects redevelopment projects in excess of one acre to meet current new development stormwater pretreatment requirements. If you have questions, please contact Roger Janzig, technical re~-ie~ver, at 651 602-1119. Sincerely, !~~ 1 Helen Boyer Director, Environmental Services 8 cc: Phil Blueness, Metro olitan Council District 5 P Keith Buttleman, MCES, Director Environmental Planning and Evaluation Department Phyllis Hanson, Metropolitan Council Sector Representatiti e Linda Milashius, Metropolitan Council Referrals Coordinator Linda O'Connor, Metropolitan Council Principal Reviewer • APPENDIX C RECORD OF PUBLIC MEETING FOR DRAFT EIS SEPTEMBER 14, 2000 SUMMARY OF DRAFT EIS PUBLIC MEETING RECORD OF MEETING Draft Environmental Impact Statement Public Open House Meeting Mall of America Expansion--Met Center. Site 1:30 - 3:30 p.m., September 14, 2000 .Bloomington City Hall Attendees: (City Staff/Developer/Consultant) Clark Arneson, City of Bloomington Bob Sharlin, City of Bloomington Becky Robertson, City of Bloomington Mark Reichel, City of Bloomington .Jim Gates, City of Bloomington Shelly Pederson, City of Bloomington Jennie Ross, SRF Dale Beckman, BRW Neal Blanchet, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly and Lindgren Walter H. Rockenstein III, Faegre & Benson Attendees (Public Agency): Kevin Bigalke from the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District signed in. There were no other attendees not associated with the City or the project proposer. Purpose of Meeting:. To present the results of the Mall of America Expansion-Met Center Site Draft EIS and to give the publican opportunity to comment on the information contained and the conclusions .reached by this document. Notification .Methods: The following methods were used to inform the public and ..governmental agencies of the open house and the opportunity to provide comments: A press release (attached) giving notification of the date and time of the meeting was sent to the Bloomington Sun Current during the last week of August. In addition, notice of the meeting was published in the EQB Monitor along with notification of the availability of the Draft EIS document. Summary of Meeting: The format for the meeting was an open house. Attendees were requested to sign in and directed to a series of boards displayed around the room. The displays presented the timeline for EIS completion, the issues addressed in the Draft EIS, land use Record of Meeting - 2 - September 14, 2000 assumptions for EIS alternatives, an aerial map of the Bloomington/Airport South area depicting development sites .through 2006, and current concept plans for various levels of the proposed Mall of America Expansion development. Public Comment: Comment cards were provided - to be returned either at the meeting or in the mail by September 29, 2000. No comment cards were filled out at the meeting and none were returned by mail. The representative from the Lower .Minnesota River Watershed District discussed the development plans with city and development staff. He expressed concern about potential water quantity and quality impacts on the Minnesota River from increasing development in Airport South District. City staff noted the planned mitigation described in the Draft EIS for storm water impacts from the proposed Mall of America expansion and noted that an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) will be prepared for Airport South to comprehensively address development-related storm water issues. Attachment „-20-2000 15 16 BLOOMINGTON CITY PLANNING 952 94t1 try4y r.n~~~~ .~ ~ of Btooatiagton ..~ :~ :.. • - Dratt Ts~viroameacat Impact st.teaent / r..~.~ --~ ~ _ .. fnr the • •': •~"'~On rhrhiet Cet-ter Blte "~.:•~•.. newspapers , ~. ~ ...... .:- ., ::... _.. _: ,n Favusa~eeeerst Impact Stet~~ent LEIS) for preposea )l4a11 aPAmeriea "Met iJenter site AFFID4V1'~' OF PlIBLICQTION wec~e~sloo:Aat-,ht~i..p.~e,+a=ea.?'~e•B~ spa 'tyCoimeFl.aaarn.?e~tcbedoogmEacforpublicac ss e5e'•mes~a ol~daR.'Ayciist•fi:l000: k coos of • 171;SSwat•detiea~ed to'!~.}~+simnmmtat Quslit<s Bo: STATE OF MINNESOTA) i$Qg>'torpu6Ges~onint86li~t6tidgy.Au~Oet2i.2oooE• A pe6lic meek a4~ DEL9 doeummc vin'Ll be held COUNTY OF HENNEPtN) ~ sioominetoncl:y.z3all(zuswasotdsna>~xaad the Ctxmei! Chambers at 2:90_.p.m, oa 1$aradilY, ScDt~ ber W. 200;; C~oj>iEa of e6e DEI@•are ara>l.*t. far pu: FranK Chilinski, being duly swom on an oath states or affirms, that he is the publisher of the ttview aYthe_YS~b1S1oo:CaBtlevs° belar.l u~` ibe Fina 3.¢lca .Canimis>ssti'•L•ihrarY (8800 Penn AoeT ,5ottthl and.~xbem Come. Librarl! (8801'PmsL newspaper known as Sun-Current or the president's designated ~;~8>;~;~~i;` ~~vrliun~ot~eataen Dil~,S•!illytle.aooep~ad agtil.EridaxSoAOOmDa?9.2c agent, and has full knowledge of the facts stated below: ~_~?.......,;:, ,. ,~~ ~ _ -, '• A) The news a er has com 11ed with all of the re wrements constitutin ualification as a ~gerlrAsaa~t,~9anamrManali~i~r ~.~'.•~` ( P P . _~- otBlodmiagton:.;.:. •..., , •.~:::::, - .,,' : , P• q g q • •~ss w~e•ota;st>sl~ee xd. qualified newspaper, as provided by Minn. Stat. §331A.02, §331A.07, and other applicable ~+s~•~'~g?•'u~'~•`•~'"=~ • - coalgas-s98x - : •. • , ..,......_ ...... _ taws, as amended. Partel2>s~8a's"ss :: • • :...... F.emac c+traesonflibla~oS_ •••~ m' •. (8) The printed pubtic notice that is attached was published in the newspaper once each week, ':.:::~+u(;-go.zooo?nsr~anosame>: for one successive weeks; it :was first published on Wednesday, the 30 day of August , 2000, and was thereafter printed and .published on every Wednesday to and including Wednesday, the day of , 2000; and printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication t>f the notice: n6alrfahijklmnopgretuv~wc ~/~ i"~C . Publ sher ~ V Subscribed and swom to or affirmed before me on thi day of 2000. ~..~ l Notary id s ,r~. • •. , MERtDEL M. tiEDBLOM ~. .."~ xOfARY PU9uC•MarNESO~A '~~! MY COMMi$SIpN EJ1FiHES 13i.20p5 t RATE INFORMATION (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users $ 2.8b eer line for comparable space (2) Maximum rate allowed by law $ 6.20 oer line (3) Rate actually charged $ 3.69 oer inch - TOTAL P.02 PUBLIC HEARING A ublic o en house meetin to receive comments on the DEIS will be held on P P g September 14, 2000 from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. in the Bloomington City Council Chambers at 2215 West Old Shakopee Road. Written comments on this DEIS will be received through September 29, 2000. Comments should be addressed to the City of Bloomington contact person listed above. • Mall of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS 08/10/00 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is an expansion of the retail and entertainment complex known as the Mall of America (MOA) development located north of Killebrew Drive and west of 24th Avenue South in the City of Bloomington, Minnesota. The project proposer, Mall of America Company (MOAC), has future development rights for construction of a total of 5.3 million square feet of development to be divided between a parcel east of the present mall known as the Adjoining Lands and on the existing MOA Phase 1 site. The Met Center site, currently used as a temporary surface parking lot, has been identified as an alternative site for MOA expansion since development on the Adjoining Lands site is potentially constrained by operations of the new north-south runway to be operated by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) a part of one condition of an Exchange Agreement executed in July 1999 to exchange the MAC-owned Met Center site for the MOAC-owned Adjoining Lands site. The Met Center site is located within Hennepin County, in the City of Bloomington. Site boundaries .are as follows: East 79th Street to the north; 24th Avenue to the east; Lindau Lane to the south; and, Trunk Highway 77 (TH 77) to the west. The proposed Mall of America expansion would include a maximum of 5.6 million square feet of mixed-use development with up to 13,154 parking spaces provided. Proposed land uses include uses similar to the existing MOA (entertainment and retail) and general office space, residential apartments and condominiums, and a hotel and conference center complex. MAJOR FfNDINGS Regional Transportation System Impacts Increased intensity of development within developed areas of the region is one of the objectives of the Metropolitan Council's regional growth policies. Intensity of development and a mix of land uses increases the ability to share or "link" trips and optimize the use of transit service for trips to and. from the site. In so doing, the total number of trips generated by the site is reduced (compared to the same land uses of "typical" development densities). Although segments of the regional transportation system within the MOA travelshed are forecast to operate under congested conditions in year 2020, many of these segments would experience congestion regardless of whether MOA expansion took place, i.e., under Build and No Build conditions alike. Those segments forecast to experience congestion only under Build conditions are already approaching the congestion threshold, and traffic attributable to MOA expansion is a minor contributor on a regional basis. As such, no regional system improvements beyond those already made by the City and Mn/DOT (based on previous forecasts which included both existing MOA traffic and MOA expansion traffic) are proposed in conjunction with this MOA expansion. Ma11 of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS ES-1 08/10/00 Local Transportation System Impacts Based on the anal sis of local trans ortation s stem im acts, this MOA expansion and other Y p Y P "background" development assumed to occur in the Airport South District can be supported by the existing roadway system with minor modifications. Vehicle-Related Air Emissions The air-quality analysis to evaluate projected concentrations of carbon monoxide at selected study area intersections indicates that State air quality standards would not be exceeded with this project. Traffic Noise All of the Build Alternatives will increase traffic volumes in the .study area; however, no perceptible increases in traffic noise levels are anticipated to result at sensitive receptors. Airport Noise All proposed Build Alternative land uses will be constructed with provisions for indoor noise reduction as required to comply with both Metropolitan .Council and Federal Aviation Administration land use compatibility guidelines. Surface Water/Vllater Quality Surface water quantity and quality modeling results show that no significant negative impacts would result from this MOA expansion compared to existing site conditions. However, to minimize surface water impacts from the proposed development, site design, operation and maintenance will include surface water mitigation measures. _ AREAS OF CONTROVERSY Storm Water The United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in .previous comments on the proposed MOA expansion, has expressed concerns with the potential regional impacts of storm water runoff in the Airport South District. Although, as noted above, there are no significant- storm water impacts anticipated to occur from this MOA expansion, the City of Bloomington will complete an Alternative. Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) of the Airport South District to analyze impacts of proposed and existing development in the area. The storm water issue will be addressed as part of the AUAR environmental review process, allowing potential storm water impacts of the MOA expansion to be analyzed cumulatively with impacts related to development in the Airport South area and to identify appropriate mitigation measures for the area. • Mall of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS ES-2 08/10/00 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED Local Traffic Based on forecast traffic volumes for the existing Mall of America and the Met Center site, Lindau Lane would operate at an acceptable overall level of service with construction of the. Lindau Lane "fly-over" ramp in addition to additional lanes and channelization/turning- movement restrictions at the 20th Avenue access. However, the existing MOA and MOA expansion (Met Center) site driveway approaches to Lindau Lane at 20th and 22nd Avenues may experience operational problems due to limited availability of space for vehicle storage and internal site circulation in the vicinity of the intersections. This would not affect traffic flow on Lindau Lane, but will be an area that will be examined in greater detail in the Final EIS and in site development plan review, to ensure that adequate lane storage is provided for exiting MOA traffic queues. Storm Water As noted in the previous section, the potential for regional storm water impacts remains an issue of concern to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Although storm water impacts of this MOA expansion have been identified in this document and mitigation strategies proposed, this issue will receive further analysis in an AUAR the City of Bloomington will prepare during the latter part of this year. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The preferred alternative for the MOA expansion is Build Alternative 1. This alternative entails construction of 5.6 million square feet of mixed-use development on the Met Center site. Uses will include an approximately 3,425,000-square-foot retaiUentertainment component similar to the existing MOA; 600,000 gross square feet of general office space; 300 units of residential apartments and condominiums; and 1,650 hotel rooms. • Mall of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS ES-3 08/10/00 • 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND The proposed project is an expansion of the retail and entertainment complex known as the Mall of America (MOA) development located north of Killebrew Drive and west of 24th Avenue South in the City of Bloomington, Minnesota. The original (Phase 1) 4.2-million-square-foot MOA development was approved through an EIS process that was completed in 1986. Mall of America Company (MOAC) has future development rights for construction of a total of 5.3 million square feet of mixed-use development, including 4.3 million square feet on a parcel east of the mall known as the Adjoining Lands, and up to 1,000 hotel units on the existing MOA Phase 1 site. Since this approval, the Metropolitan Airports Commission has begun construction of a new north-south runway whose future operations .potentially constrain development opportunities on the Adjoining Lands site originally approved for MOA expansion. The 54-acre Met Center site, currently used as a temporary surface parking lot, was identified as an alternative location for MOA expansion. The Metropolitan Airports Commission and MOAC executed an Exchange Agreement in 7uly of 1999 to exchange the MAC-owned Met Center site for the MOAC-owned Adjoining Lands site. The exchange of properties was anticipated and approved by the Minnesota Legislature, subject to certain conditions. To fulfill a condition of the Agreement, MAC is pursuing development plans for expanding on the Met Center site. Another condition of the legislative authorization was to transfer the Tax Increment Financing district from the Adjoining Lands to include the Met Center site. A separate condition was that an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared for the Met Center site. The proposed redevelopment of the Met Center site is anticipated to broaden the tax base of the City of Bloomington and contribute to the overall economic development goals of the City. The development will bring additional jobs and visitors to an area of the City planned for a high intensity mixed-use development and for which access is well provided by the local and regional transportation system. This project is part of the original concept for development of the Mall of America and is consistent with City of Bloomington plans for the area. 1.2 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION .The .Met Center site is located within Hennepin County, in the City of Bloomington (see Figure 1), Minnesota's third-largest city. Site boundaries are as follows: East 79th Street to the north; 24th Avenue to the east; Lindau Lane to the south; and, Trunk Highway 77 (TH 77) to the west. This site was formerly the location of the Met Sports Center, amulti-purpose arena, which served as the home of the Minnesota North Stars of the National Hockey League (NHL). The site is temporarily used for vehicle storage for airport-related auto rental facilities, MAC contract parking and overflow parking for the existing Mall of America development. Mall of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 1 - 08/10/00 __ _ ~ .,. sT. y Minneapolis- St. Paul ~^~~~\\ International Airport ~~~~\\ ~ '~~ .. ... ~ ~~~ ~~~. 4<v % tll tll Cl- Ol 10 Nl 41 ri ~ -~ ~\\ ` '~\k R (Wold- ,,, Chamberlain ~~~ Field ~~Qa - SL - ~ ~ T2lN ~ `~~~ ooze ~~ `. 31 J2 ~'~ ~~ i i i '< ... .\\.\. n _.. ., •\ \ ~ ,, < ~ ~ ~' ` - /;., ~.>, J . , i . . < ~ ~ ,' TzeN AD , ~' O § ~ s € ~~ ~m~^ o PROJECTa sT. " n ° LOCATION ST I FORT SNELLING NATIONAL CEMETERY \`~ ~~~'~P ~~ 5 TRRN R23V 7? 9 _ ., _.: .5 _ `.. L "~ ~, _. _> yu KILLESREW DR Q OND MEADOW < <. ~ .... E. ~. N Ciq-GEES 9T.. - ,......__._ .. _ ~ ap m sT. o _ Long Meadow Lake y LLBB t2 ST.°c' ~ y - E S71h ST. ZOZ W C O ~ 87N ~ ST.. V ~ ST ~ yy 3 > 4i ~ ¢ BBR1 ST. TTlR 5 a e o ~ R29W E. < BBN Pr RD. ~ 88 Ih ST o ~.'. SKYLINE DR I - '-''-''~ N Py~ ~ PP ~ $ 89 Ih ~ RIVER RIDGE CIR 1 r a K 5T. S¢ F ~ Z BBIn ST. ` METRO AREA I- - - - '' ~ - ~ S ¢ ( ANONA I ~~ 1 4 ~ WABNINDTQN ~ ff 4~'tio ` I a < ~ o sOF, ST. szlrzst~ ~ m ~ e9 1.12 9 a AtEPO 1a 13 ( 93 ~ ~ CEDAR m 12 5T. T f, CIR 72]N R2aW L F (y ,~ ~ 1 .~P N i rri ST ~ o u . DRpiPRD SPRINGS RD. ~ i 77 ` 12 IA : AVE. Clfl. <. h W ^-STN S ^ ` . B8N ~ ST. ®CONSULI'ING GROUP, INC. SRF N0.0963008 RAMSEV I NENNEPIN I - - ~ 1 I __-I ~ CARVER - ~ pAKOTA I scoTr ~ _I 1 _ . L - City of Bloomington PROJECT LOCATION MET CENTER SITE DRAFT EIS I 13 ~~. 4 '9p~FF ~ ~U FOX ~ CRESTRIDDE FIGURE 1 • • 1.3 PROJECT SIZE AND SCOPE The proposed Mall of America expansion would include a maximum of 5.6 million square feet of mixed-use development with up to 13,154 parking spaces provided. Proposed land uses would be similar to the existing MOA (entertainment and retail), plus general office space, residential apartments and condominiums, and a hotel and conference center complex. Development intensity would be consistent with existing and planned development in the vicinity of the project and .with Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) land use controls related to airport uses to the north, as described in Section 1.4. 1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The proposed Mall of America Expansion site lies within the Airport South District of Bloomington. The Airport South area blends intensive development, primarily office, light industrial, hospitality, and commercial retail land uses with open space areas. The Airport South District is approximately 2,350 acres in area with approximately 62 percent designated as conservation-open space and 38 percent being developable land. This area is experiencing rapid change related to the expansion of the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP) and existing and planned development within the Airport South District. Although .temporarily used for airport-related auto rental facilities,. MAC contract parking and MOA overflow parking, the Met Center site has been identified for redevelopment by the City of Bloomington. It is currently guided for high-intensity mixed-use development (see Figure 2) and is zoned as a mixed-use District HX-2 . The proposed project is consistent with adjacent land uses, and will have an intensity compatible to current and proposed Airport South District development. Development on the property will be planned to complement existing development at the Mall of America, located immediately to the south of the Met Center site. Surrounding land uses include the following: North -Guided as service-oriented mixed-use, this land is currently occupied by a mix of service-oriented establishments such as hotels, restaurants and a gas station. East -Guided as service-oriented mixed use, employment-oriented mixed use and high-intensity mixed use, this area consists primarily of office parks and hotels. Much of the existing development to the northeast of the project site will be removed to comply with the requirements of the Federal Runway Protection Zone of the new north-south runway under construction at the MSP airport. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires the area .immediately surrounding the end of a runway to be kept clear of buildings and possible obstructions. Additionally, the Minnesota Department of Transportation plans to establish State Safety Zones A, B, and C extending beyond the limits of the Federal Runway Protection Zone. State Safety Zone A is proposed to be located east and southeast of the Met Center_site, which includes the Adjoining Lands parcel. Land uses, development density, occupancy density, and site coverage are regulated within these zones, although existing land uses are anticipated to be allowed to remain. Mall of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 3 - OS/10/00 i ~" I ~~~ ~ ~~~. ~, ., i ~~ 77 FORT SNELLING 36 i NATIONAL CEMETERY ~y ~ MINNEAPOLIS - ST. PAUL ~ 5 INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT i 494 •,~ 80TH ST ~, '~ <~~~ ~x ~, ~ ' ~~, ~' z W ~ I '~r=~ ~~f ~~"~' ~ Q ~ ~ .`a ~ ~~~ ~+rtaK"i1' '~`- a ~ ~ c ~ '~s ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~' ~~~ r ,~ ~+ ~ f:.~ ~ c ti s X14 _ ` "•b /4":~er , s T i+ s v c,'h,~'rw~ ;~F may,: ~. ~` v ~ _:r' i7a ~~~~~` ~ 1~. `~~'~ ~~ ~ LONG ~-. ~~~~w, ~'~ ~ `~- MEADOW ~ ' ~: a'~ - ~~ ~~ ~ ~ '~ LAKE _ ~ q ~, ~~ ~' ~ r ~S_ ~ i ~., ~ ;'~ -r Q ~~~ Q yr r _~ y ~ ~!' / ,~ ~~:~ z ~ i~~~r°'~ ~'. ~ I __ -` - ~' }} ~~ /. Qlk~,. 1 Land Use Designations Q' f 77 i °~'~rt ~ ~ RESIDENTFAL PUBLIGOUAS4PUBLIC COMMERCIALANDUSTRIAL Q- 7 s~ I F, ~O ~ i ~ ~ Low-0snzity . Publle OHIw ~ Sxvlc~ OtNMM . ~ O ,~ (0-S DWA) MIZM Uw ~ ~' ' ~ Madiwn0sn RotNl Employment ~ °`'~~L,,,w , ~^ ~ (S -10 DU/A)~ ~ Ouw4PUbIIc - Commorelzl ~ ONwtM MKzd Uw ~~ {„ s *~;. µ~~r HIpMDwslty - OIMr ®HlpMntatulty ConwrMlon ,~~ A ,~ - l10 DU/A) Commarelzl Mlxad Uw ~OQ. ~;.,. ,~~ rt _ N ;,, ®MadlumHl9h DNahy Q Watx IndutMd ~ Mlxad Uw WNh „„,,,,c„,,,,_, .,, _,P~, (t0-10 DWA) MIxM FOCW ~y~ ~!-_. -~,~ . ®HIplrDwdry With MIxW Uw ~ Mlxad Uw WAh _~. ~ yG ~ you ~ ~r K-ia ~ OHke (10 •DWA) Opon Spzw Focw ~ ~ ~ ~. ~., ai,~wS'i~~ Mlxad Uw Whh Z,~~'~+ iyr~~~~~~~~` ROadwayti/interchangei Comm.mW Focur. ~ ~ f t ~ f~~ . PdmlpeV ® Frwwxy to ~~' ~ tf~.~^~ i ~,yav ni~~ ~: - IM•mrdi~t.Artxltl Frwway 11 ~~ ~, C~~~~ ~ro ~~' ~~'~{~" ~ Mlrwr ArbrlW ~ Frwway to Mlnor ~` `~'~~ ~, ~,`~w'~ CoNOCtor Q ArbrlaUCal.ctor _ _ ..,.~P P' ~ Lowl Propowd LIgM Rdl Tnnzh ~„ ~ i ^' ~ SOURCE: CITY OF BLOOMINGTON _- _ _.. City of Bloomington FIGURE ®CONS LILTING GROUPS INC. LAND USE GUIDE PLAN 2 MET CENTER SITE DRAFT EIS SRF N0.0983008 South -This land is occupied by the Mall of America, ahigh-intensity, mixed-use commercial center. The 4.2-million-square-foot Mall of America is the largest fully enclosed retail and entertainment complex in the United States with over 40 million visitors a year and 11,000 year- round employees. West -The site is bounded on the west by TH 77 (Cedar Avenue), anorth-south principal arterial running through Bloomington. The Lindau Lane exit of TH 77 is located at the southwest corner of the Met Center site. The proposed Mall of America expansion, with the exception of the proposed residential component, is consistent with the City's HX-2 zoning district. A planned residential component of the project will require a zoning .code amendment or a rezoning of the district to allow for residential use. The City's Comprehensive Plan has recently been completed, however, the update of the land use guide plan for the Airport South District has not been completed.. Coordination with MAC, Mn/DOT and the- FAA on airport operations impacts on allowable land uses resulting from the new north-south runway is still ongoing. As noted in Section 1.3, development on the Met Center site is subject to MAC land use controls related to airport uses north of the site. Avery small portion of the Met Center site, in the extreme northeast corner of the property, is located in-the Federal Runway Protection Zone (RPZ), and must remain clear of any development, in accordance with FAA requirements. The RPZ is a trapezoidal area measured from the end of the runway for the protection of people and properly on the ground. Compatible land-use within the RPZ is generally restricted to uses that do not involve concentrations of people, buildings or other improvements that may be result in obstructions to runway operation, although public improvements such as roadways and utilities are permitted in the RPZ. The remainder of the Met Center site falls within the proposed State Safety Zone C, that was established by Minnesota Statute to regulate development intensity. in the vicinity of state airports, and to ensure compatibility with safe air traffic operations. The Adjoining Lands parcel (the site originally proposed for MOA expansion) is located within proposed State Safety Zone A. The allowable density of development in State Safety Zones is defined by the MAC. City-proposed development densities and allowable uses for the State Safety Zones in the Airport South District are currently under review by MAC staff. Building heights on the Met Center site are subject to FAA, MAC and Mn/DOT regulations to ensure safe air-traffic operations. Three different height controls regulate allowable building heights on the. Met Center site -one related to the runway Approach and Departure Surface, one related to the Transition Zone Surfaces and a third related to the Horizontal Zone Surface. Approach and Departure as well as Transition Zone height limits are measured from the elevation of the southerly end of the planned North-South Runway (831 feet above MSL). The Horizontal Zone height limit is measured from the MSP elevation (841 feet above MSL). Although final building heights for the MOA expansion have yet to be specified, they will be subject to these height restrictions. Mall of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 5 - 08/10/00 1.5 PHASES OF DEVELOPMENT The proposed project will be phased. Individual development phases have not been determined. The overall phasing period is 2001 through 2006. 1.6 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS The City of Bloomington is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for this project. On December 6, 1999, the Bloomington City Council approved the submission and publication of the Mall of America .Expansion -Met Center Site Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet/Draft Scoping Decision Document for distribution. Notice of the Scoping EAW's availability was published in the Monitor on December 27, 1999, along with notice of the. public Scoping meeting. A press release containing information about this public. scoping meeting was also sent to the Bloomington Sun-Current in early January. The scoping meeting was held on January 20, 2000 in the City Council Chambers of the Bloomington City Hall. No comments were received at this meeting. All written comments received during the 30-day comment period were evaluated and included in the Scoping Decision Document. The .Scoping Decision Document was approved by the City Council on February 7, 2000, and distributed in accordance with EQB distribution requirements. The Draft EIS (DEIS) was approved by the Bloomington City Council on August 7, 2000. DEIS distribution, notice of its availability and the date of the public' informational meeting were provided in accordance with EQB requirements. A Final EIS will be prepared following the close of the DEIS comment period. The Final EIS will include responses to written comments on the DEIS, and additional details regarding impacts and mitigation for the preferred alternative. The Final EIS will be distributed for public review and comment. 2.0 GOVERNMENTAL APPROVALS The following governmental approvals are or may be required before the project can be implemented. Unit of Government Type of Application Status Federal Aviation Administration Air Space Review (Form 7460) Future Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Indirect Source Permit (modification) Future Sewer Extension Permit Future Surface Water Discharge (NPDES) Permit(s) • Construction Activities Future Temporary dewatering discharge Future (if required) (if required) Mall of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 6 - 08/10/00 Minnesota Department of Health Minnesota Department of Transportation • Minnesota Department of Natural Resources City of Bloomington Water Main Review (possible permit) Review of roadway improvements impacting State TH 77 or I-494 {if required) Permit for work within the R.O. W Water Appropriation (temporary dewatering) Rezoning to Planned Development Amend HX-2 zoning district Amend Tax Increment Financing District Amend Restated Contract for Redevelopment Preliminary and Final Development Plan Approval Grading, Drainage, Utility, and Erosion Control Plan Approval Landscape Plan Approval Utility Permit Grading Permit Building Permit ~" Preliminary and Final Plat Bloomington/Richfield Watershed Grading and Drainage Plan Approval Lower Minnesota River Watershed District Grading and Drainage Plan Approval Future (if required) Future (if required) Future Future (if required) Future Future Future Future Future Future Future Future Future Future Future Future Future 3.0 ALTERNATIVES Four MOA Build expansion alternatives, including sub-alternatives, plus a No Build alternative were considered in this DEIS. These alternatives are: No Build Alternative: Met Center site would remain an approximately 7,500-space surface parking facility used for airport-related auto rental facilities, MAC contract parking and other parking uses (including Mall of America overflow parking). Mall of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft. EIS - 7 - 08/10/00 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative): Construction of a 5.6 million-square-foot mixed-use development on the Met Center site. Uses will include an approximately 3,425,000-square-foot .retail/entertainment component similar to the existing MOA; 600,000 gross square feet of general office space; 300 units of residential apartments and condominiums; and 1,650 hotel- rooms (see Figures 3A-3G for conceptual plans) as defined in Table A-1 in Appendix 1. [Note: The Alternative 1 concept plans included in this DEIS show the same type and intensity of land uses as the concept plans included in the Scoping EAW for this project. However, it should be noted that the Lindau Lane entrance roadway configurations have been modified since scoping. Figures 3A-3F reflect this new configuration.. Section 4.1.4.2 describes the revisions to the Lindau Lane entrance in greater detail.] Alternative 2: Construction of a 4.5-million-square-foot mixed-use development on the Met Center site. The mix of uses described above will remain the same as in Alternative 1, although the overall amount of development for each use will be reduced by approximately 20 percent. Alternative 3: This alternative would consist of two sub-alternatives involving the Met Center Site and the Adjoining Lands property. The type and density of development in this alternative is consistent with other developments in the Airport South area, but is less intense than Mall of America type development. This alternative is included to address the possible scenario that the "land swap" agreement is not finalized, and Mall of America Company would have to pursue their original development plans for the Adjoining Lands property. Specifically, 1.0 million square feet of hotel and office development would be located on the Met Center site. The assumed development would include a 700-room hotel and 750,000 square feet of office. Two sub-alternatives are included to allow for analysis of impacts from the development scenarios for the Adjoining Lands property. These alternatives are shown as changes in the "background condition" for the 1.0 million-square-foot development assumed on the Met Center site. Sub-alternative 3A assumes 4.3 million square feet of mixed use development on the Adjoining Lands property with the same mix of uses as proposed for the Met Center site in Alternative 1. The alternative will have an approximate 25 percent reduction in area for each use, as defined in Table A-2 in Appendix 1. This alternative also includes up to 1,000 hotel rooms on the existing MOA site (as defined in the 1986 EIS for the MOA). Sub-alternative 3B assumes 5.3 million square feet of mixed-use Phase 2 MOA development, including 4.3 million square feet on the Adjoining Lands parcel and up to 1,000 hotel rooms on the existing MOA site, as defined in the 1986 EIS. Both sub-alternatives assume 1.0 million square feet of development on the Met Center site (as described above). Background Assumptions A number of properties in the vicinity of the Met Center site either have approved. development plans and are moving forward with construction, or the owners/developers have indicated that they plan to redevelop the parcels within the period for Mall of America expansion (2001 - 2006). Known developments planned for implementation prior to 2006 in the vicinity of the Met Mall of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 8 - 08/10/00 C~ • C7 • • • CC U • • • .....~ • • • • ,';.~ .. ~... ,. • • • Center site are summarized in Table 1. These developments have been included in the background assumptions for the analyses prepared for No Build and Build alternatives in this DEIS. The City of Bloomington has indicated their intent to address the cumulative impacts of these developments in an Alternative Urban Area Review (ALTAR) document, to be prepared by the City in the year 2000. Figure 4 shows the locations of the proposed. redevelopment sites described below. • a Existing Mall of America Site:. The existing Mall of America development is assumed for Alternatives 1 and 2. Because Alternative 3, and its sub-alternatives 3A and 3B, are intended to reflect, to differing extents, the development assumptions of the 1986 Mall of America EIS, these alternatives assume a total of 1,000 hotel rooms on the existing MOA site, consistent with: the 1986 EIS and 1996 Indirect Source Permit development assumptions. Adjoining Lands: Existing development consists of 1,775 surface parking spaces and a storm water pond. Alternatives 1 and 2 assume 1.0 million square feet of retail .development on the Adjoining Lands site with 7,300 parking spaces, in addition to an LRT station and a 200-car park-and-ride facility. As described under Alternative 3 above, Alternatives 3A and 3B assume, 4.3 million square feet of mixed-use development on the Adjoining Lands parcel. Federal Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Block: (northeast of the Met Center site, north of 80th Street, immediately south of the .north-south runway): Existing uses on the. eleven parcels in this block include hotel facilities, a VFW hall, gas stations, car rental, offices, and an electrical substation. Federal Aviation Administration regulations require that no development be present within this area; therefore, the background assumptions include no development (including no parking) in this area. Metro Office Park: (north of 80th Street East, east of 28th Avenue South alignment): Existing development on these eight parcels consists of 255,515 square feet of office; 210,335 square feet of business park; and 1,200 parking spaces. No definite redevelopment plans have been proposed for this .site, although it is likely to redevelop during the study period. Two possible development assumptions were identified for this site in conformance with .development densities and land uses allowed by current zoning and consistent with development trends in the Airport South area: a 1,680-room hotel facility with approximately 2,400 parking spaces, or 1.25 million square feet of office space with approximately 5,600 parking spaces.. Analyses in the DEIS use the "worst case" development scenario for each potential impact (e.g., traffic).. Olnick Property: (north of Old Shakopee Road, west of 34th Avenue South): Existing development consists of 865,094 square feet of office space and 2,851 parking spaces. Proposed .development concepts. for the site include either 1,907,500 square feet of office space, a 550-room hotel facility and 8,002 parking spaces, or 2,237,500 square feet of office space with 8,065 parking spaces. Analyses in the DEIS use the "worst case" development scenario for each potential impact (e.g., traffic). Robert Muir Company Parcel (Park N' Fly facility east of 34th Avenue South): Existing development consists of a 996-stall parking ramp, 1,220 surface parking spaces .and a 430-square-foot structure. The DEIS assumes development consistent with information provided by the proposed site redeveloper, i.e., 750,000 square feet of office and 3,000 parking spaces. Mall of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 16 - O8/10/00 i • rn w F- Q Z W J Q W O '~A N 2 0 a Q W r mz ~a M o y ~o N C p O N ~'y l~" V v~ R aki ~• C y~ y' c° i o c@ ~ a>i Q o o~ a w ~~ Y W ei z ~" 'O fl. O ^ t _ , N 'C ~ ~ N by 4; O ~~.. ~ d ^ O c O ~' • v ~ O y O M d d 'O C $ :+ > > G .p. ' ' ~ U R a • ~ ai C y d ~ ~, RS ~ O y N y F a? y .C b I ~~• y O v y p$ ~ a ~~ ,C ed •~ c •C ti g ra d ~ O t~d• y ° °' ~ p~ O •'O" O O O y 0 c Eo y a s y o X ~ m 7 C N~ N .G ~o~o.ot a ° y y c.g y y ~ .~C ~~o ~ O o - y ~ L o ri -~ vi ~ ~ .• ~ • • • • • z W 7 ea ~. E ~ d a ~v ~ 'o ,~ ~o ~ 0:1 . I I I I I I a • °' o ° d pw y y vp,~ C ~ d a o H c ~ w ° y> y a ~ c `~ c~~y, tio •v 0 y y ~+. •~ 7 •y ~ ~ •y ~ ~~. C 3 ~ y a d w 0 d y v r. w N C/] O V1 v~ y .O }. M~ •Y. .Y. 00 ~ G ~„~ p y d O L y N N 7 .O U a y p ti N ~~ N N LL . . ~ .0. ' -~ y ~ m O O M O k ~ ~ O M R 'O U • • • • • ~-. W 4.C a 'C a v y A I I I I I I i N W a 4. V Vyj W ry/~ W Y .~ y~ •~ g ~ ~ ~ ca ~3 i~-r '^ ~ Oi W Ly. 4.i .~ y ~ y+ O G F1. r 0. ~ U R y h td p ~ (~ 'C X. •k OO ~ eC N 04N ~ _ o ed •~ d .. , y ~° d y p NCO' NOOM d y L'b ~ O o .C y 7.D y p.OC ~ A ~ ~ rn t~ C oo v ,N ~--~ N N ~ N ~ ~ 0 >; ;X v [^~ O ~ ^~- Ls. a~ O N ~ y • ~( y 'b v ~ ~ 'fl U ~ ~ ~ N O O voo • . • •.- -.a..a z'o w ~ a'o av~~ 01 I I I I I I I I ..., W ~. • U yy R v~ R ~ "y~ ayi ~ y 4' N G c . .. y ~y~++ . y G aR+ v O R R v a ~ .k ~ aE W y d z Q~ ~ ow c~•`-° y 0 s C c °'w • ' a;; " `~° b ~ i W ~ ~ y N b . C C k O~ y ~p X ,_, p 0 eO v1 O C ~ N ^' O cC G y y ~ C W F •~ ~ O .~ O y 4~• y ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ y G d N. ON dOO V y G'fl ~ O G ~~ 7~p t~ Aa ~ ^ M d \O M .... ~O ~ x U ~ O O. > O ~' d ~ y ~ y p O A I I I I i I I an y F.., a~ r y d 0 o $ 5 ~ R is N e a a ~O c c ~ ~ U ~ ~ d ~uf3 ~ a• t" ¢' ~ y d c •~ CD . on y 3 ~ ~ ~o c ~ a~ ~ ^ U r. ~ ~ ga c ~ n ~ °= o O^ t~ a 3 bA y ~ 'V Q w ~ ~ ¢ Y ~ W -Y ~ V p U Y >. E'U a ~o CC N c O ~ _ b y C ~ C ~ yO A ~ r ~ b0 ~ p dp C bD ~ VI U bA eC • N • ~ N d rr ~ . C ., k . C b C ,~ ~~ C y O p y O~ c~ ~ •X ~ b G. •X C ~~ •X O ... ^ •X ~' y ~ m O A w :: ~ R w..~w z w a'o av y z I I I I I I y w ~ o ~ W ,~ A ~ GQ .~ ~ o F ~ n1 °' ~ U U a w p ~ x .~ ~ ~ o c .~ ~ d w d ¢ w ~ A U a ~ co O ~O 0 W q w d U I 0 ~~ a V .~ >; 0 • N W Q Z W J Q ~_ W y z O 1= a d~ c c=n C N v W ~_ mZ ~g C1 Mf ~ N °~ ~ ? O N N p N v~ 1. d",L - U R C O O O N O N ^^ O ~.. ~,,, O- V U _ ~ F., a~ o a~ o ~n ~ U OD v1 v ,.,; . . o ~ N . N d a ~ mac c~ a,c ;; N ~ ° N y ti fl y 'o ~ ~ ~ en•X N on •X ~ ~ o N ~ ,~ ~ m ~ F II ~ ~ ~ iv x a~ ~ R ~ ° c°, ~ ~ .a o R ,co .a y Q 6~ c CO ~ .c "' c N o° a. ° ~« on.~ ~ o d o a c 7 ~ U = ~ N c A .~ .~ c O 7 '~ U~ .r w ~ 0 .SC o0 W 0~0 U R ~ y O b N ~ ti .-. ~ ~~, „ ~ O ~ CL ~ ••,,, O C G i,w O O o ~n oo ~. O o ao "' ~ . ~ n O N K -~ i; cv N x W Q Vi x W c0 0.i Ci N I I I I I I I I I d M ~ C ~+ N h °' ~ G O y O N O O y U~ C ICI O _ N C7 N 0 y ° y~ ~ N ~ N '0 O N N M N y O C x x U N ~ V O v U ~ ^j' ~ 'O ~ - 7 'C ~.. W F" ~--i N C ~ ._ a~ v II ~e up II .x O y `° N d v ~ ~ ~ ..7 0 z ~ b .a Q E m c 0.'1 '~' c o N o ~' a° ^ ~ oq.S ~ C d C C p R''O C 4'C O ,~ N. 4. N C O O v~ 7 O C O , N N ~ ~. " O O oo V C C 'N .~ ~ V i„i Q. v'~ O L]., y,,, O ~ ~ ~ N 7 b ~ ~- O O O v~ 00 ' O O DD ' ~ ~ N N W Q f/2 W ~i Ci N I I I I I I ~ I N y ~ ~ N > °, ° ~ o y C y O .-i i, v coo O I..r F O _ N C N O V O ~ U b O M y ° ° = y d ~.,i y "' R ~.., y C ..,. N. •~ M y' •y U N u ~ V N N ~ 'O • ~ VUy~ v i 'C .N. N N ° ~ ~ 7 ~ E" ~ C y N O y Y II X w0 fd i" N U U O ° ~ 'C .a ap II Q E~ c 0.1 ~ c N N w y R o ~ a° ^ on on 5 z ,~ A C ~ ~ V Oy O U O o O Y 0 ~ U 0 . 'h '~ N y `Q~ • ~ . C 0 0 c ~ ^~ O O O V1 00 ~ O O 00 "~" [~ E N N W Q v1 W 4Y, W N I I I 1 I I I W w o w " N o N a c o > o O 0 U O ~ "' c O ^ V k wUi ti v d z e M R~ UO = _ ~ ¢ ~ N ~ o w v v, =' d N b O N N M U N O ~° O C~~+ O _.. O ~ W F.. ~ ,~ X y N C y x O tUC N N C a O ~ O .a y on II .Q 6 R cCq ~ c y a N i y ~ ~ o ° ac° 00 on 5 z ~ •~ c ~ a b c a.:o 7 U U 3 °o ~ .c w N N . C C N ~ .~ ° ° A O 0 ~ a. N o . O O O 00 v1 N _ ~ O O O ~ N a0 ::~ O O 00 ' t~ L1 .-.~ E N vi W Q eC VJ W LYi W N I I I I I I I 4: G1. ti.W w Ir N N 000 ~ ~ N N '~Op .' 7. 3 °~ N w O w 0 ~ N h ed io C o v b C~ O ° ~ N° C 4 . N O N ~ r. ~.. ° .- . N O O q N ~ ~" .~ ~ N ° 1~ y 0 p O N~ O N~ ~ O ~ e + N 7 N 0 'O SY"' b4 0° y w rn O ,-. N ,~ M N N O N O .L ~ ~ ~ C M R 'd ~ b b 1ti ~ ~ " O C x N C x p U ~ N v b C V O U~ W b N "y" N ~+' O R: A n b r. ° Ca II '~ .SC ~ II .k ~ Q E~ c ` } c : y a. N d v ~ o a° c~ U •c C .~. ~ ~ ~ C., '~ v~ ~ ° o ~ ~o ~ 0 1 C O LL .~ C p, .0 C ~ C o O~ .Lt N N d en „ o x ~ o ao m e C~ bA G. o `~ 3 y ;a ° N O >J. N fJ F+ N - U ., ~ O ~ M C' O ~.. N O O ~ V ~O V " O O „f 00 N O DD S') ~ ~ .N y w I` :p .N U C y ~ ~ ~ ~]„~ ~y ~ O ~~' .N U G .N 1~ C C3. ~ O C O 00 '~ O O ~n oo ::. n A. ~^ O N N W ~ ~ v] U 7 z v7i `c~ cCa a, W ~ W O y W L1$ z N I I I I I I I I I I I ~, ~. y z ~ w o >+ ; '~ o _ cX`a ~ a`°i ~ ~ ,^ Q pa U M ~ v p N ca C4 ~~~ y w N~ ~ s s ~ . a .a v ~ oo d ~ O~ o 'c3 o b R,' y ~ d N W a~ :° o a Other Properties: Construction of the new Ceridian Corporation headquarters site (Bluff site), expansion of the VTC (Lucent) semi-conductor manufacturing facility (2800 Old Shakopee Road) and expansion of the Decathlon CIub (west of TH 77, off 79th Street) are also included. as background assumptions. The remaining properties within the Airport South District will be assumed to retain their existing uses. Background. assumptions for traffic generation also include planned improvements identified. to date of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, including construction of the new cargo facility at the west side of the airport and construction of a new parking facility in the vicinity of the Hubert H. Humphrey terminal Transportation Network: Table 2 lists the assumed improvements to the transportation network based on local and state transportation improvements programmed for implementation prior to 2006 and planned after 2006, as appropriate: TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN TRAFFIC FORECASTING AND OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS • ~~~ Summary provided by Mn/DOT (9/7/99). (2) Summary provided by City of Bloomington Public Works (8/17/99). ROADWAY SCHEDULED TO BE COMPLETED BY LEAD AGENCY Regional System Improvementsh .Longfellow Avenue -Reconstruct 2002 MAC .77th Street -Complete to 24th 2003 Richfield .66th Street -Reconstruct Interchange 2003 MAC • 77th Street -Add north ramps, close Diagonal Boulevard 2005 Richfield • 24th Avenue -Modify westbound to northbound free right 2002 MAC/Mn/DOT .79th/80th Street -Construct bridge at I-35W 2003 Bloomington •Lyndate Avenue -Reconstruct interchange 2003 Richfield •Nicollet Avenue Ramps -Close (subject to completion of I-494 >2010 Mn/DOT upgrades Penn to Portland) • 12th Avenue Ramps -Close (subject to prior completion of Portland >2010 Mn/DOT Interchange) • I-494 - 34th to TH 100 >2006 Mn/DOT .34th Avenue - LRT 2004 Mn/DOT Local System Improvements~21 •I-494/34th Avenue north side off- -Provide up to five lanes at ramp, asneeded - 2006 MAC/Mn/DOT ramps (dual left-turn, two through, one right-turn lane) •I-494/34th Avenue south-side off- -Provide up to minimum of four lanes at ramp, 2006 Mn/DOT/Btoomington ramps as needed (dual left-turn, left/through shared lane, right-turn lane) .East 79th Street (TH 77 to 24th - Reconstruct/realignment/ geometric 2003 Bloomington Avenue) improvements .East Old Shakopee Road/28th -Signalize intersection, improve geometrics 2006 Bloomington Avenue .24th Avenue/Lindau Lane -Modify Lindau Lane/TH 77 to 24th Avenue 2006 Bloomington .24th Avenue Operational Upgrade - I-494 to Lindau Lane (geometrics) 2006 Hennepin County/ Bloomington/Mn/DOT .24th Avenue ITS Information Signs - I-494 to 86th Street 2006 Hennepin County/ Bloomington/ Mn/DOT • 80th Street Upgrade - Upgrade of 80th Street between 24th and >2006 Bloomington 34th Avenues to provide five approach and three departing lanes at critical intersections •E. Old Shakopee Road between -Capacity Improvement (3 lanes in each >2010 Hennepin County/ Killebrew Drive and Cedaz Ave. direction Bloomin on Mall OfAmerica Expansion -.Met Center Site Draft EIS - 20 - 08/10/00 • • • 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL 1MPACTS Based on the Scoping EAW analyses of potential impacts related to the proposed Mall of America expansion, the following areas of environmental analysis were conducted for this Draft EIS: • Traffic Impacts • Air Quality (vehicle-related air emissions) • Traffic Noise • Airport Noise • Water Quality/Surface Water Runoff • Erosion and Sedimentation • Groundwater • Trails 4.1 TRAFFIC IMPACTS The DEIS analysis of traffic impacts includes comparison of existing traffic volumes and projected local and regional roadway operations for existing, 2007 (one year after "full build- out") and 2020 (regional modeling forecast year) conditions. The traffic impacts analysis process includes: 1. Travel Forecasting 2. Analysis of Regional Roadway Systems Impacts 3. Analysis of Local Roadway System Impacts 4.1.1 TRAVEL FORECASTING The Travel Forecasting technical memorandum included in Appendix 2 describes the travel forecasting process in detail. In general, the process uses the Twin Cities regional travel model as the basis for traffic forecasting. Specific assumptions related to: 1) roadway system improvements planned. for implementation prior to each of the study years, 2) estimated trips (including transit trips) by development planned in the Airport South area, and 3) regional system ramp metering were entered into the model and are included in the following subsections. 4.1.1.1 Roadway System The planned road improvements are classified into regional system improvements and local improvements. The most important regional roadway improvements in the vicinity of the Airport South District are the proposed I-494 reliever arterial (ring road) plan and the reconstruction of I-494 in Bloomington and Richfield. The ring-road system is assumed to be complete. by the time proposed land development is in place (2006). The I-494 reconstruction is assumed to be in place by the year 2020. The most significant local road network development in the Met Center site area is the proposed connection between East 79th Street and East Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 21 - 08/10/00 80th Street west of 24th Avenue. This improvement is an element of the ring road system. The 79th/80th Street connection includes realigning 79th Street to the .south (just west of 24th Avenue) to align with the existing 80th Street/24th Avenue intersection, creating a continuous east-west roadway: 79th/80th Street. The existing intersection of 79th Street (east of 24th) and 24th Avenue will be eliminated. The complete list of planned road improvements assumed in the forecast modeling, completion dates and lead agencies can be found in Table 2 of the previous section. 4.1.1.2 Development Assumptions Five development scenarios were considered in the traffic forecasts and analysis. The "No Build" alternative assumes that the Mall of America (MOA) expansion will not be built and the Met Center site and Adjoining Lands parcel remain in their current use (parking), while the other proposed "background" developments in the area (see Table 3) will still take place. In Alternatives 1 and 2, it is assumed that the Phase 2 MOA development will be located at the Met Center site, and a 1~.0 msf office/hotel development will be built on the Adjoining Lands parcel immediately east of the MOA. In Alternative 3A and 3B, it is assumed that Phase 2 MOA development will be located on the Adjoining Lands, and 1.0 msf of office and hotel development will take place at the Met Center site. All "background" developments assumed for the No Build alternative are also assumed in Build Alternatives 1, 2, 3A and 3B. These land use assumptions are summarized in Table 3. The background traffic assumptions for the No Build and all Build development alternatives include the expansion of the HHH Terminal facility at MSP International Airport, including a parking facility with an assumed peak parking demand of 7,800 spaces. For the 2007 (one year after project completion) analysis, it is assumed that the planned "background" development sites in the Airport South area will be fully developed and occupied by 2006. Regional and Airport South .Area developments beyond those assumed as "background" growth were prorated based on expected growth patterns between 1999 and 2020. • Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 22 - 08/10/00 TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF LAND USE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES • • SITE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE Existing No Build Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt 3A Alt. 3B (1998) 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 Units Met Center General Office - - 600 480 750 750 ksf ~'~ Hotel - - 1,650 1,320 700 700 room Residential - - 353 278 - - ksf Retail - - 3,425 2,740 - - ksf Parking 7,500 7,500 13,154 10,523 3,000 3,000 stall Adjoining Lands Shopping Center - - 1,000 1,000 - - ksf General Office - - - - 456 700 ksf Hotel - - - - 1,235 1,500 room Residential - - - - 264 1,200 ksf Retail - - - - 2,600 1,700 ksf Parking 1,775 1,775 7,500 7,500 9,300 7,500 stall Mall of America Shopping Center 4,200 4,200 4,200 4,200 4,200 4,200 ksf Hotel - - - - 1,000 1,000 room Olnick General Office 865 2,237 2,237 2,237 2,237 2,237 ksf Metro Office Park Office Park 466 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 ksf Ceridian -Bluff site Corporate - 207 207 207 207 20T ksf Headquarters RPZ Block General Office 790 - - - - - ksf 1 Hotel 28 - - - - - room Robert Muir General Office - 750 750 750 750 750 ksf Airport Park-N-Fly 2,000 - - - - - stall VTC Plant (Lucent) Manufacturing 175 439 439 439 439 439 ksf Rest of Airport South Mixed 3,265 3,265 3,265 3,265 3,265 3,265 ksf Hotel 2,563 2,563 2,563 2,563 2,563 2,563 room Parking 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 stall ~'~ ksf: 1000s square feet gross leasable area Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 23 - 08/10/00 4.1.1.3 Transit System Information compiled as of October 1999 indicates the Airport South area is served by 21 transit routes, including several different providers: Metro Transit, Minnesota Valley Transit Authority, Southwest Metro and the B-E line contract route. Table 4 shows existing transit. service in the Airport South area from the Mall of America. Approximately 400 public transit buses depart the Mall of America between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., for an average of about 28 buses per hour. • C7 TABLE 4 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE IN AIRPORT SOUTH AREA (Buses Departing Mall of America: 6 a.m. to 8 p.m.) Source: Metro Transit, SRF analysis Route Number of Buses Route Number of Buses BE Line 27 440 `~ 6 M-15 19 441. 2 M-19 41 442 16 445 13 444 16 M-5 3 8 446 2 52A 3 590 lI) M-7 44 880 14 M-72M 3 890 14 80 42 S-4 30 428 11 415 6 S-54 29 .Total 386 The 2007 and 2020 forecasts assume completion of the Hiawatha Corridor Light Rail Transit line from downtown Minneapolis to the Mall of America. LRT service is assumed at 7-1/2 minutes frequency during peak periods and 10 minutes frequency during off-peak times. Three LRT stations are planned in the Airport South area: 1) a station in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of 82nd Street South and 24th Avenue South serving the Mall of America area; 2) a station along 34th Avenue South near 80th Street serving the eastern end of the study area; and 3) a station within the proposed Olnick Development. Mall OfAmerica Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 24 - 08/10/00 4.1.1.4 Trip Generation ITE trip generation rates (6th edition) and other external sources were used to develop traffic estimates for new developments in the Airport South District. These rates include both weekday and peak-hour trips. Where necessary, trip rates were modified to match the current volumes produced by the Airport South Area. In general, the ITE rates produced a better replication of existing traffic than rates based on the Twin Cities regional forecast model. Trips generated by the Mall of America, including Phase 1 and 2, were based on information prepared by the Mall of America (Mall of America Phase 2 Expansion Traffic Study, prepared by BRW, a consultant to MOAC, June 1999). For the purposes of this analysis, peak hour traffic was determined using a "design hour" based on historic mall use. The design week for the existing mall is in August, which yields the second-highest traffic (after the Christmas shopping season) with 2.2 percent of the annual trips.. The August design week is 16 percent higher than the annual average of 1.9 percent. The design day approximates weekday (not weekend) traffic conditions, including the combination of shopping and work trips. The peak hour was considered to be between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., representing 8 percent of the daily traffic and coincides with the peaking on the adjacent local and regional roadway system. The estimated number of trips are detailed in Table 5. If the Mall of America expansion is not built, new trips will still be generated from other new ("background") development proposed in the Airport South Area. Under the No Build alternative, the total number of trips for the Airport South Area is estimated to be 189,225 per day. If Phase 2 of the MOA is built, trips will be generated by the MOA as well as by other office, retail, hotel and residential generators. The number of trips generated by MOA Expansion Alternative 1 is estimated to be 52,750 per day, based on the previously mentioned study. The total number of year 2020 Build alternative trips generated within the Airport South District will range between. 256,350 to 275,950 trips per day. The current number of daily trips generated within the Airport South District is 172,000 per day. The existing Mall of America generates approximately 82,000 (47.7 percent) of these trips. Table 6 shows the estimated p.m. peak hour traffic generation for the alternatives. Not shown in the tables are the estimated 125 outbound peak hour trips assumed from the LRT parking facility. • Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 25 - OS/10/00 TABLE 5 DAILY TRIP GENERATION BY DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES • • SITE LAND USE DAILY TRIPS Existing No Build Build 1 Build 2 Build Build 3A 3B 1997 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 Met Center General Office - - 5,950 4,700 8,275 8,275 Hotel - - 14,400 11,450 5,750 5,750 Residential - - 1,225 975 - - Retail 38,250 30,225 Total - - 59,825 47,350 .14,025 14,025 Adjoining Lands Shopping Center - - 20,975 20,975 - - GeneralOffice - - - - 4,400 8,400 Hotel - - - - 10,700 13,500 Residential - - - - 900 7,200 Retail 28,300 34,800 Total - - 20,975 20,975 44,300 63,900 Mall of America Shopping Center 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 Hotel 9,000 9,000 Total 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 91,000 91,000 Olnick General Office 6,950 14,425 14,425 .14,425 14,425 14,425 Metro Office Park Office Park 8,125 16,300 16,300 16,300 16,300 16,300 Ceridian -Bluff Corporate Headquarters - 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 site - RPZ Block Office 5,950 - - - - - Hotel 500 Total 6,450 - - - - - Robert Muir General Office - 6,225 6,225 6,225 6,225 6,225 Parking 800 - - - - - VTC Plant Manufacturing 650 1,650 1,450 1,450 1,450 1,450 (Lucent) Rest of Airport 67,025 67,025 67,025 67,025 67,025 67,025 South District Total Airport 172,000 189,225 269,825 , 257,350 256,350 275,950 South District Mall OfAmerica Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 26 - 08/10/00 • • Z _O w z W a_ H O 2 ~Y W Q J W a ~a ~p N o0 ~ M ~ .-. ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ O~ •-•~ O M N v'~~ N ~ N ~O •~ l ~ O~ N ~ M ~ ~ r." M M ~+ •--~ •--~ Cl <`1 x ~ ~ M _ ' ~ N ~ N 00 ~ '""' v~ ~ ' M ' ~ t~ ' O l~ ' ' ' ' ' F " '~ O _ M ~ OOI l~ ~ ~ ,~ .-~ M M .-. .-. O ~ N F N ~ N h M p i p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ r.y ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i O 'O v '~I C~ o o I ~ ~ ~ ~ N I N O . v'~ N M.1 O O M M •--~ .-~, ~ N I ~ N .-. .--. LY1 ~ i p i ~ ~ i p ~ _ .-~ ~' ~ ~ O 'O lp d' ~f 00 ~ ~ [ ~ O~ N N ~p M V')~ ~p O O O N .--. N ~ ~ M M ..-. r. i i ~ ~~ ' M ~ ^ i O ~ i ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ O~ N ~ z N N - M M •--~ •--~ F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~~ ~~ i O ~ ~ ~ i ~~ M N ~ ~ ~ i i ~ ~ i - • •~ ~ I ~ ~ OO. .~ M ~ Q~ • M M .--i ~ ~ w ,..., ~ i i o0 ' ' M t/1 N N N ~ d• 00 N ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i • Ga 0 ~•~-+ N I ~t Net ~n ~~ I ~ W N N ~ M ,_, ~ i ~ 00 ' ' N M 00 N in ~~ 00 N ~ ~ ~~ i ~ i~ N i i i ~ ~ M ~ ON M 01 ~ M N I~ O M~ O~ ~ M M tT E"~ O M M ~ ~ ~ O N ~ N ~' 00 O I i O i ~ i i O r ~ ~ ~ ' [~ • ' ~1' ' V1 t ') ~ i 1 ~ ~ ~ _ O ~ I M ~ / ai O • ~ M N ~ ~ M M O ~ N ~ .-~ O~ ~D O~ O ~ O O O ~ N '""' ~ ~ I ~ .--i M ~ a F Z ~ N M M ~ v~ ~n t~ ~t oo et N .Y ~ ( .-. r. .-. N ,-r O~ • M M X ~-. w W i i ~ U ~ U ~ U y °' ~ z ~ ~ o i~ o l i ~ i o c ~ c ~ c o l a~i ~ o~ ~ o 0 l ~x~~ ~ a . ~~x~~~ , ~x ~ ~ O Ux Ox ~ x ~ W C ~ • C-~ ``" a ~ ~ U ~ c ~ U •o ~ o :~ N ~ Q ~ O ~ U c c c O t N ti w q N v i 0 .~ a ~~ .° O • • • Z Q W Z w a ~ ~ ~~ c ~ cp O= vY m Q W W ~a ta- a '~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ i M ^' (~ ~ N O~ O~ N ~t l~ ~ O M NO ~ N N ~ ~t ~ ~ .--. ~ F'" ai N .p O ~O ~ ~ ~ ~ N •--~ O~ i ~ ~p t ' O O ~ N C^ i s ~ N ~ ~ N ~.. h N ~ O ai ~ N ~ '-. ~ W Q+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M i r 2 N ' ~ N d ~ ~ ~ M ~ O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 +' ~ ~ ~ ~ O~ eh O ~ W ' " 't7 O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~n O ~ ~ l~ • ~ N M O .-+ M " 00 ~ ~ ,_, ~--~ Q ~ i i ~ i ~ ~ ~ o i ~ ~ H ~r io ~ N M ~' O E"'y 'C3 ~ ~ ~ O N O ~ ~ ~ --~ • iii ^~ 'p ~ ~ i ' 00 i Q~ ~ ~ ~ ~ in ~ ~ ~ ,--i .--~ w~i a .b O O N ~ ~ ~ pp ~ ~ -- ~ O ~ ~ d H zoo ~ Y ~ N O O 'k ~ d' 00 W O U ~ 'i, O F-~ a V ~ ~ c7a ~ ~ o '~ ~ ~ 0 W ~ ~ •~' ~ o v~ _ ~ ''' ~ ~ Q ~' ~ a o .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~A ESQ • s • 4.1.1.5 Highway Assignment Process The regional forecast model uses link-based speed adjustments to account for congestion on the roadway system. This method does not typically provide a good replication of the effects of freeway ramp metering. Ramp-specific delays of three-to-eight minutes were added to the model to sufficiently control demand at the ramps. The implications of ramp metering are discussed in the next section. 4.1.2 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 4.1.2.1 Trip Generation As discussed above, each combination of land uses generates a different volume of traffic. As Figure 5 shows, however, many of the alternatives are similar. The No Build generates 189,225 daily trips, 10.5 percent more than currently generated. All of the development alternatives are fairly comparable in terms of trip generation. The lowest of the Build alternatives (Alternative 3A) generates 256,350 trips per day (35.5 percent more than the No Build). The highest alternative (Alternative 3B) generates 275,950 trips per day (45.8 percent higher than the No Build). Therefore while the alternatives generate significantly more traffic than the No Build, the differences among Build alternatives is not large, with a 7.6 percent difference between the highest and lowest. FIGURE 5 COMPARISON OF DAILY TRAFFIC GENERATION 300,000 t 3 ~s ~t;Px ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ 250 000 ` " t ..±s .ax'd7s ' r ~ ; ~ , ,~ ,~,~ ,, ~ F ~^ ~ ' 2~~.~ ~ _ ; ~, . °~ 200,000 ~ ~ .~; f~ , Q +~~~~ a ~ ~ ~~' -° ` ~ `~~ ~ ~° 150,000 ~ ''°~~ ' ~ ~ ~ a :3 r~ a ~ v~ ~wa s ~ , r° = ~~ g r, ~ T ~ . ' '~ m c 100,000 ~°,~~~ ,'~~.,~,r - ~ ' ',~~. ~ 50,000 _ ~ ~~ ~ b~ ~, ~~ Q ~~ ~~ r~,: ~, :.~i'~; r , Existing 2020 No 2020 Alt 1 2020 Alt. 2 2020 Alt 3A 2020 Alt. 3B Build Alternative Mall OfAmerica Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 29 - 08/10/00 4.1.2.2 Trip Distribution The effects of the proposed developments on the regional transportation system are linked not only to the amount of traffic produced and by the destination (or origin) of that traffic. Figure 6 shows the direction of approach for trips to the Airport South area. Approximately 67 percent of the trips generated by the Airport South area are longer than five miles, compared to 60 percent of the region's trips as a whole (based on the 1990 regional Travel Behavior Inventory). A significant effect of longer trips is the need or desire of those trips to use regional highway facilities such as TH 77 and I-494. Conversely, the longer trips .have a lesser desire or ability to use the local roadway system. Figure 6 shows that overall directions of approach are generally consistent with the population distribution patterns in the region as a whole, and also reflect the sub-regional market that could be served by new commercial development. The dominant direction of approach is from the west/northwest along I-494 and TH 62 at 19 percent. Approximately 16 percent of the traffic . approaches from the south in the TH 77/I-35W travelshed. The totals on Figure 6 do not add up to 100 percent because 34 percent of the trips begin and end within 5 miles of the site. The internal-external-through trip pattern for the Airport South .District alternatives is summarized in Table 7. The distribution of current trips generated within the Airport South District was determined by calibrating the trip distribution against available cordon counts. Traffic data was collected at the approach roads of the Airport South district in August and September 1999. Out of the 172,000 trips currently generated within the district, 26,750 stay within the area. Because both ends of these trips are within the district, they represent 15.5 percent of the total trips generated by the study area. This is reasonably consistent with data from the 1990 Travel Behavior Inventory, which found approximately 13 percent of trips are less than one mile in length. Furthermore, the relationship between the hotels located in the Airport South area and the retail/dining opportunities at the Mall of America validates the reasonableness of 15 percent of trips staying within the study area. Similarly, 2020 modeling results projected that 15.8 to 16.5 percent of the trips (for all alternatives) stayed within the area. The cordon total includes an estimated 12,200 through trips, with both trip ends outside the district. These trips, 7.7 percent of the total cordon crossings, can be attributable to the presence of the minor arterials through the study area: Old Shakopee Road/24th Avenue South and the 79th/80th arterial ring road. These roadways, depending on the time of day and trip origin- destination, can provide .amore convenient travel option to using the freeway system. The number of through trips is estimated at between 13,350 and 19,400 depending on alternative. In general, as the number of trips generated by the study area increases, the number of through- trips decreases. This is attributable to the increasing congestion on study area roadways, which lessens the attractiveness of those roadways for the through trips. • Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 30 - 08/10/00 d~~. .,., y _. _ , _ ,r ~ ~ '~ 5: ` ~ ' ~ )i;~.. ~5..: .,5. .g 'y?^f F ~~y,f 3~ ~ f ~ Y 1 x T ~'i~~ ~ ^ > ~ F' 2' ,~ i r ~J ~~ < d s Y , .~` X1.4% :~:~~ ~~ t~2 ~^ _ ~• ~+~'~~ ~ ' 4 ;" ? ,' i!. t r a~ r~4T A '~~~ a t. d lC + '~ L % ~;,y ~ '~,` ~. , ~~ f~~, , i~ ` ~~ -, ~ ~ P4 rr y qb., 'a.' za£ ~~. "Xsf ~ 'gip '~ i~r~ ~1~1k ~'k 1 8, ~Q ~d ; k~~. ~ ti~ f ° ~ ~'~. .. ,, r',' ~ ~ A y" t ~,. ;w~ ,;, ~, 1 ~'. ° ~ ~ ~`"ar "+Q Q `~ ~~' o ~/~o~ 9% _ 3v~r ~' ~.! _ k ' " " ^ q r,. x ~ a ~ ~ , ~ y ; a ,~' = i~~ , r~+~C ', -~ - ~_i _ c ~ sir: 1 ~^ e. ~ ~~ ~y 'i i K _ L Y.;T 7'3 7 i *~-r~,~9,,,~ ' t. °.rA 2~ ~ ; ~ a ~~ ~ ~~ r ,a= n ~ ~ S~ Y l} ~ ~~ 2 F ~ tv r* t ,: Y'r4 "~~i ~r,~ ~ t ~ ~ s i ~ ~C J~ ~ ~/ 5 %' .rs O ° v. t .'r ~ s / O ~ O 7 i ';~ . ~ ~ y ~ \ i ~~ ~~T~~~ ~A Mal ~ 3 /` ~~ ~ ... ti} ~,, ,, < n ~ -~ ~ ', ~ ,A,. n~ o ~ ~- ~.;. ~~~ 3 /o z '.. -4 Wr n h r ~ Ij'.. r a ~ y +. a - k ~„ V F '. ao r~i~ ' i r-< ~, kSe f "ta ~' e T~ I ~ r $.y'~ K ry/~+f{~.~ ~ '~' `y~,, ~= " ~ 4. ~,. gas ~ ~~. ys~ . ' F la ~~ ~a n ~` ~. '~1,~ Y fC ~ V:., Y~ p~J~~'~~'4 ~~ ~1~~i~~~x~ r~~n," fb,i ~ rY ,~~'s' ~~ a ~ ~'~ ~;yg~ n ~ ~}~~w ?*~g~d ~~e~''~''' , { ,x S ~ R~NC kF a.}~, i m,~ f City of Bloomington CONSULTING CROUP, INC. DIRECTION OF APPROACH TO THE MALL OF AMERICA SRF N0.0963008 MET CENTER SITE DRAFT EIS >~ ~ I FIGURE 6 • TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF AIRPORT SOUTH INTERNAL-EXTERNAL VEHICLE TRIP DISTRIBUTION Trips That Stay Within Alternative Total Trips Study Area (Z) Throu h Total Study Area Trips (4) Generated by Study Area ~~~ Number Percent Trips ~3) 1998 172,000 26,750 15.5% 12,200 157,450 2020 No Build 189,230 29,880 15.8% 19,400 178,750 2020 Build 1 269,825 43,700 16.2% 13,350 239,475 2020 Build 2 257,350 42,460 16.5% 15,800 230,690 2020 Build 3A 256,350 41,270 16.1% 16,150 231,230 2020 Build 3B 275,950 45,000 16.3% 13,400 244,350 Notes: ~~~ Measured in trip ends (trip origin or trip destination) c2) Internal trips have both trip origin and trip destination and are counted twice: once for the trip origin and once for the trip destination ' (3) Through trips have neither trip origin nor trip destination in study area -these trips pass through and are counted twice: once as they enter the study area and once as they leave the study area (4) Sum of study area trips plus through trips minus trips that stay within study area 4.1.2.3 .Transit Transit ridership is estimated to currently account for 4.5 percent of all person trips in the Airport South Study Area, or 9,800 trips per day. Approximately 65 percent of those trips are on the 5-54 and M-80 routes, the express services between the Mall of America and the downtown areas of St. Paul and Minneapolis respectively. Table 8 shows the estimated transit ridership for each alternative. Transit ridership under the No Build is estimated at 13,625 riders per day (3,825 riders more than today). Under the Build alternatives, transit ridership would increase by 9,075 to 11,375 riders per day over current levels. The percent of Airport South area trips that are carried by transit is expected to rise to 5.6 percent by the year 2020 due to the construction of LRT in the Hiawatha Corridor. The build alternatives, which focus more activity near the Mall of America transit hub, would increase the transit market share to 5.9 percent overall. Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 32 - 08/10/00 TABLE 8 ESTIMATED TRANSIT RIDERSHIP IN THE AIRPORT SOUTH AREA Alternative Estimated Total Transit Trips includes LRT Estimated LRT Riders ~l~ Estimated Transit Percent Existin 9,800 N/A 4.5% No Build 13,625 7,500 5.6% Alternative 1 19,700 9,500 5.9% Alternative 2 18,875 9,100 5.9% Alternative 3A 19,175 9,200 5.9% Alternative 3B 21,175 10,500 5.9% ~l~ Also included in total transit trips. Source: SRF Consulting, Group, Inc. Forecasts of LRT ridership for the Hiawatha Avenue Corridor (August 1999) show a total of 9,500 daily trips generated by the LRT line at the stations in the Airport South area. That analysis assumed a 50 percent increase in development in the Airport South area, which is comparable to Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. Alternative 3B could increase the LRT ridership by nearly 1,000 passengers per day. 4.1.2.4 Regional System Forecast Daily Traffic Volumes Estimates of future traffic volumes on the area roadways were prepared to determine the effects of the land use alternatives. Year 2007 and year 2020 forecasts were developed. for the purposes of analyzing traffic, air quality and noise impacts. Traffic forecasts .for future years were completed for the No Build, Alternative 1 and Alternative 3B conditions. Alternative 1 represents the highest intensity of proposed development for the Met Center site and Alternative 3B is the highest development proposed for the MOA expansion onto the Adjoining Lands parcel. These two alternatives represent the two "worst case" Build alternatives. Two assignments for the year 2020 were prepared for each alternative: one assuming that the .additional through lanes on I-494 would be constructed as HOV lanes and one assuming completion as mixed-use lanes. It was determined that a "worst case" condition would exist if the lanes are constructed as HOV lanes. If this were the case, I-494 would carry fewer vehicles per lane given that the HOV lane would operate with fewer than the 2,300-vehicle capacity of a mixed-use lane. This resulted in more vehicles on the local roadway system as well as more congested conditions on I-494. Amore detailed operations analysis of I-494, including a comparison of HOV versus mixed-use capacity will be conducted in 2000 and 2001 as part of the I-494 Final EIS. No improvements are scheduled for I-494 in the vicinity of Airport South by the year 2007. Existing and estimated future (2007 and 2020) ADTs for No Build and Build Alternatives 1 and 3B are included in Figures 5-11 in the Technical Memorandum summarizing the traffic forecasting process found in Appendix 2. Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 33 - 08/10/00 4.1.3 ANALYSIS OF REGIONAL ROADWAY SYSTEM IMPACTS 4.1.3.1 Congested Roadway Segments (2007) Table 9 shows the estimated current levels of service in the p.m. peak hour. The analysis reflects a comparison of the projected traffic volume demand to the carrying capacity of each roadway facility. For example, amixed-use lane can carry 2,300 vehicles per hour, but an auxiliary lane carries traffic only exiting and entering nearby interchanges and therefore has a lower capacity (assumed at 50 percent of a full lane, or 1,150 vehicles per hour). HOV lanes are assumed to carry 1,400 vehicles per lane at capacity. (Asa "worst case" condition, the modeling used in the analysis of traffic impacts assumes the planned lane addition to I-494 will be an HOV lane.) This level of analysis is adequate for planning purposes and for the purpose of comparing alternatives. Roadway segments operating at or near capacity, resulting in unacceptable levels of service E or F ("slow-and-go" or "stop-and-go") are highlighted in Tables 9 through 12. Currently Congested Roadway Segments The currently congested (i.e. level of service (LOS) E or F) roadway segments are listed in Table 9. Congested Roadway Segments Under No Build Alternative As shown in Table 10, improvements planned for construction by the year 2007 will .alleviate congestion problems on I-35W 'and TH 62 (Common Section), I-35W North of 60th Street and TH 55 north of TH 62. These segments would not be overly congested under a No Build scenario. However, TH 62 east of Portland becomes congested by year 2007 for No Build conditions. Congested Roadway Segments Under Build Alternative 1 Table 11 shows that traffic generated by Build Alternative 1 would add to No Build traffic volumes, resulting in undesirable levels of congestion on two additional roadway segments from those congested under No Build conditions. Congested Roadway Segments Under Build Alternative 3B Table 12 shows that the same roadway segments would be congested in 2007 under Build Alternative 3B as would be congested for Alternative 1 above. • Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 34 - 08/10/00 • W U W LL J W W J Q' Y a w a a rn~ J ~ ~w w ~•aa~•~•~•a~•c~•~•ro-•rc~•a~•~•aac~•c~•aac~•c~• O v W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W d'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > aaaaaaaaaa¢aaaaaaaaaaaaaa J N Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ZZ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z i! 3k Rk 4t it ~k 3k ~k 4k ~t ~k ~k 4k 4k 4k i! ~k ~! ik *k 4k 4k ik ~k # as 0000000000000000000000000 ~d oooooo,~oooooou~ooooo000000 ~ C OOIMMMMOC'7MM000hOMOOOMOOMMMO R ~•-~NNNN NNN~~NNNNr-•NNNNNNNN aJ R V `m a d W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W O C ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ >.~ aaaQaaaaaaaaaaQQQaQaQQaaQ ~ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 3 O 2 Y d WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW ~ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z C C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0= e C o o 'e o 0 o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e e o o e e o 0 Y p o e e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ o 0 0 0~ o 0 0~ e e g o Rw epNl~•7COaDtfltl~l~.Ot°~O)t~NONOOtAOQfOhO d V l°NO~tA~NN~CflNCV.tgt°~N~tOtOOMNf0OO d ` ~NN~bONtf~t°CO iCi t°Oto ~l~t°btD (O~NOt°IA Y M R` o e o 0 0 o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e\ o o e e o e d \° o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0° o o e e o 0 d ` hCplnht°1n1AOO~ACpOp~l~0)Nt~O~Me-1nOOt° ~. C CO <G P f~ GO 00.00 ~ !~ O a0 a0 6i o0 r Oi a0 aC ~ n ti ~ aD CO f~ a= 5+ R O 7 v O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C V O ~ D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C •- O O O ~A 1p O O In 0 0 0 0 0 O a~ ~NOl~ ~h'cf WCOhC'7 ttNr00.~~tOOOd'tD NCO ~ OOnOCO~tN~t°M(Ot~O ~(hODI~O00O~htffOO d~ r r ~ ~ r ~- e- ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~a d Q comcovvvavvvcoc°oomaocoomc°cDmmvco N d C {C J N N C 0) O `¢ Y ~ ~ N ~ > ~(n~ NN 'O > >t fn (na C(nN °Uw m~,n~°~° y~~ Qa~rnn ~~ c c~wco ~NtOp o==~H rnv= ° ~vvOYx:arnaNO m orH dOw~HHww~ ~F-G.;°MNr-.w F- ~.~~adw.~ o=° o 0 0 0 0~ ap o o m o o °° p m o o O O° o 1-t ttm ~ t.c is tw O W R2°W W ~ZC°n'~ o' o•? ~ ~ZZ °~'~c°nc°n ~ ~ZC°n ~3~~~~~~~~~~v~~~~~~~3v~~~ ~ use rnrnrn w ~n~no~w~n~n N M st tD h 00 O) ~k ~k ~k ~k 4k ~k ~k ik ~k ~k *k 4k ~k ~k ~ 4k d 0 N ~ o ~ ~ C N t6 .-• ~ 3 C l4 m ~ O rn = 7 0 Q ~ ~ a N o °' U U m t N > ~ O 0 Q d ~ C G) .-. U ~~ ,. o E o •~ rn « m c p o m '"' c c mw o ~ N F- c ~-~' ~ v aNi Z• QY V •IC C t0 '_ •X ~ d > ~ ~ ~ N r= y N f~~6 N ~ N N N 3.~ D. w m "• N t a c>a o> M R u! O C ~ N H ~' D m c :3 ~ (6 U ~ ~ C f6 ~ > >+ _ 'm o ~ ~ o wa o- m m d~a z°~~ 0 ~o 0 0 h M ti w Q d i e U r 0 .~ c E 0 • • • W U_ w W O J W W J 0 Y Q W a a J_ om W ~ J Z m ~ F- N O N v ~•Z UU~ W UUUUUUUU~DODU W W O~tLLLUU d J N 0000000000000000000000000 000000000oooo~nooooo000000 Q.~ OrrMMMrMMM0007OM000M00MMOr r N N N N N r N N N r r N N N N r N N N N N N N N ~~ 10 ~p aJ eo U C7 oD NOD Orf~M00hN0)I~OOMtn d'CprOnr CD d sM-u aODO~Nt~O'OVMN~Nrt~pO~~C~D~f~O(~Ob'eTCO~~ r r r N r r r r r r r r r N r r r N r r N N r r ~ C ~ J ~ ~ 7 Q O S 00 V COIONOMMCOCOr(pCpf~Or0p0pTf~~fOOMO Y 00~nC0 r'a'rNrCpOrMGONrOIOMrNtp a*0 ~ y Mrd'TO~AMaoCO~ttoCONI~r0tfl~ti'00iONrll7 d ~ M(OI~~NNrNNNMMtnf~(01AMntO~~nn V'.~ 'N~ S 3 C ~ Q = C o 0 o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e e o o e e o 0 C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e e o o~ o ~ o 000 N'7rCD~~hOlntnV NNppCG~O~001~'OD1p V Nf~7NTM[FN NrrNNf`7•fhr(p fV Mrtn (rINMNr dl Ln ~~AN~~O tn~~C0~~0 ~1n 1f)(OO NtO II)ln l(~~ff In to ~~ e Y !9 d n\e. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ o o 0 o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e e o 0 o e e e 3 0I~ ~A~NNMODhN(OfON~n0000nr0MOD0~A o ~ cfl r~ n ao ao oD ao ~ of ad ao of ao r~ ao ao is ai t~ co is is cc _ ~. Y ~'9 d a a o°OO°°o°o°o°oo°°oooo°°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°oo°o° 0000000000000000000000000 N f~TTOfODCOrrCOMQ)NCOMI~~~rOD0000001ptf~ c V OI~OOfOtq(hCOCOtY'f~000f~lnO~ODONMOInrr c (~ r r r T r r r T T r r !~ !~ r r Q R ~~ ?~ > •~ a~ co ao 0o a v v v v v c co co co o co 0o co 0o co co co m m co ao T r N d c J v m d c ~ o- y o ma Y y d d u' .. a~ -- c ~ -- cUL~n~02 N~~ srvrn~ ms ~ c ~=S d cNO ~ a H~ w w -o ~°- H d v~ N~~ H '6 °_' °~° d a~ w c m~oe~am~oo~?~~~w noov >3~ nm~3 0 0 o w ozww~zu~~~~~~~~zz~~cncn33zcn N NNNtA to ~ fah n co~~mcoco~n~n~n~n~n~vvvntian~~vv~~ V ~~ 000 Q~ ~~ WOf tn~ J HM~F-HHHHF-F-f-F V V V, HF=,.tr~chM~~MM N w N O O T °~ c ~ ~ 7 N N f6 C f6 ~ ~ 3 O ~ m N ~ a L _y O ~ U U m ~ m > 0 O 0 Q .~-, vi U ~ ~ O C E o ~ f06 .-~ C C `p O ~ " C C ~ w ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~ O V N Z' y U ~ ~ ~ - d > ~ E~o°a~ w ~ M ~ O N. 3 m a ~.~-~f ON Y ~ p~,U a~n~> y 0 C ~ m H Z' D m c •~ ~ ~ U_ a ``c m ` N > a _ •m D ~~ o ~ wQ o ~ ~~ c ~ H Q Z ~~ 0 ~o 0 0 b M ti W Q o~ d U .o r 0 .~ ti • • W J m O tOi ~.~ UUWWUUUUUUUU~~WDUWWppu.tiUU d J N L 0000000000000000000000000 d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C~ O r r M M M r M M M O W M O M 0 0 0 M O O M M O r r N N N N N r N N N r r N N N N r N N N N N N N N ~' R ~ QJ R U (hODrIpO~ArONCOI~NMON lnrODMOCCOMI~f~ d 'V'lA W ~OOI~MMMMIf)lnONtn OOD In t[)OMrrtn rt1700r1f)MCO~~NMMaDtOrU~NOIrCpC0101p'V'r r r r N r r r r r r r r r N r r r N r r N N r r ~ C ~ J ~ L ~a 0 x O O M r O O M 0 ~7 N N !~ O !~ f0 O~ e}' O. CO h 0 OI N O Y MM~00100O~lnCOf~rlf)COOIpNf~btOt~OD01MlnN ~ O M~~~MN~NNN~~~O~D~(NOMti~~~n~~~ d 3 ~o ~~ d 3 C O ~ _ C o o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e o o e e o 0 o e o 0 ~ o o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e o 0 0~ o ~ 0 0 0 0 OODNetrODt[)LL~hO~tO~NN00(O V.OetO0>~t00~A V CV MNe~M~fV CV rrfV CVMMrCO (VM~tn CMNM(V r d OlnOb~~to ~toCp tp ~Ln lA lp Cp In ltl tO In ~In In tO In L Q o Y !6 a 0 0 o e e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e o o e e o 0 0 0 0 0 = O I~ N It1 N N M O~ N O O N A P O In OD P r O M OD O t0 O co co ~ n ao ao ao 00 ~ of o0 0o ai ao ~: ao 00 ~: of r co r ti cc Y ~"~ d ... a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ja N O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oO CV ~NCM ODrNN~'OOMO~~hNO11~Otp N1~O C V Of~Olr hlA M(0~~000)r O><O OOD OION~OOD~N Q~ r r r r r r r r r r r r N r r r d ~ O) H ` ~` > •R Q ~ CO OD 00 ~ ~f ~t ~ ~ '7 ~Y CO (O t0 O tC OD (O 00 fD (fl CO eD t0 CO GO r r H d C A J d > a O `a Y ~ N d ~ Q ~N ~ ONN ~ ; >L ~~Q'O L p m t ~ O O~ t m m O O m p O L L O m t L O O L L C N C O 1y0 N O 0 0>>~ 3 j~~ 0 0 d~ 0 0 d d~ O O o_ w ~ozww~zcn~~~~~33zz3~v~cn3~zcn O SMMZS=2SS==2~vq==~=MMq~MM J H__HF-F-HHF-FH-F-___HF-_F-__~___ N w d ~ O r ~ c N ~ 7 y f~0 N C W ~ O .~i = 3 O Q L N O N U U m L m > ~ o 0 ?? uS d C m U `-° o E o fOp .-~ C C `O O ~ " C y ~ l6 U C f6 w O ~ ~ C ~" ~ U ~ ~ DY V.(0 f0 L d > ~ ~ m °o m `: ~ N 16 '~ 0 3 ~ a Y ~ ~,V a o~> M ~ O C ~ f0 H f6 0 '~ v ~ U v ~ c N F- > >. _ .~ O ~ a~ ~~ o y .L.. Q O ~p ~3 Z ~~ 0 0 0 0 n M ti w `~ Q d .y d N U 0 .~ 0 .~ O ti • N W J m O v ~~~ UU W W UUUUUUUUO~ WOULL W0~1LtLUU d J ~ ` 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C.~ O)rrMMMrMMMOOMOMOd10MOOMMOr ~ N N N N N ~ N N N ~ r N N N N r N N N N N N N N T V N ~ C Q t0 O J U ~ 00 r Q 0 t0 M O N GO N N M O d' O r O M O (O M tp to f~ N ItJOT~OOOOMMMO40 OOfONOMIn lnOalfl O tO r OOOrtn MGO V d'NMMODO NtnNOr000t0 Inter rrN~~ rr~rr~rN~~-NNrrNN~r 3 ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ 3 O. O S O M CA O CA CO O ~ N t~ ~ O 1~ M r ~ 01 O CO I~ 00 et tO 0) Y CO Mi0 NOD 000 ~C1 COhO~COOrO1~rOD SOD NtOrN a1 M(ND~~MN.M-NNNC~'U ODD ~tO MOrD~ VO"t~IO.A~ V a~ ~ O ~~ d ~ c c O= O o o e e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e o 0 o e o 0 0 ~OON~rOD~~I~O~A to V'NNOD (O~0~0O/tr 00~ V NCMN rCM~NNr NfV th C7rfONMrOMNMCV r N O O O N tff O O O O f0 Ln to In l0 Il1 O O ~ t0 ~ O Iff Vn lO to e Y !0 d a ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ e o o e e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e o 0 0 0 o e e O.f~vn~NNMOOh NfO OJN ~1~0~00 -~.-OMOD OHO '- cocotinaoaoaoao~oiaocooioo~aoao-~oi~c~~r~cor~ O S „ Y M ~ v a a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~v O)N~lMMODNNN~ONMOODN hOD CAhOOD to (O0 C V OI~OIr1~1A MCOntt O)OrOIO OOD OfON~000rN C~ r.-rr rrra- rrre-Nrrl- Q la C1 F' ~ _T > t0 Q 0 O 00 OO ~ ~ ~ ~ V' ~f ~ CO (O <O O t0 OD CO 00 t0 CO <O OD tG O O r r y d C R J m a~ E~'~ m m ~~'» Q ~N R ANN ~ >Q~ ~~Q ~(nN N NtOaS~~H p)-pS O p)~~~~S.~O~f ONO d O~H d fC r- H w '6 '- H d :O M N ,,- ,,- F- O ,~ d d ,r ~.- C O w O "' O O m 0 0 m O. O O O ~ m O O O O p 0 O O C OJ C O OS OS 0 0> 7 7> N 41 O O d .~ O O d d 0 0 o w mzww3zcn~~~N~~~zz3~v~cn33zcn O Sc07MSSSSSSSSS~trgSS~SMM~~MM N N U d N c > d ~ 0 ~ ~ N C v1 OS 7 y ~ O) O C f6 ~ O 3 O L ~ ~ O N U U ,,p, t N > ~ o 0 Q ~ .~-~ ui d c U ~ c s m rn E ~ ~. a~ ~ w c 0 ~ ° d ~ c ~ •~ ~ ` C ~ = N O a ~ c w c V O) _ Y U "' d > ~ ~ac°nm "- ~ N.= i N f6 7 0 3 ~ ~ w Of "' C r Y ~ O ~ ac>o~°a M V.-. rn c ~ ~O m~ ~_ ~ m ~ v ~ ~ F= T .S p 7 O d w Q O - f0 ~~ c y 1-p Q Z ~~ 0 O 0 0 00 M ti W `~ 4 d d U 0 ~~.~ W4 U .~ h O R Table 13 summarizes the 2007 congested roadway segments for the No Build alternative, Build Alternative 1 and Build Alternative 3B. TABLE 13 2007 CONGESTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS BY ALTERNATIVE Con ested Roadwa Se ments Existin No Build Alternative Build Alternative 1 Build Alternative 3B I-35W & TH 62 Common Se ment x I-35W north of 60th Street x TH 55 north of TH 52 Hiawatha Avenue x I-494 west of TH 77 x x x x TH 77 River Bride x x x x I-494 west of Portland Avenue x x x x I-494 west of Penn Avenue x x x x TH 62 east of Portland x x x I-35W north of 60th Street x x I-494 west of 24th Avenue South x x 4.1.3.2 Congested Roadway Segments (2020) Tables 14 - 16 show projected regional system operations for year 2020 conditions for the three alternatives. Table 17 compares congested segments for No Build, Build Alternative 1 and Build > Alternative 3A conditions.. ' Congested Roadway Segments Under No Build Alternative Table 14 shows that planned roadway improvements continue to provide adequate capacity on I-35W and TH 62 (Common Section) and TH 55 north of TH 62 for 2020 No Build conditions. As a result, these segments would not be overly congested under 2020 No Build conditions. Note that the analysis of the I-494 segments in year 2020 includes completion of planned capacity improvements, but some I-494 sections would still have capacity problems by year 2020, due to increasing demand. Increasing development in the region would also cause congestion on two segments of I-35W that were not congested in the 2007 analysis. Congested Roadway Segments Under Build Alternative 1 Table 15 shows the effects of Build Alternative 1 in 2020. Three I-494 roadway segments would experience congestion under Build Alternative 1 conditions, but not under No Build conditions. Congested Roadway Segments Under Build Alternative 3B Under Alternative 3B (Table 16), one additional segment, the I-494 River Bridge would become congested in addition to the segments projected to be congested under Build Alternative 1. Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 39, - 08/10/00 • • • O o> W U W 0 J W W J O Y W a a J_ ~ m W Z '~ o m N F- N o u ~~ U ~ W~ U U U U U U U U D ~ O ~ U W LL W W W D ~ U J N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ` O O O O O O O O O O O O O t n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N t p O O O rMMMrMMMO)O.MP 000IMOOPl~Or G ~, r N N N N N r N N N r r N r N N r ~ N N N ~ r N N a 16 O J U ~ Q>r IO OO~~CO In N(OPPIn Oln In MO1 lff NtD DOOM d er tpr~0)M tt~PfO (OMOM~fOMO1nOMMMP O. NPOMCOMP~~MMMO)In OO CONPM00 TAO to lnN N r r N N r r r r r r r r r r r r r N ~ ~ r r r r E ~ c O ~ J T O 2 P (O IANOOfMO~MNNfO 000)0 V'M OD ~T tp~NtnN ~„ ~~ODMrOOP d10 LL')OOOd7MPPt0 NtDOrM O O POO NiOMPtY00P OOOM~OO <O Of IA POD N(00 O MCO OO a MN r M N N'V'~7' 1nM POMOD fONhGf m V In Y N a~ R ~ d C o ~~~~o ~~~~~~~~~~~e ~~~~~~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e e e e o 0 0 p GOON ~;r OO to to l~Otn OetNPOO (O ~aaOO~OhMO04~ ~ tN 1MC)1N ~lM LL~j~~tn (Ob~~~M ~~~if t00 lOff lMf>IOf)~~~ =e G Y d a ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e e o o e o 0 0 O OPLL'I tC/NNM00 f~Nf0 fON(0~01n OfPr0100MO1n _ tD C0 I~ I~ O0 00 OO OD P d1 O0 W m 00 P 00 OO P 01 P t0 P OO V7 n Y ~ a° a 0000000000000000000000000 0000000000000.000000000000 3 v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O OOON~(ON ~'PMOr a0 COOPOOfNhNR~N C V rOO r'N P(O MlDP~O)O)~~Pr000~~MNmNM Q~ r rNr r r r Nra-~Nrr r l0 rnH ~, ~ '~o a~ V7 O OO e- ~ tt eY et R a (O O O N O O (O O 10 OD OD N N tD aD ~ r r r r N m c m J ~ ., c m ~ o- m m o `a $ ~; ~ Q cr `-°P'nm~ ~~ QQ~aP mw c c ~LCNo to ~p O) P O'et N NNtOD O==H~ m:0= O m~vO`t= pOf ao N GnH acowaf-w w-O ~o.;OMN.r.r-- ~ C Caa... pmt O p OtLmm O O(L O OLt OmwaL+ O Ot t_ O f6 C O l6 f0 0 0> 7 7) y y 0 0 41 O O 01 y 0 0 o_ w ~zww~zcn~~~o~o~~~zz3~mrn~~zcn " cNO~3~~m~~~~~n~vvvn~•a~33aa~~ v ono rnrnrn o- ~rfoo,rnu~u~ J 1-~MHF-F-F-F-F-hF-F-Y ~Y~~Y~MM~stMM N ` ~~ N Q > N l0 N V C j ~ O w O d ~ y C 7 O3 v > ~ O O ~ O ~ N c o ~ ~ n N O N U V ..0. N O) > ~ O O Q r N ~j N C U ~ C t N m E o N w m N c m ~ c V f0 l` N F- a U ~ o ~ O = t ~ > 0 ~ (1 M w ~ .N-. N O d l4 f0 ~1 T 'O _ m "" 'O L /C f6 N ~- m a 3 ~ ' ai N ~ C ~ ~O m ~c ~~ ~ O U v ~ c m F- >a ~o L d 7 ~ O N =a' O ~p ~ 3 C a -° Z: 0 ~o 0 0 7 W `~ Q d d d U 0 0 K w Q .~ `"~ • • .Z v 07 w V W N O J W W J 0 Y Q W a a r W Q Z W J wQ J O m N I- N O u ~~~ U~ W iy.D000UU~~~W W ~~ W ti W W W W DU d J N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 p N 0 O_ O r r M M M r M M M O O M h r O T 01 M O O h h 0 n,~ r N N N N N r N N N r r N r N N r r N N N r r N N _~~ V d l6 C Q ~ 16 J V ` OOtDtpNO00 N~ODnOrODOtnh000t0O V'tAM nM00h~M~OMOrO~.IAMONNMrtO NOD O)n OD NnOMn'~lnO~~~~'Ot001n V ao Mao O1 t0 N1C1N re-NN~r rrrrrNrrr~rNrrrrre- N 7 ~ ~ J T 7 I O S ~ rODMO'V W CONMOMNOhrOD~MrlyfhOM~O r ~OOOn ~oO COOtC)CO to ODMnnO0MOh00 tONM O MOMh~OtorO W tC)R hOONrOat0hOtAnr = MCO OO~MNrMMN~'~f00>h (O X01 t01n 1n O01 srO r Y d a_3 R O C 0 C \°\°\\\°\°\\\°\°\°\\°\°\\°\°\\\°\°\°\°\°\° O o o e e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e e o o e e e e e o 0 0 O> GO N ~ r CO 1n O ~ O to ~ d' N h QO f0 l0 O ~ O h M OD to V NMNrMtTNNrrNNM~N(ON~h10 MtOhCV r y aOtff tff Ou)to to to CO Ito ~n lO lff f0O O10 tff tffo Ito u) ~° y R d a ` o o e 'e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e o 0 o e o e e e o o p o 0 o e o~ o o h o 0 0 0 o e o o e o o e e o~ o O On~AMNNM00n N(O fONtOTOIn Cl tffr Ol COM O)tn _ ^ CO CO P I~ aD OD aD GO I~ Oi 00 OD ~ 00 h OD a0 h Ci h <O P CO t0 h y C1 _ a° a 0000000000000000000000000 IE N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 ... ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ V O ~'7OtF~Of f~O ~tA e~MIn CONODM OI 00 e~OM N O r N N CO M CO n to O O N r oo r O r N~ N N O M M Q~ r r N r r r N r r N r r r N N r r a~ ~ :°. ?~ ~~ a~ CO 00 OD of st ~t V'~ ~~tO CO tON00 CO (O Ot0 t0 tONNt0 c0 r r r r T d t=o J N N ++ c m > a m ~ O `Q Y w: m ~ m ..a d m m ~ > 'O _ Q or i°n`n~cNO ~~ QQ~vh mw c ~ Aim CUo~n`~ = N~ N ZZ'6Oh Oef N C't: ..'= N N tD O S== H N O= O ~~ ~ Y 2 ~6 0 0 d O O H aco~.-aF-~~-w~~f-avehN~w.~- c»-r-aa~,.. o= ,C O O p O t m m o O m O O p p O m s t O O p L N~ O N fN6 0 0 0 0~ 7 7 0~ y 0 O y~ 0 0 y y 0 0 w ozww3zcn~'-~~~~3~zz3~v~v~33zcn m~3~cNOCNO~~~~~r,~va~nn..nati33a~a~~ ~n~ rno~rn o~ Nomrn~u~ ~ M M F~ I-' -- F- F- H H F- H Y Y Y~~~~ M M er ei M M N N U y a=i d ~ O ~ N ~ N C 3 t0 'a y ~ C f6 O O .~i _ O t N N ~ a L N U U t N > 0 O 0 Q C N d c U ~ C t N O ~ O ~ O1 w C ~ ~ _O t0 ~ N ~ C ~ •~ O - N (`6 :~ N CO a ~ c y c O ~ Nt y U '"' Q > ~m°oZ` ~ 'O M' f6 .r. ~G N O?~ ~ ~ w O ~ C r Y ~ ~ ~ a m ~ a c%~ v N1 O C ~ f0 ~ m ~c ~X ~ U m v ~ m ~ > >. _S p 7 ~ o r O ~ ~' y fp- Q Z ~~ 0 c O 0 a W `ti Q d d U 0 ••~o W4 U t • 0 m W U W LL J W W J O Y Q W a a m M W H Q Z ~ W ~ J wQ J C m H N w d O v °' t > d J N a,~ ~~ C t0 OS a,~ ~a U d 7 d O = ~ J A ~ ~a 0 2 Y d a~ to ~ 33 O 0 C V 0 ° Y t6 d a O 2 ,~ Y ~ OS d a a ~~ C V C Q 03 01H ` ~` ~ SOS Q ~ c 0 V J U ~ LL W U U U U U U ~ ~ W W W D O W Li W W W W ~ U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ip N 0 0 O r r M M M r M M M 0 61 M Ir r 0 0 0 I M O O P P O r r N N N N N ~ N N N ~ ~ N r N N ~ r N N N r r N N r O 1f1 r O O r r r M M N M r 0 N O r N OD 10 1!f O0 r M 00 M O h O M 0 0 I~ M M r 00 M p h f~ h N <O N C17 r Ln CD N i~ r ~ CO ~ !~ t1) tt) e7' N N O O OI Cfl ~ O M 00 Of t0 {O N N r r N N r r r r r r r N r r r r r N r r r r r r NNrNl~OrNMNOOM W hP00)t01ff MhOOhNO ~tf')Na'OI~aOOO V'CDW tn~000~ WO~AtOOhtOOtnM N O ~! 07 M O N r r OO In In N P h (O tt' M O> <O P r h CO ~- MCOODttMNrMMN~~tD011~t0 V'O~t01n1p00lsttn r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e e o 0 o e e e e e o 0 0 OODN~r00 In In l~Otn 4)~Nh00 CO t00 ~f OI~MODN NMNrM V NNrrNNMe}NCON~hIff MtC l~Nr to to 1n 1n In tC) t(y N tfy CO u'f to tf1 N b CO N N N M to b b tC1 to 0 0 o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e e e e o e e e e e e o 0 OhbNNNMOphNtOtONtL1Q~ W 1!')Of~rOl00M W tp (O tD h h 00 OD OD OD ~ O 00 CO ~ 00 ~ CO CO h CA h fG h 00 (O I~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000000000000000 0ooooou~ooooo0000000000000 r (V CD Oi 00 ~ CO ~~ r N r h r h N~ <C1 O M 01 O eT CO M NOrNt~(OMCpf~NOONrOOrOrM~ 1nMONM ~ ~ N r ~ ~ r N r~ N r r r N N r r CO OO O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t CO Cfl <O N O 00 (O O ID 1D <D N NCO OD r r r r d d +'' c m~ a d m O` a Y w w d Q ~N'eca NNN ~ > >t N~Q CAN ~' Q Q (n L ~ OS NNt00 O==~H 0f 'a= O'p ~'w7Q~S:O MONO d O~H O= L O O~ O L m m O O m O O O O O m L L O O O L m ~ o e Nu c Na ~ o o ~~~~> m m o o d~ o o d y o 0 w ~ozww~zcn~~~~~~3zz3~v~v~33zu~ 0~3~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~r~33~a~~ S M M= 2 2 2 5= Z S= O~ O S= O S M M O O CN7 M ~__~~~--~-~~~~-4_~t-Fit-ss~~__ ~1 d w ~ o o v r d ~ N C 7 ~ V1 OS d C 16 ~ 0 ~; _ O L ~ ~ ~ _~ O d U U m L m > D 0 0 Q C N .-. U ~~ w, - o ~ ~ E L (0 W+ C C Q ~ ~ V-~ ~ ~N c~6 U ~ f6 w O ~ 'N C av O U d ~ Y U R L- G. > ~ E~ood w ~ N W ~ d N d ~3.oa ~ '". N Y ~- ~,U a m ~ > M ~ w ~ °' c ~ nz ~ Zo ~ c :3~ -~ ~~ T _ .~ 0 L ~ O ~ w ~ oa m ~~ c y H Q Z ~~ O ~O 0 0 Q W `h Q d d U 0 O ~~ b E Table 17 summarizes the 2020 congested roadway segments for the No Build Alternative, Build Alternative 1 and Build Alternative 3B. TABLE 17 2020 CONGESTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS BY ALTERNATIVE Con ested Roadwa Se ments No Build Alternative Build Alternative 1 Build Alternative 3B I-35 W north of 60th Street x x x I-494 west of TH 77 x x x TH 77 River Bridge x x x I-494 west of Penn Avenue x x x TH 62 east of Portland x x x I-35W south of 82nd Street x x x I-35W south of 94th Street x x x I-494 west of 34th Avenue x x I-494 west of 24th Avenue South x x I-494 west of Portland x x I-494 River Bridge x Table 18 summarizes the regional system roadway segments where congested conditions currently exist or would exist under the No Build or Build alternatives -and the percentage of traffic attributable to the MOA expansion Build alternatives. Many of these segments are projected to be congested under both the No Build and the Build alternatives. For those segments that are congested only for Build alternatives the segment is already approaching the congestion threshold under the No Build alternative. The MOA Phase 2 traffic is a relatively minor contributor (six percent or less) to the traffic in the segment. 4.1.3.3 Impacts on Freeway-to-Freeway Interchanges Table 19 shows the effect of the developments on principal arterial interchanges near the study area. It can be seen that by 2020, interchanges will experience peak hour growth generally in the 20- to 30-percent range, even under No Build conditions. Ramps that would experience congestion are highlighted in the table. Freeway interchanges were first analyzed relative to their physical capacity. It can be generally assumed for planning purposes that a freeway ramp has a capacity of 1,900 vehicles per lane, with an inside loop ramp having a capacity of 1,200 vehicles per hour. ~_~ Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 43 - 08/10!00 • ~__..~ LL L W d O N N w O ~ N ~ ~ ~ N J N ~ U a~ ~~ L J 0 Z = ~ K W W Z O 3 ~ H .~, J d m m m O O fq M N O O ~ N N N O ` -O O .p .O 'O N N N N O N fN0 O O C ~ O '7 m ~ '7 m '~ ~. m 7 m T .n ~ L a L ' a o. U V m m m O O O O 0 m N ~ ~ ~ ~ m v -a ' m v m ~v ~ ' v ' > m ~ ~ ~ w ~ m $ E 'c o ~ m E c '~ m ~ ~ 3 m S m ~ > c o o ~ ~ o ~ o c O o`~ ~ _ E c E ~ Z ~ ~ Z ~ Z ~ o° ino ~nov,o~o m m Z m o o a ~ a~ ~ d ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ v ~' E -°o v N C~ C :Q U C ~ ~ N U C U C N N N N N C 3 N j N C 3 ~• C j C E O C Vj ~ ~j C U E N U ~ U ~ O ~ u ? O ~ ~ > U ~ ~ > ~ > ~ rnE c m ~ m c L ~ m ~ ma ~ ~ L d L a ~ . C '~a ~ , '~ ~'E ~'~m m m ~ rn c X o E o c ... EQ • E•. o c o cp ~Q ~O ciQ ~O ~ rn ~ o EQ a30 ~ rn ~ o E:~. ~ °~~ w'X O o °3 0 °~ V ......................... w a .................... . U E ............... . U EU E~ .................................. ..~ ............. ..~ ............ : U ............. m~ ....:........ ...U ............ mw nU mU..m._._ ................................... O M ++ N r. d ~ v ~ O ~ O O o 0 0 ~ 0 M 0 ~ 0 M 0 0 N M 0 CO Z ~ I t Cfl N , N ` ~ C as v c ~_ '~ N d ~ Q d Q C O O '~4 0 0 0 0 \° \° \° - \° \° \° \° \° \° w~ w C A N O 1 O t O O ~ I 7 N ~ N N N ~ N ~ ~ ~ O d C1 a ~ ........................ ..................... ............... ......:.......................... ............. ............. ............. ............ ............. ........................... ...................... m M p Il W W W W W W W W U LL LL- Q d V .~ N to O ~ O N_ O W W W ~ W W W W W U LL ~- ~ Q J Y 'O d m ~ W W W ~ O ~ W O W U u. tL O a Z c y W W O D U O U W LL W W D W W N d ~ N ~ Q N N ~ N N O > -p 'O N rn ~ o = N ~ a 0 rn ~ ~ v M a i ~ a S ~ f - ~ v ` = a o o ,C L m w O O O O O o o L m N Z c°n (~ > a`~i m m a`~i m Z W v v v v v v ~ ~ ~ M M M f~ ~ V ~ ~ VO' ~ - H H h' m m a ti C N ,a L rn 0 L O C f0 N C O 7 .~ a m ~ ~ T . m o ~ r ~ U rnL ~ 3 U ~ O N C. 'O U f6 ~ rn N ~ ~ 3 c my o ~ a~i .o .n m a~°i a~i m 'o w~ ~~ ~_ N ~ y N ~ a .~~~ c ~ a d ~ c Q C ~ O ~ U C ~~U 0 0 0 c d o ._ ._ -o a -o mad Z ~~~ c 0 0 ro O a W 0 y d U O .~ C '~ .~ • TABLE 19 2020 FORECAST VOLUMES ON SELECTED AREA FREEWAY RAMPS System Interchanges Near Airport South 2020 Forecast • • rom: o: Existing Volume (1) olume No Build ercen Change from Existing Alternative 1 ercen Change from Volume No Build Alternative 38 Percent Change Volume from No Build SB 1-35W EB TH 62 2110 2625 24% 2725 4°h 2800 7% WB TH 62 NB 1-35W 2047 2550 25°h 2650 4°~ 2725 7% NB I-35W WB TH 62 480 600 25% 650 8% 650 8% EB TH 62 SB I-35W 537 675 26°/a 725 7% 725 7°h SB Cedar Ave. EB TH 62 106 125 18 % 125 0°k 125 0% SB Cedar Ave. WB TH62 146 175 20% 175 0°~ 175 0% WB TH 62 SB TH 77 551 675 23% 775 15% 825 22% WB TH62 NB Cedar Ave. 132 175 33% 175 0% 175 0% NB TH 77 WB TH 62 1461 1825 25% 2000 10% 2075 14°~ NB TH 77 EB TH 62 485 600 24°h 700 17°~ 725 21°h EB TH62 NB Cedar Ave. 139 175 26°k 175 0% 175 0°~ EB TH 62 SB TH 77 1615 2000 24°r6 2200 10% 2275 14°h SB TH 5 EB TH 55 399 525 32% 525 0% 525 0% SB TH 5 WB TH 55 537 675 26% 675 0% 675 0% WB TH 55 SB TH 5 140 200 43% 300 50% 325 63% WB TH 55 NB TH 5 331 425 28% 425 0% 425 0% NB TH 5 WB TH 55 799 1025 28 % 1200 17% 1200 17% NB TH 5 EB TH 55 276 375 36% 500 33°h 525 40% EB TH 55 NB TH 5 692 850 23°h B50 0% 850 0% EB TH 55 SB TH 5 851 1100 29% 1275 16% 1275 16% SB TH 77 EB TH 13 243 300 . 23% 400 33% 425 42°r6 SB TH 77 WB TH 13 777 1000 29°~ 1125 13% 1175 18°,6 WB TH 13 SB TH 77 30 50 67°h 50 0°k 50 0% WB TH 13 NB TH 77 508 650 28% 750 15% 775 19% NB TH 77 WB TH 13 30 50 67% 50 0% 50 0% NB TH 77 EB TH 13 186 250 34°.fi 250 0°h 250 0% EB TH 13 NB TH 77 251 _325 29°r6 425 31% 450 38°~ EB TH 13 SB TH 77 29 50 72% 50 0% 50 0% SB TH 77 EB I-494 224 275 23°k 375 36% 425 55% SB TH 77 WB I-494 184 225 22°~ 225 0% 225 0% WB I-494 SB TH 77 790 1000 27°i6 1100 10% 1150 15% WB I-494 NB TH 77 461 575 25°h 675 17°~ 725 26% NB TH 77 WB I-494 715 900 26°h 1175 31°,6 1125 25°.G NB TH 77 WB I-494 (HOV)(2) 64 75 17°k NB TH 77 EB I-494 353 450 27 % 550 22% 575 28% EB I-494 NB TH 77 425 525 24% 525 0°h 525 0% EB I-494 SB TH 77 790 975 23°~ 1075 10% 1125 15°h SB I-35W EB I-494 431 525 22% 650 24% 675 29°~ SB I-35W WB I-494 407 525 29°r6 525 0% 525 0% WB I-494 SB I-35W 541 700 29% 800 14°h 825 18% WB I-494 NB I-35W 456 575 26°~ 675 17°~ 700 22°h NB I-35W WB I-494 1071 1400 31% 1400 0°~ 1400 0% NB I-35W EB 1-494 701 900 28°~ 1000 11°h 1025 14°h EB 1-494 NB I-35W 566 725 28% 725 0°~ 725 0°~ EB I-494 SB I-35W 1334 1725 29°,6 1725 0% 1725 0% Notes: (1) MnDOT Traffic Management Center All Detector Report (April 1999 data, published 10/99) (2) Existing HOV bypass assumed to be removed as part of 1-494 reconsWction. Mall OjAmerica Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 45 - 08/10/00 Congested Freeway Interchanges Under No Build Conditions (2020) Using the above-stated assumption regarding freeway ramp capacity, the following ramps would be above capacity in 2020 under the No Build alternative: • Southbound I-35 to Eastbound TH 62 • Westbound TH 62 to Northbound I-35W • Eastbound TH 62 to Southbound TH 77 • Northbound I-35 to Westbound I-494 Congested Freewav Interchanges Under Build Alternatives 1 and 3B (2020) Under both Build Alternatives 1 and 3B, one additional freeway interchange to those listed above would exceed capacity. This interchange is listed in italics below: • Northbound TH 77 to Westbound TH 62 • Southbound I-35 to Eastbound TH 62 • Westbound TH 62 to Northbound I-35W • Eastbound TH 62 to Southbound TH 77 • Northbound I-35 to Westbound I-494 The Build Alternatives would result in a volume increase at the northbound TH 77 to westbound TH 62 ramp of 10 to 14 percent for Build Alternatives 1 and 3B respectively. The projected contribution of the Build Alternatives to the total ramp volume at this location would Ue less than the potential error in the travel forecast model. A major factor in forecasting levels of service at freeway-to-freeway interchanges is the metering of access ramps. Meters are used to control flow onto congested roadways, and metered ramps are frequently constructed with queue detectors to detect whether the queue will spill back onto the adjacent mainline freeway. The metering rates for a given traffic demand greatly affect the average wait time at a ramp. Assume a ramp with a metering discharge rate of 6 vehicles per minutes and a demand of 500 cars in the peak hour, resulting in an average wait of approximately 10 minutes. Assume also that under No Build conditions, .this demand increases to 650 vehicles (a 30-percent increase) and under Build Alternative conditions this increases to 750 vehicles with no corresponding increase in discharge rate. The resulting average wait would increase to approximately 23 minutes for the No Build alternative and 31 minutes for the Build alternative. However, if it is assumed that the discharge rate is increased by 33 percent to .account for a 33 percent increase in mainline capacity (on I-494, for example) the average wait would drop back to nine minutes under the No Build and 15 minutes under the Build alternative. The proposed I-494/I-35W interchange, in combination with the 79th/80th Street arterial system (see Figure 7), will reduce the effects of the proposed development on the I-494/I-35W interchange by providing local and regional travel an alternative for local and sub-regional trips. This will serve demand for shorter trips along I-494 as well as potentially reducing demand in the I-494/I-35W interchange. This roadway system is covered through Mn/DOT's Integrated Corridor Management System (ICTMS), a coordinated freeway-arterial traffic management system along I-494. The effects of the Build development alternatives on the Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 46 - 08/IOI00 I-494/TH 77 interchange are somewhat mitigated by the presence of direct ramps to and from the Airport south area to and from I-494: FIGURE 7 INTEGRATED CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROJECT AREA EOINA j ~ j e RICHFI~LO ~ ~ S ' 4Y.1tIK3t ii '_., ~ E.idilSt ,__,._.~, _. .•^^^"~. j E.TThS1a }'991.„r ~ E . 91 411.?)11 i7. ,~ -. .K ~ ~ E 7A6 SI. w ,~ i .••,•••. rW,gMA W'T#h 74 ~ EEAN 31. ~~ i. ~ ~ ~ Y F~~~ 3 1Y.tp- ~ } 8Lt}OhAiNGTOtJ Source: ICTM, 1999 Project routes are solid dark lines. Dashed lines are proposed routes. 4.1.3.4 Impacts on Local Access Ramps Table 20 shows the existing and forecast demand at local access interchanges adjacent to the Airport South area. By .the year 2020, traffic entering the freeway system from those interchanges is expected to increase by 51 percent over current conditions. The most significant increases are expected at the 34th Avenue interchange, where traffic will increase by 88 to 100 percent (westbound and eastbound respectively). This increase can largely be attributed to the redevelopment of the MSP International Airport HHH Terminal area. The loop to .southbound TH 77 will have a demand exceeding its capacity under both Build Alternatives analyzed, Build Alternative 1 and 3B. In particular, Build Alternative 3B centers the increases in demand to the south on Old Shakopee Road and Killebrew Drive, whereas Build Alternative 1 focuses demand more on the Lindau Lane interchange. The three southbound accesses to southbound TH 77 will be subject to significant ramp metering and therefore experience increasing peak hour delay and require additional storage capacity. The interchange at I-494 and 24th Avenue South will have a peak demand of approximately 1,350 vehicles per hour under No Build conditions. This would require a metering discharge rate of approximately one vehicle every 5.3 seconds per each of two metered lanes. This rate of discharge would be high for a congested facility, where cycle lengths tend to be in the one vehicle per 15 to 20 seconds or more. Under Build Alternative conditions, the required discharge would be 4.4 seconds. Adequate storage capacity at the interchange or traffic management via the ICTMS network would reduce the effect of longer vehicle queues at the interchange. Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 47 - 08/10100 • d Qf W N a'w u. ~ O W N Q O L0 a_ r ''' W W y (n V ~° O a ~ w ~' C G = ~ ~ J H a~ ~ ~ U uyi o W v N O Q W u. m N V J a -N l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o o ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 d p10 Nr O)tDOO~ODNN00 C2a NM tn~Asr~MONN m ~ M O m L ' O ~F M ` 00 tnOtfi000~OM0 d d tf>tf) I~tnNhOI~NONO ' j ONOD W M (flr rrNf0~1 Q r r M N r r r O \° \° \ \° \ \° \ \ \° \° \ \° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~~NrN N ~~ M 0 O CZa W o OO 0 N r~~~3 d Om ~ ew ++ !4 N O V ~ d tn0 t1~ll~tnOOtOOtn Y~O N f~ t n O N~ h l~ 0 h 0 d w y, Q ~ ~ ~ r r N ao ~ a0 O CO aD M O LL 7 O r ~ M N r r O ~ N O N \° \° \° \° \° \° \° \° \° \° \° \° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO OOOODONM'd'OM~ C C tnt[> OOONNMtt~I~OON !4 O N ' w K 'a e W .7 m O Ot1~ tAtn000~~~00 Z £ ~1~ NNtnlnt~NNNOIn MOO O)Ord'NI~O)tn(~N O r N N ~- O ON O)LOhN000r~Mr _ rn~n~nnr~oo~rnr~o ~ 00th tFOrMNt1~f0N00N d r r N ~ W ; rnrnrnrnrn~~rrrr~ ~~~~~ H H H H H H H F m m m m m m m m m m m ~wz(nzlnztncn ~ w w ~ m ~w E ~ o ,~ o ~ . ~ $~ O "' ~ aaa Q O O O O ~~~ . N N N ' ` ~ N O) N O) y y y ~ ~~~~ c c c ~ ~ o 0 0 ccc cmc~co O) N N N O) J J J 3 3~~~ > > > > N N Q Q Q Q ~'cs~ ~ c c c °~ ~aaa W N N M M J J J Y Y O O O. O_ a O) L tp 7 Q f6 (0 a 01 O) _O Q O O O N U lC "-' ~L c~c C Q Q Q- O m ~ m ~ U ~ = d) ~ U 3 `1' d. ~ n ~ a~ ° ~ min ~ ~ N = ~Q~ u~i ~ pTp c .~ U m O c LL. ~ 2 v ~ ~- a~'i ayi ai ..O ~ ~ ~~~ c c f~ Z °o 0 O Q H W w 0 d v ,moo C Q W v O • • • This section summarizes the findings of a traffic study prepared for the proposed Mall of America expansion. The complete traffic study Technical Memorandum is included in Appendix 2. 4.1.4 ANALYSIS OF LOCAL ROADWAY SYSTEM IMPACTS 4.1.4.1 Existing Conditions Traffic operations were analyzed for existing conditions at the following key intersections in the Airport South: • 24th Avenue and I-494 Ramps • 34th Avenue and I-494 North Ramps • 34th Avenue and I-494 South Ramps • Thunderbird Drive and East 79th Street • 24th Avenue and East 79th Street • 24th Avenue and East 80th Street • 28th Avenue and East 80th Street • 34th Avenue and East 80th Street • 20th Avenue and Lindau Lane • 22nd Avenue and Lindau Lane • 24th Avenue and Lindau Lane • 24th Avenue and East 82nd Street • 20th Avenue and Killebrew Drive • 22nd Avenue and Killebrew Drive • 24th Avenue and Killebrew Drive • 28th Avenue and Old Shakopee Road The SYNCHRO traffic operations model was used for all intersection analyses for existing, No Build and Build conditions. Results of the existing conditions analysis (depicted in Table 21) indicate that all key intersections. operate at Level of Service (LOS) C or better during the p.m. peak hour under existing traffic controls and geometric layout. TABLE 21 Existing P.M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE 24th Avenue and I-494 Rams C or better 34th Avenue and I-494 North Rams C or better 34th Avenue and I-494 South Rams C or better Thunderbird Drive and East 79th Street C or better 24th Avenue and East 79th Street C or better 24th Avenue and East 80th Street C or better 28th Avenue and East 80th Street C or better 34th Avenue and East 80th Street C or better 20th Avenue and Lindau Lane C or better 22nd Avenue and Lindau Lane C or better 24th Avenue and Lindau Lane C or better 24th Avenue and East 82nd Street C or better 20th Avenue and Killebrew Drive C or better 22nd Avenue and Killebrew Drive C or better 24th Avenue and Killebrew Drive C or better 28th Avenue and Old Shako ee Road* C or better * Indicates an unsignalized intersection. Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 49 - 08/10/00 4.1.4.2 Future Conditions Key Intersections • Three new driveway intersections were added to the analysis of key study area intersections and are summarized below. These driveways represent new primary accesses proposed to serve either the Met Center site or the Adjoining Lands parcel. Although the number of accesses to the Met Center site will remain unchanged from existing conditions, the location and the geometric layout of the accesses will change to accommodate traffic demand and facility operation. • 79th Street Eastern Driveway for Met Center site • 82nd Street and Adjacent Lands North Driveway • Old Shakopee Road and Adjacent Lands South Driveway No Build Improvements to the local transportation system currently planned for implementation prior to 2007 are summarized below in Table 22. These. improvements are. included in the analysis of future local traffic operations for the No Build and Build alternatives. TABLE 22 LOCAL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS ROADWAY SCHEDULED TO BE COMPLETED BY LEAD AGENCY Local S stem Im rovements • I-494/34th Avenue north -Provide up to five lanes at ramp, as needed 2006 MAC/Mn/DOT side off-ramps (dual left-turn, two through, one right-turn lane) . I-494/34th Avenue south- -Provide up to minimum of four lanes at 2006 Mn/DOTBloomington side off-ramps ramp, as needed (dual left-turn, left/through shared lane, right-turn lane) . East 79th Street (TH 77 to - Reconstruct/realignment/ geometric 2003 Bloomington 24th Avenue) improvements . East Old Shakopee -Signalize intersection, improve geometrics 2006 Bloomington Road/28th Avenue . 24th Avenue/Lindau Lane -Modify Lindau Lane/TH 77 to 24th Avenue 2006 Bloomington • 24th Avenue Operational - I-494 to Lindau Lane (geometrics) 2006 Hennepin County/ Upgrade Bloomington/Mn/DOT • 24th Avenue ITS - I-494 to 86th Street 2006 Hennepin County/ Information Signs Bloomington/Mn/DOT • 80th Street Upgrade -Upgrade of 80th Street between 24th and >2006 Bloomington 34th Avenues to provide five approach and three departing lanes at critical intersections • East Old Shakopee Road - -Capacity improvements (3 lanes/direction) , >2010 Bloomington/Hennepin Killebrew to Cedar Coun Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 50 - 08/10/00 In addition to the local roadway improvements listed in Table 22, No Build operations analysis for the 34th Avenue/East 80th Street intersection indicated that additional storage capacity is needed for the left-turn lane on the west approach of 80th Street. Based on the analysis, approximately 400 feet of vehicle storage is needed without the traffic generated by the planned new parking facility of the HHH terminal. With the additional HHH parking traffic, a total of 500 feet of storage is needed. Build Alternative 1 Although the overall number of accesses to the Met Center site will remain unchanged from existing conditions to any of the future condition No Build or Build Alternatives, the location and geometric configuration of these accesses will change. Modifications to the configuration of streets adjacent to the Met Center site are also proposed to improve overall operations of the access driveways and to ensure continuous vehicular flow on Lindau Lane. Initial project development discussions between the City of Bloomington and the project proposer .resulted in conceptual plans fora "cloverleaf ' entrance to the Mall of America expansion at the Lindau Lane entrance. As these plans progressed, it became apparent that the costs of such construction were prohibitive, and technical analysis of a ``fly-over" ramp as an alternative design concept were initiated. This "fly-over" ramp would serve southbound TH 77 traffic eastbound on Lindau Lane directly flowing into a parking. facility proposed as part of Mall of America expansion. In .addition to the fly-over modification, other street configuration modifications include the channelization of northbound TH 77 off-ramp traffic to eastbound Lindau Lane, and the prohibition of southbound TH 77 to eastbound Lindau Lane traffic from performing a right or left-turn maneuver at the 20th Avenue driveway. The following improvements to the local roadway system, in addition to_ the improvements listed in Table 22 and the left-turn vehicle storage space at 80th Street/34th Avenue, were assumed under Build Alternative 1 conditions: • 28th Avenue and East 80th Street -Protective/permissive phasing on the south approach of 28th Avenue. • 20th Avenue and Killebrew Drive - A dual left-turn lane on the west approach of Killebrew Drive due to queuing. • 20th Avenue/22nd Avenue and Lindau Lane -Construction of a "fly-over" ramp in addition to 20th Avenue driveway turning movement restrictions. • Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 51 - 08/10/00 Build Alternative 3B In addition to the Met Center site, analysis was also completed for the Adjoining Lands parcel. Access to this site is proposed at one location on East 82nd Street and one location on Old Shakopee Road, both of which would be centrally located between East 24th Avenue and East 28th Avenue. Additionally, two access points are proposed on 28th Avenue. Identical assumptions for local system improvements as were made under Build Alternative 1 analysis were made under Build Alternative 3B analysis. 4.1.4.3 Future Traffic Operations 2007 Traffic Operations The results of the analysis of potential traffic impacts on local system roadways resulting from Mall of America expansion in 2007 are shown in Table 23. The level of service analysis was completed for the p.m. peak hour, since it was assumed that this time period experienced the greater travel demand. However, the intersections of 82nd Street at 24th Avenue and the Adjoining Lands north driveway were also analyzed for the a.m. peak hour due to high turning movement volumes generated by the office development assumed under Build Alternative 3B. No Build: As shown in Table 23, all key intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) C or better in the year 2007 under No Build conditions with the exception of 34th Avenue at the I-494 north and south ramps. These intersections are expected to fail due to traffic generated by the expansion of the HHH terminal at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Without traffic generated by this facility, these intersections would be expected to operate at an acceptable LOS B. Build Alternative 1: All key intersections are expected to operate at LOS C or better in the year 2007 under Build Alternative 1 conditions, with the exception of 34th Avenue at the I-494 north and south ramps. These intersections are expected to operate at an unacceptable level of service due to traffic generated by the expansion of the HHH terminal facility. Without traffic generated by this facility, these intersections would be expected to operate at an acceptable LOS B. Build Alternative 3B: Similar to results from Build Alternative 1, all key intersections are expected to operate at LOS C or better in the year 2007 under Build Alternative 3B conditions, with the exception of 34th Avenue at the. I-494 north and south ramps. The poor LOS is due to traffic generated by the expansion of the. HHH terminal facility. Without this additional traffic, these intersections would be expected to operate at LOS B and LOS C for the north and south ramps respectively. Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 52 - 08/10!00 TABLE 23 2007 P.M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis • • LEVEL OF SERVICE INTERSECTION NO-BUILD ALT.1 ALT. 3B 24th Avenue and I-494 Rams C or better C or better C or better 34th Avenue and I-494 North Ram s~`~ F~z> Fcz~ Fcz~ 34th Avenue and I-494 South Ram s~`~ p~2> Fc2~ Fcs> Thunderbird Drive and East 79th Street C or better C or better C or better 79th Street Eastern Drivewa to Met Center Site -- C or better C or better 24th Avenue and East 79th Street -- -- -- 24th Avenue and East 80th Street C or better C or better C or better 28th Avenue and East 80th Street C or better C or better~4~ C or better~4~ 34th Avenue and East 80th Street~5~ C or better C or better C or better 20th Avenue and Lindau Lane C or better C or better C or better 22nd Avenue and Lindau Lane C or better C or better C or better 24th Avenue and Lindau Lane C or better C or better C or better 24th Avenue and East 82nd Street C or better C or better C or better 82nd Street and Adjacent Lands North Drivewa -- C or better C or better 20th Avenue and Killebrew Drive C or better C or better~8~ C or better~8~ 22nd Avenue and Killebrew Drive C or better C or better C or better 24th Avenue and Killebrew Drive C or better C or better C or better Old Shakopee Rd. and Adjacent Lands South Driveway 28th Avenue and Old Shako ee Road -- C or better C or better C or better C or better C or better Notes: ~'~ Analysis includes new parking ramp terminal facility at HHH terminal and no improvements to the existing geometrics. Studies are currently underway to determine needed roadway improvements for the proposed pazking facility. (Z) Analysis of operations without increased traffic from proposed HHH result in LOS B at this intersection. (3) Analysis of operations without increased traffic from proposed HHH result in LOS C at this intersection. (4) Analysis assumes protective/permissive phasing on the south approach of 28th Avenue. (5) Adequate storage is needed for the dual left-turn lane on the west approach of 80th Street to prevent spillback from stacking vehicles. Based on the analysis approximately 400 feet of storage is needed without the traffic generated by the new pazking facility at HHH, and 500 feet is needed with the additional traffic from the parking ramp. (e) City staff expressed concern that an at-grade intersection at this location would not be a practical design due to the proximity to TH 77. In response, a southbound TH 77 to eastbound Lindau "fly-over" ramp has been proposed to eliminate left turns into the Met Center site at this intersection. This level of service reflects the inclusion of the fly- over ramp. Additionally, channelization will restrict traffic from southbound TH 77 from turning into the existing Mall of America driveway at this intersection. ~'~ Due to proposed channelization at the 20th Avenue driveway, it is assumed that all eastbound traffic originating from southbound TH 77 that wishes to access the existing Mall of America site will use this driveway. In addition, southbound TH 77 traffic that does not use the fly-over ramp can access the Met Center site at this intersection. ($~ A dual left-turn lane is recommended on the west approach of Killebrew Drive due to queuing. Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 53 - 08/10/00 2020 Traffic Operations Year 2020 analysis results are shown in Table 24 and do not differ substantively from the results obtained under 2007 conditions. This is due to relatively small increases in forecast traffic levels since the majority of study area development/redevelopment is projected to occur by the year 2006. • • TABLE 24 2020 P.M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Notes: Analysis includes new parking ramp terminal facility at HHH terminal and no improvements to the existing geometrics. Studies are currently underway to determine needed roadway improvements for the proposed pazking facility. (z) Analysis of operations without increased traffic from proposed HHH result in LOS B at this intersection. c3~ Analysis of operations without increased traffic from proposed HHH result in LOS C at this intersection. c4~ Analysis assumes protective/permissive phasing on the south approach of 28th Avenue. (5> Adequate storage is needed for the dual left-turn lane on the west approach of 80th Street to prevent spillback from stacking vehicles. Based on the analysis approximately 400 feet of storage is needed without the traffic generated by the new parking facility at HHH, and 500 feet is needed with the additional traffic from the pazking ramp. cep City staff expressed concern that an at-grade intersection at this location would not be a practical design due to the proximity to TH 77. In response, a southbound TH 77 to eastbound Lindau "fly-over" ramp has been proposed to eliminate left turns into the Met Center site at this intersection. This level of service reflects the inclusion of the fly- . over ramp. Additionally, channelization will restrict traffic from southbound TH 77 from turning into the existing Mall of America driveway at this intersection. ~~~ Due to proposed channelization at the 20th Avenue driveway, it is assumed that all eastbound traffic originating from southbound TH 77 that wishes to access the existing Mall of America site will use this driveway. In addition, southbound TH 77 traffic that does not use the fly-over ramp can access the Met Center site at this intersection. c$) A dual leR-turn lane is recommended on the west approach of Killebrew Drive due to-queuing. ALTERNATIVES INTERSECTION NO-BUILD ALT.1 ALT. 3B 24th Avenue and I-494 Rams C or better D D 34th Avenue and I-494 North Ram s~'~ F~2} Fcz> F~2> 34th Avenue and I-494 South Ram s~'~ F~2~ F~Z~ F~31 Thunderbird Drive and East 79th Street C or better C or better C or better 79th Street Eastern Drivewa to Met Center Site -- C or better C or better 24th Avenue and East 79th Street -- -- -- 24th Avenue and East 80th Street C or better C or better C or better 28th Avenue and East 80th Street C or better C or better~4~ C or better~4~ 34th Avenue and East 80th Street~5~ C or better C or better C or better 20th Avenue and Lindau Lane C or better C or better~b~ C or better 22nd Avenue and Lindau Lane C or better C or better~'~ C or better 24th Avenue and Lindau Lane C or better C or better C or better 24th Avenue and East 82nd Street C or better C or better C or better 82nd Street and Ad'acent Lands North Drivewa -- C or better C or better 20th Avenue and Killebrew Drive C or better C or better~g~ C or better~8~ 22nd Avenue and Killebrew Drive C or better C or better C or better 24th Avenue and Killebrew Drive C or better C or better C or better Old Shako ee Road and Ad'acent Lands South Drivewa -- C or better C or better 28th Avenue and Old Shako ee Road C or better C or better C or better Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 54 - 08/10/00 4.1.5 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 4.1.5.1 Regional System Impacts Increased intensity of development within the developed areas of the region is one of the objectives of the Metropolitan Council's regional growth policies. Intense development within the MOA area is consistent with these policies. The density and type of development at the existing MOA and the proposed expansion increase the utilization of shared or "linked" trips and transit service for trips to/from the site, thereby reducing the total number of site trips generated (compared to the same land uses at "typical" development densities). The existing MOA is served by 21 transit routes, with transit ridership accounting for approximately 4.5 percent of all person trips in the Airport South area (see Sections 4.1.1.3 and 4.1.2.3). Development of the MOA expansion would further increase the transit ridership percentage for the area, including providing an additional source of riders for the proposed Hiawatha Avenue Corridor LRT line, thereby reducing local and regional traffic impacts related to the proposed development. There are segments of the regional transportation system within the MOA travelshed that are forecast to operate under congested conditions in year 2020 (described in Section 4.1.3 in Table 18). Many of these segments are projected to be congested under both the No Build and the Build alternatives. For those segments that are congested only for Build alternatives the segment is already approaching the congestion threshold under the No Build alternative. The MOA Phase 2 traffic is a relatively minor contributor (six percent or less) to the traffic in the segment. No additional regional system improvements are proposed in conjunction with the MOA expansion. Substantial improvements to the regional system have already been made by the City and Mn/DOT (based on previous forecasts that included both Phase l .and 2 MOA traffic). In addition, the MOA expansion contributes less than six percent of traffic to the regional system, and transit is heavily used in the MOA area. 4.1.5.2 Local System Impacts Based on the analysis of potential local transportation system impacts described in Section 4.1.4 it is concluded that Mall of America expansion (and other "background" development assumed to occur in the Airport South District) can be supported by the existing roadway system with minor modifications (described below). The suggested modifications listed below would be in addition to the local roadway improvements already planned for implementation by the City of Bloomington (see Table 22 in Section 4.1.4.2). 34th Avenue and East 80th Street -Additional storage is needed for the dual left-turn lane on the west approach of 80th Street for stacking vehicles. Based on the analysis approximately 400 feet of storage is needed without the traffic generated by the new parking facility at the HHH terminal. With the additional traffic, 500 feet of storage is needed. This improvement is needed even if the MOA expansion is not constructed (i.e. for No Build alternative conditions). Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 55 - 08/10/00 28th Avenue and East 80th Street -The installation of protective/permissive phasing on the south approach of 28th Avenue. 20th Avenue and Killebrew Drive -The addition of a left-turn lane on the west approach of Killebrew Drive to provide dual left-turn lanes due to queuing. 20th Avenue/22nd Avenue and Lindau Lane -Based on forecast traffic volumes for the existing Mall of America and the Met Center site, Lindau Lane would operate at an acceptable overall level of service with construction of improvements at the MOA entrances on Lindau Lane, such as the "fly-over" ramp shown in Figure 3A and construction of additional lanes and channelization/turning-movement restrictions at the 20th Avenue access. However, the existing MOA and MOA expansion (Met Center) site driveway approaches to Lindau Lane at 20th and 22nd Avenues may experience operational problems due to limited availability of space for vehicle storage and internal site circulation in the vicinity of the intersections. This would not affect traffic flow on Lindau Lane, but will be an area that will be examined in greater detail in the Final EIS and in site development plan review, to ensure that adequate lane storage is provided for exiting MOA traffic queues. 4.2 VEHICLE-RELATED AIR EMISSIONS Carbon Monoxide (CO) is the traffic-related pollutant of most concern in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has established Minnesota Ambient Air Quality Standards. The State standards (or maximum permissible concentrations) for CO is 30 parts per million (ppm) fora 1-hour period (average concentration), and 9 ppm for an 8-hour period (average concentration). 4.2.1 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS Concentrations of CO are generally highest at intersections with poor levels of service and, consequently, more idling vehicles. As described in Section 4.1.4, all of the major intersections within the project area were analyzed to determine both present and forecasted (year 2007 and year 2020) levels of service. Peak hour traffic volumes used for this analysis assumed that the proposed "background" development on other properties in the Airport South District and the new parking ramp for the Hubert H. Humphrey (HHH) terminal at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International airport are constructed and operational by 2007. Based on consultation with the MPCA, it was agreed that carbon monoxide analysis would be performed at all intersections projected to operate at level of service D or worse for year 2007, thereby accounting for project area conditions one year after the proposed project's completion. The three intersections analyzed, the results of which are discussed below, are the intersection of I-494 at 34th Avenue, I-494 at 24th Avenue and 80th Street at 34th Avenue. Intersection operations modeling using SYNCHRO modeling indicated that the intersections of 24th Avenue and 34th Avenue with I-494 operated at LOS D or worse. Analysis of the 80th Street/34th Avenue intersection indicated potential operational problems with specific moves, so it was also included in the air quality analysis (even though SYNCHRO modeling for year 2007 indicated LOS C operation). Modeling for air quality analyses included the assumption that local roadway improvements identified in Section 4.1..4 were completed. Mall OfAmerica Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 56 - 08/10/00 • • • Carbon monoxide concentrations were projected using the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Mobile SA emission model and the CAL3QHC dispersion model. The modeling assumptions used in this analysis were as follows: Cold Start Percentage: Cruise Speed: Analysis Year: Traffic Mix: Wind Speed: Temperature: Surface Roughness: Stability Class: Inspection Maintenance: Oxygenated Fuel Eight Hour Persistence Factor: Wind Direction: 20.6 percent for intersection traffic 30 mph 2007 National default values 1 meter/second 20 degrees F 151 centimeters D No Yes 0.7 36 directions at 10 degree intervals 4.2.2 BACKGROUND CO LEVELS Background CO concentrations were monitored for two weeks (February 22, 2000 through March 7, 2000) in the vicinity of the project area. For analysis purposes, these background concentrations were adjusted for anticipated region-wide increases in traffic .volumes (using traffic growth factors based on the forecasting process described irr Section 4.1) and decreases in vehicle emissions (to adjust for anticipated decreases in carbon monoxide emissions resulting from vehicle emission controls). These factors are regionally accepted standards for urbanized areas with development characteristics similar to that found in the Airport South District; they were not derived from the traffic forecasting process discussed in Section 4.1. In addition, because monitoring was conducted during the spring, a temperature correction factor (Holzworth correction factor) of 1.43 was used. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 25. The worst-case concentration represents the highest levels of carbon monoxide concentration predicted in the model, the variable in this instance being wind direction. TABLE 25 CALCULATION OF CO BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS (2000 Existing Conditions). 2007 Factor 1-Hour 8-Hour Maximum 2000 Monitored Concentration (ppm) 2.7 1.6 Background Traffic Volume Adjustment Factor 1.34 1.34 Emission Adjustment Factor 0.84 0.84 Holzworth (temperature) Correction 1.43 1.43 Worst-Case Background Concentration (ppm) 4.4 2.6 Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 57 - 08/10/00 ~~ • ~....~ 4.2.3 CARBON MONOXIDE MODELING RESULTS The carbon monoxide concentration analyses were based on forecast traffic volumes and optimized signal timing at the three analyzed intersections. Traffic volumes were developed as discussed in the traffic analysis section of this Draft EIS .(Section 4.1.2). Receptor locations were sited within a 1,000-foot radius of the analyzed intersections and are depicted in Figure 8. The precise siting of carbon monoxide receptors was based on the likelihood of human outdoor activity occurring in excess of one hour, thus accounting for the MPCA's method of quantifying adverse air quality impacts based on hours of exposure. Locations chosen include entrances to hotels and office parks, as well as areas where the likelihood of human outdoor activity is low but where receptors were sited in order to remain within the 1,000-foot radius of the analyzed intersection. The analyses were performed for year 2007 No Build and for Build Alternatives 1 and 3B The "worst-case" build alternatives represent the most intensive development scenarios at the Met Center and Adjoining Lands parcels, respectively. The concentration for each receptor. is included (for 1-hour and 8-hour averages at each location) in the "Modeled" column of Tables 26 through 28. The "Total" columns reflect carbon monoxide concentrations occurring after factoring in background concentrations occurring in the project area. The wind direction column in each table indicates the worst case conditions for carbon monoxide concentrations occurring at that location, with wind direction being the operative variable. 4.2.3.1 No Build Table 26 presents the results of the No Build air quality analysis. This analysis establishes the baseline against which to analyze potential traffic-related air quality impacts arising from construction of the any of the proposed Build alternatives. In no instances are state standards for carbon monoxide concentration exceeded at the receptor locations under the No Build alternative. 4.2.3.2 Alternative 1 Table 27 presents the results of the analysis of air quality impacts anticipated to occur under Build Alternative 1. At all receptor locations, the one-hour and eight-hour modeling results do not exceed State standards. 4.2.3.3 Alternative 3B Table 28 presents the results of the analysis of air quality impacts anticipated to occur under Alternative 3B. At all receptor locations, the one-hour and eight-hour modeling results do not exceed State standards. Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 58 - 08/10/00 ,_ w'' ~, ~, ;' ~ ~'~' ,~~ ;~^ z r- ~ ~ a ~ ~~ . ~ .. k ~ ~ ~~ X e.# _ .ra 7, ~,.,~ ,. ~-' QQ ~~ ~~~ 1.111 A~ .> .. N `~ ~ : ~ ~x.~~ ~~ . i t ~~ r - ~ K~~ '~ ~ .~° r a w e r. _ ,- ~ ~ ~i .' _.. _ = x ~v y « s r ~ rr 1 ~~i~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~~~ ~, , ~ ~,~~ ~ _, ,. ~ - ~ . _ c3 ~ .y ~'Y.t a.;< ~~ , ~ _ ~ " u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~`-~ ` ~ ~~ ~ r' ,~ ~ 'fir t' ti~u ~ar..i. ~ j i~ ~ 4~a -.~ ~ ' ~,p "~' ~ ~', ~ ~ ~ ~" a ~° -~k ~,_ _ ~ -., i 1 r -y t v~ • a - 1p r t S' _ 7 r s ~ ~ `~ i r ~ ~ ~° '' t ~ f ~ 7'~ ~ A y + ? " ~ $ : is 'f i '1~' _` _~ ~ . f ~" t ~~ F .~ a ~' ~ G'- ~ i n F . ~' ~ i._ APA- x;~ w z+~' £ ~ ~ fit. 1~_ 1 w r,~ p O -'t ~, ~F ,. ~. ~ ~ t ~ ~~ ,.. .- y ._ ~ .~~- - '`t. , . , ~ •. ~ _, f 3 y~ _ ~ e~ _ ~ ~ J ~ ~s; s y ~ i~~ r r~~^ ~ "- t rk ,~ ~ ~ ~ f 2 'r ~ S~'TMr '"`U11k~e a s ` ;~ `. F 7 ~ 1~ ,-'~~!'bk,. ' ++~w ;~ ~ ~ ~ A ;-+ ~. , S , ~_. °`' ~'"' ai[ ,i .~ £ ~ K ~ z~T-{ Y fir' wy~ x urn-r . ~ ~~~, - r'" ~ ~ ' r-yY~r41~~r ~ 'r' 3 ~ r,{ L st.' `i . a r ._ :: ., , x r, ~ ~ ~, o- .~~ ~Y '. E .~~ ,- i '~ - ' ~ r+ i~l w 0 .O W O U r o. 0 a C7 C7 z F .1 7 Z O •~ Z O Q J O a V \~ /\ Z 0 V W Q rrr VJ W Z W W $- m 2 N • r~ ~~ TABLE 26 MODELED CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS' (2007 No Build Conditions) Receptor Description 1-Hour Modeled 8-Hour Modeled 1-Hour Tota12 8-Hour Tota12 Wind Direction I-494 at 34th Avenue Receptor 1 1.9 1.3 6.3 3.9 110 Receptor 2 2.1 1.5 6.5 4.1 210 Receptor 8 1.8 1.3 6.2 3.9 60 Receptor 9 2.5 1.8 6.9 4.4 320 80th Street at 34th Avenue Receptor 3 6.6 4.6 11.0 7.2 280 Receptor 4 1.4 1.0 5.8 3.6 30 Receptor 5 3.2 2.2 7.6 4.8 340 Receptor 6 1.1 0.8 5.5 3.4 220 Receptor 7 0.7 0.5 5.1 3.1 60 Receptor 10 1.8 1.3 6.2 3.9 110 I-494 at 24th Avenue Receptor 11 1.2 0.8 5.6 3.4 150 Receptor 12 1.2 0.8 5.6 3.4 200 Receptor 13 0.9 0.6 5.3 3.2 310 Receptor 14 0.8 0.6 5.2 3.2 70 State Standards 30 9 Notes: ' CO concentrations are in parts per million (ppm). 2 Includes modeled CO concentration plus the CO background for 1- and 8-hour averages of 4.4 ppm and 2.6 ppm, respectively. Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 60 - 08/10/00 TABLE 27 MODELED CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS' (2007 Build Conditions, Alternative 1) • Receptor Description 1-Hour Modeled2 8-Hour Modeled2 1-Hour Tota13 8-Hour Tota13 Wind Direction I-494 at 34th Avenue Receptor 1 2.0 1.4 6.4 4.0 110 Receptor 2 2.5 1.8 6.9 4.4 210 Receptor 8 2.4 1.7 6.8 4.3 70 Receptor 9 2.9 2.0 7.3 4.6 300 80th Street at 34th Avenue Receptor 3 7.0 4.9 11.4 7.5 280 Receptor 4 1.6 1.1 6.0 3.7 30 Receptor 5 4.2 2.9 8.6 5.5 340 Receptor 6 1.5 1.1 5.9 3.7 340 Receptor 7 0.8 0.6 5.2 3.2 60 Receptor 10 2.2 1.5 6.6 4.1 110 I-494 at 24th Avenue ' Receptor 11 1.6 1.1 6.0 3.7 150 Receptor 12 1.8 1.3 6.2 3.9 200 Receptor 13 1.2 0.8 5.6 3.4 290 Receptor 14 1.2 0.8 5.6 3.4 70 State Standards 30 9 Notes: CO concentrations are m parts per miwon (ppm). z Includes modeled CO concentration plus the CO background for 1- and 8-hour averages of 4.4 ppm and 2.6 ppm, respectively. Mall OfAmerica Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 61 - 08/10/00 TABLE 28 MODELED CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS (2007 Build Conditions, Alternative 3B) • Receptor Description 1-Hour Modeled 8-Hour Modeled 1-Hour TotalZ 8-Hour Tota12 Wind Direction I-494 at 34th Avenue Receptor 1 1.9 1.3 6.3 3.9 110 Receptor 2 2.8 2.0 7.2 4.6 210 Receptor 8 2.5 1.8 6.9 4.4 70 Receptor 9 3.1 2.2 7.5 4.8 280 80th Street at 34th Avenue Receptor 3 7.2 5.0 11.6 7.6 280 Receptor 4 1.9 1.3 6.3 3.9 30 Receptor 5 5.0 3.5 9.4 6.1 340 Receptor 6 2.1 1.5 6.5 4.1 310 Receptor 7 1.2 0.8 5.6 3.4 60 Receptor 10 2.4 1.7 6.8 4.3 110 I-494 at 24th Avenue Receptor 11 1.8 1.3 6.2 3.9 150 Receptor 12 2.0 1.4 6.4 4.0 200 Receptor 13 1.5 1.1 5.9 3.7 290 Receptor 14 1.5 1.1 5.9 3:7 80 State Standards 30 9 Notes: ` CO concentrations are m parts per million. ZIncludes modeled CO concentration plus the CO background for 1- and 8-hour averages of 4.4 ppm and 2.6 ppm, respectively. 4.2.4 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS While both Build Alternatives would result in increased carbon monoxide. concentrations from the No Build condition, predicted increases are 1.0 ppm or less for Alternative 1 and 1.8 ppm or less for Alternative 3B. The concentration closest to the State Standard occurs at Receptor 3 showing. a predicted 8-hour concentration of 7.6 ppm for the Alternative 3B condition. The State Standard for 8-hour average carbon monoxide concentration is 9.0 ppm. 4:2.5 PERMITTING An update to the Airport South District Indirect Source Permit (ISP) will be required prior to project construction. Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 62 - 08/10/00 4.2.6 MITIGATION There are no specific air quality. mitigation measures proposed for the proposed Build Alternatives. Build Alternative are not predicted to exceed State air quality standards. The analysis of air quality impacts was predicated, in part, on assumptions for local roadway system improvements. These improvements are described in Sections 4.1.4 and 4.1.5.2. 4.3 TRAFFIC NOISE All of the Build Alternatives will increase traffic volumes in the study area. Increases in traffic often result in increased noise levels, which can be perceived as an annoyance by adjacent residents. Traffic noise impacts related to the Build and No Build Alternatives were modeled at sensitive receptor sites. Sensitive receptor sites include residences and hotels in the Airport South area. The effect of Build and No Build traffic noise impacts was modeled at "sensitive" receptor sites (e.g., residences, hotels, etc.) likely to be most affected by increases in traffic resulting from construction of the proposed project. Major existing noise sources located within and near the project area include the aircraft noise originating at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and traffic. noise generated on TH 77 and I-494. The information presented in this section is based on analysis of both existing and anticipated traffic-generated noise only. Aircraft noise is not analyzed because the proposed project would have no impact on noise originating from aircraft traffic. A discussion of aircraft noise impacts on the proposed development is presented in Section 4.4. 4.3.1 TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS Noise levels are measured in anon-linear scale in units of decibels. The decibel scale is adjusted to emphasize those sound frequencies that humans hear best. This adjusted scale is referred to as A-weighted decibels or dB(A). All references to decibels in this text are to A-weighted decibels. Noise from roadway traffic increases as the amount of traffic on the roadway increases. However, noise does not increase proportionately with traffic volumes. For example, a doubling of traffic volume (doubling sound energy) results in a noise level increase of approximately 3 decibels, which is barely perceptible to the average person. A tenfold increase in traffic volume, resulting in an increase of 10 decibels, sounds to the average person as if the noise has become about twice as loud. According to the MPCA publication, "An Introduction to Sound Basics," noise level changes of 3 decibels in an outdoor setting are barely perceptible, and changes of less than 3 decibels are imperceptible to most people. Along with the volume of traffic and other factors that contribute to the loudness of traffic noise (i.e., topography of the area and vehicle speed), the distance of a receptor from a noise source is also an important factor. Noise levels decrease as distance from a source increases. A rule of thumb commonly used is that beyond approximately 50 feet, each time the distance between a line source (such as a road) and a receptor is doubled, noise levels decrease by 3 decibels over hard ground (i.e., pavement or water) or by 4.5 decibels over vegetated areas. • Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 63 - 08/10/00 Because traffic-generated noise can vary considerably. over relatively short time periods, noise level measurements oftraffic-generated noise are expressed as the percent of time a noise level is at or greater than a benchmark level. Traffic noise monitoring and analysis results are typically reported as Llo or LSO levels where the L indicates the noise level and the subscript number indicates the percent of time that level was reached or exceeded during a measurement period. For example, an Lio value of 70 decibels means that the noise level was at or greater than 70 decibels during 10 percent of the measurement period (i.e. more than 6 minutes per one hour). 4.3.2 NOISE REGULATION The MPCA is the governmental regulatory agency responsible for implementing regulations controlling traffic noise in Minnesota. Under Minnesota Statute 116.07, Subdivisions 2 and 4, the MPCA has developed Noise Pollution Control Rules (Minnesota Rules Chapter 7010.001- 7010.008). These rules set noise standards for all noise sources using three Noise Area Classifications (NAC) corresponding to type of land use. The NAC with the most stringent noise standards (Classification 1) includes residential, medical, religious and entertainment uses. A 1997 amendment to the statute exempts all non-state-owned (town, city or county) roadways from noise standards except in Minneapolis and St. Paul. In addition, this exemption applies to all existing or newly constructed highway segments, provided that all reasonably available noise mitigation measures, as approved by the commissioners of Mn/DOT and the MPCA, are employed to abate noise. The statutes require employment of all reasonably available noise mitigation measures, not necessarily attainment of the noise standards: Different Minnesota State noise standards have been established for daytime and nighttime periods. The MPCA defines daytime as 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and nighttime as 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Daytime peak traffic volumes coincide with morning, and evening rush hours (typically 7:00 to 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 5:00. p.m.). "Nighttime" peak traffic volumes almost always occur during the 6:00 to 7:00 a.m. hour that is the beginning of the morning rush hour. For residential land uses (NAC-1), the Minnesota State standards for Llo are 65 decibels for the daytime and 55 decibels for nighttime; the standards for LSO are 60 decibels for daytime and 50 decibels for nighttime. The single-family residences located at the southwest corner of the Airport South District. would be classified as NAC-1 receptors. Noise Area Classification 2 standards (65 and 70 decibels for Llo and LSO, respectively, for both daytime and nighttime) are applied if a residential or hotel building has adequate acoustic insulation, year-round climate control, and has no accommodations .that are intended for outdoor use. For purposes of this analysis it was assumed that the existing and proposed hotel units and the residential units proposed as part of MOA expansion meet these criteria, allowing them to be compared using NAC-2 standards. Nighttime standards do not apply to commercial or industrial land uses. Daytime standards for commercial land uses are 70 decibels for Llo and 65 decibels for LSO. Industrial land use daytime standards are 80 decibels for LIO and 75 decibels for Lso• • Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 64 - OS/10/00 4.3.3 NOISE LEVEL MONITORING Noise-level monitoring is commonly performed during noise studies to measure existing noise levels at selected receptor locations. These can be used as a "baseline" against which future scenarios are compared. In addition, when studying future noise levels predicted with computer models, noise levels established by actual monitoring of existing conditions are often compared to computer-modeled results to validate techniques and results. Noise monitoring is typically performed for peak traffic hours. However, due to the presence of heavy aircraft noise in the project area during peak hours, noise levels were measured during an off-peak period for aircraft noise (from approximately 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.). During this off- peak period, traffic noise was observed to be the dominant noise source in the area and this period is therefore a more accurate indicator by which to compare measured noise levels to predicted noise levels. The selection of both noise monitoring and noise modeling sites was made with input from MPCA staff. Three sites were chosen for monitoring of existing noise levels (Receptors 1, 2 and 3 are shown in Figure 9). Monitoring site locations 1 and 2 were chosen to represent areas of current outdoor human activity (i.e., residential yards) which are also assumed to be present in year 2007. Monitoring site 3 represents a proposed location for residential land use in conjunction with MOA Expansion at the Met Center site (Build Alternatives 1 and 2); however, no outside activity would likely be associated with this location, since the units would be climate controlled with no outside grounds. Noise monitoring equipment consisted of a Larson-Davis Model' 700 dosimeter, a tripod and wind screen. No noise monitoring was conducted when wind speeds exceeded 17 kph (10 mph) or when wet roadway conditions were present. A trained noise-monitoring technician was present at each monitoring session for the entire session to ensure correct operation of the instrumentation, to gather data on the physical environment near the monitoring location, and to perform vehicle traffic counts. _. The results of daytime off-peak noise monitoring are shown in column two of Table 29. These results are compared to the results of computer-modeled predictions of off-peak existing noise levels to provide validation for computer-modeled results. The computer-modeled results are within 2 decibels of the monitored levels; therefore, the computer model can be considered to be a valid predictor of future noise levels. The remainder of this section discusses traffic noise impacts anticipated to occur based on computer-modeled noise analysis. • TABLE 29 DAYTIME OFF-PEAK NOISE ANALYSIS RESULTS - 2000 Modeled Rece for Monitored Modeled Lio Lso Lio Lso 1 64 54 63 56 2 65 59 65 58 3 66 61 - 64 60 Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 65 - 08/10/00 • • • r~~ } r . . ;~. +,~~ _ -_ ~ ~. _ _ ,. . ~lil J ~ ~I {_ ~~ , ..,, - ~ ~~ ,< + '~ ~ (' v ~ ' a t'a tt '~ I' _ ~~' ~~~ ~~ _ ~; r i - , s-~ ~~ - .-~.~ - ' ~~ x,~ ruic ~ L~P--.-- ~~ . - ~ - ..-.. r + • , ~, ~, .. F __ r-' ~ h ti ~*- i ~ ( __ _ti, ~. I _ _ _+ .~» _ 1 ~.v ~. - ~ _. i --,- .. z~. w, a 1 1 -~ s rt J L ~ ~2.. i ~ r.,;~~.'.,.: I ~.+ ° per _.i9 :q - jf ~. , j{,~I ~ -L-'- ' 'c ~ 1,;," r t -~ ~.. ~ ~ '. ~y ~~! ~' ~ J~'. A.. .' 1 „'.fit' ~ ~ ~ i F'~ ~ .. 4. '~.: t II _ ~~ i1 tE~ ~ ~ .+ ! 114: ,.... -~'{~"'-~~ ~t ~}r~ey. 1( II ~ ,~ ~c ,--; I ~ ' t __ ,,,~ ~ ~ }~ _~`~ ~ ~ --~,F __ --~-_~ _ +'1 J - ~ `! ~ ~ ~~ ~ - .L p 1. ~ L 1: _._. ~I I ~~C-y wv~ I~ ~-.. ~ ) ~ ~ r -, t~ ~S,I i ~ ; I' ~ rYf,~.i .__,... ~~ +w. re' ~~ ~a..a:.r -- ~ r f;'r+aRa - -Y66' ~v rz "4 ~ ~ ~ + 114 t f+. I 1 ' ~ ~.- ' ~--~~~~ ~ . i +t `:~` } J J 'l ~~ 10 ~+~.. _~ t-~ i! F-+- 4.3.4 NOISE MODELING METHODOLOGY Noise modeling receptors were selected to represent those sites most sensitive to potential traffic noise impacts resulting from construction of the proposed project, namely existing and proposed residential areas (See Figure 9). Receptors 1 and 2 represent existing residential neighborhoods to the south of the Mall of America that could be affected by increases in area traffic volumes resulting from the proposed project. Receptors 3 and 6 represent the areas of proposed residential use under the proposed Build Alternatives ..(Receptor 3 corresponds to Alternatives 1 and 2, and Receptor 6 corresponds to Alternatives 3A and 3B). Receptors 4 and 5 represent the locations of proposed hotels on the Olnick and Metro Office Park properties in the Airport South District, and in the vicinity of the proposed project. All receptor sites are classified within the definition of State of Minnesota .Noise Area Classification One (NAC-1) for residential and .transient lodging areas. However, because receptors 3 - 6 are assumed to be provided with mitigating improvement such as year-round climate control and no areas meant for outdoor activity, standards for NAC-2 have been applied for comparing predicted noise levels to state standards. Projected noise levels were produced by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) noise prediction model STAMINA 2.0, with Mn/DOT modifications. Forecast traffic volumes for peak daytime and nighttime periods one year after completion of the proposed project (2007) were used to predict noise levels. Forecast traffic volumes for the two worst case scenarios, Build Alternatives 1 and 3B, for traffic generation (see Section 4.1.2.4) were used in this analysis. Existing speed limits were assumed for vehicle speeds, and the. vehicle mix was assumed to be 97 percent automobiles and light trucks, two-percent medium trucks and one- percent heavy trucks. 4.3.5 NOISE MODELING RESULTS Traffic noise modeling results for 2007 (one year after completion of the proposed project) are presented in Tables 30 through 33. Both daytime and nighttime Llo and LSO are shown for three project alternatives: No-Build, Alternative 1, and Alternative 3B. TABLE 30 DAYTIME Leo NOISE ANALYSIS RESULTS (MODELED) Receptor Daytime Standard Existing (2000) No-Build 2007 Build 2007 Alternative 1 Build 2007 Alternative 3B 1 65 66 67 68 68 2 65 68 69 69 69 3 70* 66 67 68 67 4 70* 64 64 65 65 5 70* 63 64 64 64 6 70* 59 60 61 62 Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 67 - 08/10/00 TABLE 31 NIGHTTIME Leo NOISE ANALYSIS RESULTS (MODELED) • Receptor Nighttime Standard Existing (2000) No-Build 2007 Build 2007 Alternative 1 Build 2007 Alternative 3B 1 55 63 64 66 65 2 55 65 66 67 66 3 70* 63 64 66 65 4 70* 61 62 64 63 5 70* 60 61 63 62 6 70* 57 58 60 60 TABLE 32 DAYTIME L50 NOISE ANALYSIS RESULTS (MODELED) Receptor Daytime Standard Existing (2000) No-Build 2007 Build 2007 Alternative 1 Build 2007 Alternative 3B 1 60 60 61 62 63 2 60 62 63 63 64 3 65* 64 65 65 65 4 65* 61 62 62 62 5 65* 62 62 63 63 6 65* 57 58 59 60 TABLE 33 NIGHTTIME L50 NOISE ANALYSIS RESULTS (MODELED) Receptor Nighttime Standard Existing (2000) No-Build 2007 Build 2007_. Alternative 1 Build 2007 Alternative 3B 1 50 56 57 59 59 2 50 58 59 60 59 3 65* 60 61 63 62 4 65* 57 58 60 59 5 65* 58 59 61 60 6 65* 53 54 57 56 Bold noise levels exceed State noise standards * Noise Area Classification 2 standards are referenced for these proposed receptors because they are expected to be climate controlled year-round and without outdoor activity areas. 4.3.5.1 Summary of Results by Receptor Location Receptor 2, located on the corner of Old Shakopee Road and East 86th Street, is modeled to have the highest daytime and nighttime peak Llo in all instances, including existing conditions, while Receptor 3 located close to the intersection of I-494 and TH 77 is predicted to have the highest Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 68 - 08/10/00 LSo noise levels. The proximity to the constant noise sources of I-494 and TH 77 can account for the higher mean (L5o) noise level experienced at Receptor 3, while Receptor 2, further away from these main arteries, may be subject to intermittent noise events occurring along Old Shakopee Road. Receptors 1 and 2 are currently at or above NAC-1 standards and will continue to exceed state noise standards established for NAC-1 receptors under all project alternatives including the No Build Alternative. Receptors 3 .through 6 are not anticipated to exceed state noise standards established for NAC-2 receptors, even under the most intensive development alternatives represented by Alternative 1 and Sub-Alternative 3B. 4.3.5.2 Summary of Results By Alternative Alternative 1 An increase in noise levels from the No Build condition is predicted to occur if Alternative 1 was constructed. Llo noise levels are higher for Build Alternative 1 compared to No Build conditions at all receptors during the nighttime peak traffic hour, and at all but two receptors (Receptors 2 and 5) during daytime peak traffic. Differences in levels are slight, however, ranging between one and two decibels in the nighttime and one decibel during the daytime peak hour. As noted previously, noise-level increases of less than three decibels are imperceptible to most persons. Changes in the Lso levels follow a similar pattern. -Build Alternative 1 nighttime levels are one to three decibels higher, compared to No Build, at all receptors. ' The largest (three-decibel) increase occurs at Receptor 6, located at the proposed Adjoining Lands development. During the daytime peak hour there is no difference in Lso noise at Receptors 3 and 4 between No Build and Build Alternative 1 conditions; however, the rest of the receptors are predicted to have a one- - decibel increase for Build Alternative 1 conditions. Alternative 3B Build Alternative 3B results in one- to two-decibel higher noise levels compared to No Build conditions in Llo noise levels for three receptors, 1, 3 and 6, during the daytime. At night, the model predicts one to two decibel higher levels for Build Alternative 3B compared to No Build at all receptors but one, Receptor 2. Increases in L50 levels are similar, with higher Build Alternative 3B nighttime noise levels (one to two decibels difference at all receptors but Receptor 2) and daytime increases of one to two decibels at all receptors but 3 and 4. Conclusions Increases in traffic noise resulting from any of the proposed Build alternatives will generally not be perceptible. Projected traffic noise increases for proposed Build alternatives are two decibels or less, except at Receptor 6 (at the Adjoining Lands parcel) where noise levels are projected to increase three decibels from No Build to the Build Alternative 3B (i.e., highest intensity of development on the Adjoining Lands) scenario. Athree-decibel increase in outdoor traffic noise is the human threshold of perceptible changes in sound. Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 69 - 08/10/00 Proposed and existing residential and hotel land uses in the Airport South District would not experience traffic noise levels above state standards established for NAC-2 receptors under any of the Build Alternatives. Existing residential areas (Receptors 1 and. 2) currently exceed state standards for NAC-1 receptors and would continue. to do so under all Build alternatives. However, with increases in noise levels of one to two decibels between No Build and Build conditions, noise-level increases would be imperceptible to most persons. 4.3.6 MITIGATION Because no perceptible traffic noise increases are predicted to result from the proposed Build alternatives, no mitigation for traffic noise is proposed. 4.4 AIRPORT NOISE When the new north-south runway at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport opens, the change in flight patterns will result in increases in air traffic over the Airport South District. Federal and state regulations are in place to ensure the compatibility of land uses adjacent to airports with anticipated noise exposure occurring in these areas. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements to ensure land use compatibility are detailed. in regulations known as Part 150 (FAA Part 150, Section A150.101) in which compatible land uses are defined based on yearly day-night average sound levels measured in decibels. According to Part 150 regulation, in the 65 - 70 day-mght noise level (DNL) range (the Met Center site and the western portion of the .existing MOA site), the FAA finds transient lodging and residential uses acceptable if the community determines they may be allowed and indoor noise level reductions of at least 25 decibels are achieved. Residential and transient lodging land uses are acceptable in the 70 -75 DNL range (Adjoining Lands and the eastern portion. of the existing MOA site), if indoor noise level reductions of 30 decibels are achieved. The Metropolitan Council delineates "noise exposure zones" in their Aviation Policy Plan, December 1996 that are defined based on predicted noise levels from FAA Part 150 noise analysis. Land-Use Compatibility Guidelines described in the Aviation Policy Plan list uses compatible with. the various zones based on noise exposure. The residential (condominium) areas in the Met Center site fall within noise zone 3, with a yearly day-night noise level (DNL) of 65 - 70 decibels. The Metropolitan Council finds residential land-uses provisionally acceptable within this noise zone if certain requirements are met, namely that the buildings must be climate controlled year-round with an internal noise level of 45 decibels and no planned outdoor activities. The Adjoining Lands parcel is in Metropolitan Council noise zone 2, with predicted average day- night noise levels of 70 - 75 decibels. The Metropolitan Council has the same guidelines for residences in this noise zone as those established for noise zone 3: year-round climate control, no outdoor' activities, and an indoor noise level of 45 decibels. (Note: Table 7 of the 1996 Aviation Policy Plan shows all residential uses as inconsistent land uses, defined as Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 70 - OS/1 D/00 unacceptable even with acoustical treatment and limited outdoor use. However, after consultation with Metropolitan Council staff, it was determined that this is a typographical error, and that multiplex residences in noise exposure zones 2 - 4 are provisionally acceptable as explained above.) Transient lodging (hotel) is also an acceptable land use at the existing MOA site and the Adjoining Lands parcel for Build Alternatives 3A and 3B, based on Metropolitan Council Aviation Policy Plan Land Use Compatibility guidelines. The Adjoining Lands parcel is located in noise zone 2 and the existing MOA is located in noise zones 2 and 3 (east and west portions of the site, respectively). The Metropolitan Council finds transient lodging provisionally acceptable in all of these noise zones subject to the performance standards prescribed in the metropolitan area Aircraft Noise Attenuation Act (MS 473.192) are met. If appropriate construction plans are followed, allowing for the necessary reductions in indoor noise levels, all proposed Build Alternative land uses would be consistent with both Metropolitan Council and .FAA land use compatibility guidelines. 4.5 WATER QUALITY/SURFACE WATER RUNOFF This secfion addresses storm water quantity and quality issues in relation to the No Build Alternative and the three Build alternatives. As with the traffic and air quality analyses, the land use assumptions includes the Met Center site and all adjacent Airport South development through the year 2006 (background sites) to provide for a comprehensive analysis. Storm water , runoff in the Airport South area is primarily routed through City storm water collection, ' conveyance and treatment facilities with discharge to the Long Meadow Lake and to the Minnesota River. Specific land use assumptions are presented in Section 4.5.1 Alternatives Analyzed. A comprehensive analysis taking into consideration future development in.the Airport South area is consistent with the formal and informal comments received during the EIS scoping process from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District. The XP-SWMM model is utilized for the storm water quantity assessment and the P-8 model is utilized for the storm water quality assessment. Sections 4,5.2 XP-SWMM Quantity Modeling Results and Section 4.5.3 P-8 Water Quality Modeling Results provide summaries of analysis findings. Technical memoranda are provided Appendix 3 that provide a detailed description of water quantity and quality modeling assumptions and results. The DEIS surface water impact analyses take into consideration the difference between the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternatives in order to evaluate the specific effects of the proposed MOA expansion. A comparison of surface water quantity and quality analyses for existing and modeled conditions provides information on cumulative changes that would occur Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 71 - 08/10/00 in the Airport South area through the year 2006. This comparison will be the focus of the surface water impact analyses for the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) the City plans to conduct following completion of the MOA expansion EIS. 4.5.1 ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED Storm water analyses were conducted for the following conditions: 1. Existing Airport South land use with 1999 changes to the storm sewer configurations in the East Old Shakopee Road area adjacent to the new Ceridan Office building. 2. DEIS No Build Alternative including existing development sites and Airport South development through the year 2006. 3. DEIS Alternatives 1, 2, 3A and 3B including existing development sites and Airport South development through the year 2006. The assumed conditions for the "background" development sites in Airport South include the best available information on future development and redevelopment. Table 34 summarizes the impervious area assumptions for the background development sites. Specific assumptions. are as follows: 1. The RPZ block is assumed to be converted to 100 percent pervious area. 2. A concept plan was available for the Metro Office Park re-development property. This plan was used to estimate impervious area for the site. Ponding was shown on the concept plan; however, no specific information was provided on pond design or sizing. This pond was not included in detention/treatment analysis assumptions. 3. A preliminary development plan was available for the planned Olnick property. This preliminary development plan included specific information on storm water pond design, and as a result was included in the XP-SWMM and P-8 modeling. 4. No specific plans were available for the Muir property. 5. No specific plans were provided for the Adjoining Lands for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3B; or for the Met Center site for Alternatives 3A or 3B. An assumption that the entire site would be impervious surface, except fora 5-foot-wide perimeter strip, was used in the analyses of these alternatives (see Table 34). This would represent a worst case scenario, 6. Adjoining Lands Build condition assumptions include removal of the existing detention pond as a "worst case" condition, since it is not known what type/size of storm water detention facility might be used at the site. • Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 72 - 08/10/00 • N Z O ~"' a N N Z J W C~ G W I~ J MU J LL Q~ ~ ~ '" '~ o. . ~ rn ~ , y 'C + c`~o . N O 4 J N ` 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F y ~ C f/~ y ~ ~ > 0 l~ Lam.' ~ N ~ ~ ~ ` W c ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ C o. ~ ~ O 3 ~ az+ O ~ ~ _ Cw d .y ~ ~ . V J 'X .~ ~E cNd y ~ • F ~ 'O t,• U N ~ fn ~ O lL U ~ :fl lC N e d H O `r C ~ V 1 N a ~- 'O m 0~ U 4 '4~+ '^'" '`"' ..+ Gd ~' O ~"' . .d . .. O N U y .~ W N U ~ o~ ~ i~ "'~ - vEa v ~vcGdc v v o • a E d O E G~ U O~ C ~ ~ O E~ U ,~ RI y~ O 4~ ~~ H ~ ~ H y ¢.~ c a? ~ ~c ~ a.~ ~~ c vN ~;d d '~ v d d .~ ~ v .~ c~a d d° d .~ ~ F -~ a--~ H `o d d w e >~ = a Q e o '~ o e o v o `q w z ~ , ~ 00 0O ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ Q M M ~ M . . ~ F Z z ~' a zo a ~ o 0 0 ~ e .Fd Ups(, h h a Q p ~ ~ h O N ~ Q ~ y Q a Q Q ~ C a~ F U Q C n. a q N N O M oo ^ p; ~ h h M M O ~ ~ N M G ~ 4 .. Q O O Q W h ' M N M N ~ O . . V 1 M N Z ;^ Qad o o ~ o ~ ~ o O ~ G 1 O O O O N t+l ~ V~Q C C C C oo M ^' ~ Gd > Z e "' h ~ z'O ~ o 0 0 o e o ~ h o W U C 7 V; ~O ~D O 7 N y a ~ ~ ~p ~p O ~ Q b Q D ~ m ~ w ~~ M M O O O M a0 h ~ O Z ~ a ~ ~ N •--~ N C v-, ... "~i ti O+ N „N.., ~ W ` Q E" M M ~-. .-~ h ~ M [~ ri ~ ia ] M h M N M N ~ r a V j M N a 7 O' ~ o o e o e e o 0 ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ v, o 00 , G w y a~+ vim". ~o ~o oNO ~ oM. c~ °' ~ c ~ CC W ~ M M O O v'? ~ ~ DO ~ ~ ~" v ~ h N N N N -- M ~ Q ~ J w m W ~ .-. M M ..r ry N ~ M ~ ~ v M N ~ N N F V) Vl M M N O 0.M1 c d N ~ O .~.'~ to >. M d d a ~ +~- ~' z d d ~" ~O a' U ~ w ~ •~ a a ~ p ~ a ,.a U U •o ~o Oa N b y .° F" ~ ~ dN d o G; ~ R' O F 0 ~o c 0 e o ~ ~ . ~ ~ .N~ i C U O ~ i C ~ y N '~Y y ~ N 9 M ~ p .D T 'O b L w w ~ C t N { iNy (Q Q N Q b C ~ n' i ~ 0 C ~' ~' N N v E ~ ~ ._ ~~ q ~ 3 ~ s._ ,~ w d o o v a ~ ~„ 00 ~' O ~ U Z ~ d N y d > E ~ ~p ~p £ ~ d ~ w °' U N~+ ~+ ~ G a~ o ~ ~ orD O ~ ~ ~ i ~b ~ ~ V] _ ~ ~ yy G. > O o >_ ~ d a ~~ ~a Q U .. ~ ~ ~ °o e'a ~ r°. o =' CT ~ ~ a oa as w a, z The modeling assumes that the MOA expansion Build alternatives do not differ significantly in the intensity of development planned, as related to storm water impacts. All four Build alternatives have the same basic land use characteristics and are assumed to result in the same percentage of impervious surface coverage. Therefore, no differentiation is made among the four Build alternatives in the storm water quantity or quality analyses. The comparison of analyses focus on the differences between Build (i.e. Alternatives 1, 2, 3A or 3B) and No Build conditions and, where applicable, how they relate to existing conditions. 4.5.2 XP-SWMM QUANTITY MODELING RESULTS Figure 10 shows the relationship of the potential MOA expansion sites (Met Center and Adjoining Lands) to the Airport South sub-drainage areas and the ultimate receiving water - Long Meadow Lake - in the Minnesota River bottomlands (in the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge). The Met Center and Adjoining Lands parcels are part of sub-drainage areas that flow to two storm water treatment ponds - Pond C and Hogback Pond -located in the Minnesota River valley. The amount of water flowing to Pond C and Hogback Pond varies, depending on flow volumes, due to the presence of a flow sputter in the storm sewer line. During low flows (less than 2S cfs), storm water is routed through Pond C. During high flows, flows in excess of 25 cfs from the northern portion of the watershed are routed through Hogback Pond, with 25 cfs flows continuing through to Pond C. Pond C also receives storm water from watershed sub-areas located west of TH 77 (i.e. west of the Airport South District). Figure 11 shows the full drainage area for Pond C, as well as the Airport South drainage areas. Table 34 shows the impervious area assumptions used in the XP-SWMM modeling.. The No Build alternative results in an approximately 38-acre (18 percent) decrease in impervious surfaces in the Airport South area, compared to existing conditions. The Build alternatives result in an approximately 26-acre (13 percent) decrease in impervious surface .area from existing conditions. As a result of decreased impervious areas, the overall discharges from the Airport South drainage area decrease for both No Build and Build conditions, compared to existing conditions, with greater reductions occurring under No Build conditions (see Table 34.) 4.5.3 P-8 WATER QUALITY MODELING RESULTS The .impervious area and planned development assumptions (including the planned detention/treatment ponds at the Olnick property) described previously were utilized in the P-8 modeling. Also, because the storm water inflows from west of TH 77 affect Pond C removal efficiencies, .modeling performed for this additional area was included in the water quality impact assessment for the Draft EIS. The P-8 analysis technical memorandum in Appendix 3 describes additional assumptions pertinent to the analysis. This analysis was used to compare relative (not absolute) loadings for common pollutants, in order to evaluate relative impacts of Build and No Build alternatives. The Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 74 - 08/10/00 494 a POND 85 s - ~ ~ ( ~ ~' J ' AIET CENTER ( --- - - ~ '.=i rr J ~ ~ O - ~ ~ ~ r____.~ , ~ © r ~ 1 ' _ / ~ i , ' ADJOINING ~ LANDS 1 ~ ' \ 1 ` ' , ' r I~ - - © Low & '`~ - -" I HIGH 1 177 <,~ FLOWS ~ ~ HIGH. POND I FLOWS HOGBACK RIDGE MARSH \ yW~ J ~/, ~~o~ 0 W ~~ ti ~Q Z ~,/ HocBacK LEGEND RIDGE POND - - WATERSHED BOUNDARY ----- SUBWATERSHED BOUNDARY D - EXISTING PONDING AREAS EXISTING FLOW SPLITTERS SEE "SMITH-WRIGHTS/ AO-© AIRPORT SOUTH SUBWATERSHEDS MAP" FOR EXPLANATIONS / (FIGURE ____ ) Consulting Group, Inc. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON AIRPORT SOUTH DISTRICT DRAINAGE AREA MAP MET CENTER SITE DRAFT .EIS 0 1500 • FEET FIGURE 10 SOS\3008\BASE\DAMAP1500b.DGN • • • y ~ ~ ~ Y y<~ J.Y~ ~ ~ .J V .- } ~ C MCI Yd yS~J M ~"7-Z-- ~ ~ O` Cl~i C1 ` i~ Gi m ~ ZCdM ZG pm ZO ZG W i 0~~~ 6 = JF O~ W KK CU' F~Y~ IN- F FW F F N U yZ V21 W S H M=m t+ H -ZiL fa~oZ ~i = ~ W G{JL~ ~ ~ ~a~D ~S ~`~~0000 0 OOQQQ M H ("' v N M C4. ~M b ~ ~`~ f ~ ~~~ ~~g~ 0 \ ~~ O WKJY. Q i NGY.~ W ~ 111 ~ ~ ~ 111 (/_'} Yf 0 OC N W d _--1 ~ ~ • O ~_. Z W O S _-1 ? ~ o Qr 0 0 ~ 0 ~ I-I ° N O ~ W - ~ Q U U ~ ~i N ~ U 1 - i 1 N 0 8+ TABLE 35 COMPARISON OF RUNOFF VOLUMES TYPE II / 2.5-INCH EVENT Node Name Location Baseline EIS No- Build % Change from Baseline Proposed Action % Change from Baseline Main Model 85U37 Outfall to Long Meadow Lake at 80th Street 8,2 7.17 -12.21% 7.17 -12.15% Pond C Outfall to Pond C 14.4 14.3 -0.25% 15.5 7.65% 23M42 Outfall to Hogback 37.7 33.6 -10.91% 36.5 -3.16% Secondary Model 86N7 Outfall to Long Meadow Lake off Old Shakopee Road g,7 6.0 4.57% 6.0 4.57% TOTAL 65.9 61.0 -7.41% 65.1 -1.25% Notes: (1) All runoff volumes are given in acre-feet. Analysis utilized two means of evaluating/comparing results: 1) comparison to MPCA (1989) expected range of removal efficiency for surface water treatment devices (ranges are defined in the technical memorandum) and 2) a +/- 5 percent difference in loading was considered to be a "significant" difference when comparing alternative conditions. Analysis of existing conditions indicates that Pond C is very important in removing pollutants from storm water flowing to Long Meadow Lake. Hogback Pond has a higher removal efficiency than Pond C, however, Pond C serves a larger drainage area. However, analysis of existing conditions indicates that Pond C does not meet expected removal efficiencies for any of the parameters modeled. This is due to the large drainage area for Pond C compared to its size, and due to the fact .that Pond C was constructed prior to the implementation of NURP or MPCA design guidelines. Analysis of No Build and Build alternatives water quality impacts show no significant difference between No Build and Build pollutant transport due to relatively small differences between storm water runoff quantities between the two scenarios. Comparison of Build and No Build loadings to existing conditions indicates that load reductions under No Build and Build conditions were not significant (i.e. less than 5 percent) except for Normal Year and High Precipitation Total Suspended Solids (TSS) load reductions. The No Build and Build improvements in water quality are due to the combined effects of slightly lower loadings (due. to less impervious surface) and increased detention/treatment at the Olnick property. • Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 77 - 08/10/00 4.5.4 MITIGATION Althou h the surface water quantity and quality modeling demonstrates that no significant g negative impacts would result from the proposed MOA expansion Build alternatives, a number of mitigation measures are planned for the proposed development to minimize surface water quantity and quality impacts. These measures are as follows: • Site design for the MOA expansion will include use of grit chamber(s) as a primary treatment device for site runoff and use of industrial sewers at parking ramp drainage areas to facilitate removal of particulates and oils from water prior to discharge to the City storm sewer. • MOA expansion site maintenance will include routine clean-up of debris to minimize floatables entering the City storm sewer system and sweeping of parking ramp areas to periodically remove particulates and surface residues, minimizing loadings to the storm sewer system. • Site facility design and operation that provides for containment of potentially contaminating liquids (e.g. cooling fluids) stored on-site. A spill prevention plan outlining procedures to be followed in the event of a spill, including spill containment and disposal, will also be developed. • If the MOA expansion were to occur on the Adjoining Lands property (resulting in an increase in impervious surface and removal of existing detention ponding area), on-site surface water detention would be required to be provided to maintain water discharges at or below existing rates, consistent with City and watershed district requirements. 4.6 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES The following issues were identified in the EAW scoping document as needing some level of discussion in the EIS; however, they will not be discussed with the same level of analysis or detail accorded to the issues identified previously: 4.6.1 EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION Erosion and sedimentation from soils exposed during MOA expansion site development would be minimized by utilizing the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction. BMPs would be identified in the final construction and site grading plans as required by NPDES permitting for construction sites. Siltation fences, bale checks and sedimentation basins would likely be used as temporary erosion control measures during the appropriate construction phases in accordance with the City's and the Lower Minnesota Watershed District's erosion/sediment control standards. After construction, all disturbed areas would be either paved or sodded to eliminate exposed soil surfaces. • Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 78 - 08/10/00 4.6.2 GROUNDWATER No existing water well locations have been identified on the project site. The previous development on the site was served by City water lines. No proposed activities related to the MOA expansion are anticipated to utilize or produce materials that could contaminate area groundwater. A file search was conducted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for the project site. The search revealed one former underground storage tank leak located in the northwestern perimeter of the project site. Based on information supplied to the MPCA regarding contamination levels remaining at the site, the leak site was "closed" by the. MPCA on November 1, 1995. The groundwater table in the vicinity of the Met Center site is estimated to be at 10 to 25 feet below the ground surface. Planned site development does not include construction below the groundwater table, with the possible. exception of building foundations in some locations. If foundations are at depths below the groundwater table, temporary dewatering would be required. If utilized, temporary dewatering would require permits from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (water appropriation) and MPCA (NPDES permit for water discharges). Although the leak site at the northwest corner of the Met Center site was "closed" according to MPCA records, testing of groundwater for contamination may be required prior to the MPCA issuing the NPDES discharge permit for temporary dewatering. IL 4.6.3 TRA S Two bikeways have been designated in the vicinity of the proposed project in the Hennepin County Bicycle System Plan (January; 1997). One is designated as a bikeway (on/off roadway) and runs along 79th Street through the City of Bloomington (along the north perimeter of the Met Center site) to 24th Avenue. A "secondary system" trail has been designated on 24th Avenue from 79th Street to just south of Killebrew Drive (along the east perimeter of the Met Center site). In conjunction with the proposed Met Center site development, 9-foot wide non-motorized off- street pathways would be constructed adjacent to both sides of 79th Street and the west side of 24th Avenue (north and east sides of the Met Center site). The 24th Avenue pathway would be an extension of the existing path on the east side of the MOA. Similarly, a 9-foot-wide pathway would also be provided on the south side of the site, adjacent to Lindau Lane. These pathways are consistent with the City's intent to provide off-street, non-motorized pathways adjacent to local roads in the vicinity of the MOA. C~ Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 79 - .08/10/00 5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES Based on the summary of potential environmental impacts described in Section 4.0, the following sections describe mitigation measures planned for implementation in conjunction with the MOA expansion development. 5.1 TRAFFIC IMPACTS 5.1.1 REGIONAL SYSTEM Increased intensity of development or smart growth within the developed areas of the region is one of the objectives of the Metropolitan Council's regional growth policies. Intense development within the MOA area is consistent with these policies.. The density and type of development at the existing MOA and the proposed expansion increase the utilization of shared or "linked" trips and transit service for trips to/from the site, thereby reducing the total number of site trips generated (compared to the same land uses at "typical" development densities). As described in Sections 4.1.1.3 and 4.1.2.3, the existing MOA is served by 21 transit routes, with transit ridership accounting for approximately 4.5 percent of all person trips in the Airport South area. Development of the MOA expansion would further increase the transit ridership percentage for the area, including providing an additional source of riders for the proposed Hiawatha Avenue Corridor LRT line, thereby reducing local and regional traffic impacts related to the proposed development. There are segments of the regional transportation system within the MOA travelshed that are forecast to operate under congested conditions in year 2020 (described in Section 4.1.3 in Table 18). Many of these segments are projected to be congested under both the No Build and the Build alternatives. For those segments that are congested only for Build alternatives the segment is already approaching the congestion threshold under the No Build alternative. The MOA Phase 2 traffic is a relatively minor contributor (six percent or less) to the traffic in the segment. No additional regional system improvements are proposed in conjunction with the MOA expansion. Substantial improvements to the regional system have already been made by the City and Mn/DOT (based on previous forecasts that included both Phase 1 and 2 MOA traffic). In addition, the MOA expansion contributes less than six percent of traffic to the regional system, and transit is heavily used in the MOA area. • Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 80 - 08/10/00 5.1.2 LOCAL SYSTEM local roadwa im rovements alread lanned in the vicini of the MOA (see In addition to the y p y p t3' listing in Table 22), the following improvements to local roadways will be needed to accommodate traffic generated by the MOA expansion Build alternatives: • 34th Avenue and East 80th Street -Additional storage is needed for the dual left-turn lane on the west approach of 80th Street for stacking vehicles. Based on the analysis approximately 400 feet of storage is needed without the traffic generated by the new parking facility at the HHH terminal. With the additional traffic, 500 feet of storage is needed. This improvement is needed even if the MOA expansion is not constructed (i.e. for No Build alternative conditions). • 28th Avenue and East 80th Street -The installation of protective/permissive phasing on the south approach of 28th Avenue. • 20th Avenue and Killebrew Drive -The addition of a left-turn lane on the west approach of Killebrew Drive to provide dual left-turn lanes due to queuing. • 20th Avenue/22nd Avenue/Lindau Lane -Based on forecast traffic volumes for the existing Mall of America and the Met Center site, Lindau Lane would operate at an acceptable overall level of service with construction of improvements at the MOA entrances on Lindau Lane, such as the "fly-over" ramp shown in figure 3A and construction of additional lanes and channelization/turning-movement restrictions at the 20th Street access. However, the existing MOA and MOA expansion (Met Center) site driveway approaches to Lindau Lane at 20th and 22nd Avenues may experience operational problems due to limited availability of space for vehicle storage and internal site circulation in the vicinity of the intersections. This would not affect traffic flow on Lindau Lane, but will be an area that will be examined in greater detail in the Final EIS and in site development plan review, to ensure that adequate lane storage is provided for exiting MOA traffic queues. 5.2 AIR QUALITY Air quality analysis assumed completion of the local roadway and site access intersection modifications described in Section 5.1.2 above. While increases in carbon monoxide concentrations are anticipated to result from MOA expansion, predicted increases are between 1.0 ppm (Alternative 1) and 1.8 ppm (Alternative 3B). The highest carbon monoxide concentration occurs at Receptor 3, in the vicinity of 80th Street at 34th Avenue, showing a predicted 8-hour average concentration of 7.6 ppm. Because State. air quality standards for 8-hour average carbon monoxide concentration are 9.0 ppm, and because in no instance are exceedances of this standard anticipated as a result of MOA expansion, no mitigation for air quality is proposed. Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 81 - 08/10/00 5.3 TRAFFIC NOISE ' e levels are antici ated to result from MOA ex ansion; however, these Increases in traffic noes p P increases will not be perceptible. Projected traffic noise increases for Build Alternatives analyzed are two decibels or less, with the exception of Receptor 6 (future residential/hotel development) at the Adjoining Lands parcel where noise levels are projected to increase by three decibels under Build Alternative 3B (the highest intensity of development on the Adjoining Lands). Athree-decibel increase in outdoor traffic noise is the human threshold of perceptible changes in sound. Because no perceptible traffic noise increases are predicted to result from MOA expansion, no mitigation for traffic noise is proposed. 5.4 AIRPORT NOISE All proposed Build Alternative land uses will be constructed utilizing indoor noise reduction measures as required to comply with both Metropolitan Council and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) land use compatibility guidelines. These requirements :consist of providing year-round climate control with internal noise levels not exceeding 45 decibels and no planned outdoor activities if residential or transient lodging (hotel) land uses are provided within certain "noise exposure zones" (as defined by the Metropolitan Council) or within areas experiencing in excess of 65 day-night noise levels (FAA). 5.5 SURFACE WATERNVATER QUALITY ' Although the surface water quantity and quality modeling indicated that no significant negative impacts result from any of the proposed MOA expansion Build Alternatives, a number of mitigation measures are planned to minimize surface water quantity and quality impacts, including: .. • Site design for the MOA expansion will include use of grit chamber(s) as a primary treatment device for site runoff and use of sewers at parking ramp drainage areas to facilitate removal of particulates and oils from water. prior to discharge to the City storm sewer. • MOA expansion site maintenance will include routine clean-up of debris to minimize floatables entering the City storm sewer. system and sweeping of parking ramp areas to periodically remove particulates and surface residues, minimizing loadings to the storm sewer system. • Site .facility design and operation that provides for containment of.potentially contaminating liquids (e.g. cooling fluids) stored on-site. A spill prevention plan outlining procedures to be followed in the event of a spill, including spill containment and disposal, will also be developed. • Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 82 - 08/10/00 • If the MOA expansion were to occur on the Adjoining Lands property (resulting in an .increase in impervious surface and removal of existing detention ponding area), on-site surface water detention would be required to be provided to maintain water discharges at or below existing rates, consistent with City and watershed district requirements. 5.6 EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION The potential for erosion and sedimentation of soils exposed during MOA expansion would be minimized by using the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction. These practices would be identified in the final construction and site grading plans as required by NPDES permitting for construction sites and in accordance with the City's and the Lower Minnesota Watershed District's erosion/sediment control standards. After construction, all disturbed areas would be either paved or sodded to eliminate exposed soil surfaces. 5.7 GROUNDWATER Planned site development does not include construction below the groundwater table (estimated to be at 10 to 25 feet), with the possible exception of building foundations in some locations. If foundations are at depths below the groundwater table, temporary dewatering would be required. If utilized, temporary dewatering would .require permits from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (water appropriation) and MPCA (NPDES permit for water discharges). Although a leak site on the northwestern perimeter of the project site, identified by a file search conducted by the MPCA, was "closed" according to MPCA records, testing of groundwater for contamination may be required prior to the MPCA issuing the NPDES discharge permit for temporary dewatering. 5.8 TRAILS In .conjunction with MOA expansion, 9-foot wide non-motorized off-street pathway would be constructed adjacent to the both sides of 79th Street and the west side of 24th Avenue (north and east sides of the Met Center site). The 24th Avenue pathway would be an extension of the existing path on the east side of the MOA. Similarly, a 9-foot wide pathway would also be provided on the south side of the site, adjacent to Lindau Lane. These pathways are consistent with the City's intent to provide off-street, non-motorized pathways adjacent to local roads in the vicinity of the MOA. • Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 83 - 08/10/00 • • r~ L_J 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS/PRINCIPAL REVIEWERS Ci Staff Clark Arneson Manager of Planning B.A. Moorhead State University MCRP Ohio State University Consultant Staff Jennie Ross Senior Associate B.S. Pennsylvania State University M.S. Pennsylvania State University Robert M. Sharlin Planner B.A. University of Iowa Rebecca Robertson Planner B.A University of Northern Iowa M.A. University of Iowa Jim Gates Deputy Director of Public Works B.S. University of Minnesota -Institute of Technology Shelly Pederson City Engineer B.S: North Dakota State Steve Manhart Kathy Knutson, AICP Senior Planner B.S., Northwestern University M.U.P. Hunter College, CUNY Steve Wilson Senior Associate M.S. University of Wisconsin-Madison B.S. University of Wisconsin-Madison Carla Jones, P.E. Engineer B.C.E., University of Minnesota Csaba Kelen Transportation Engineer M.S. University of Minnesota B.C.E. University of Budapest Acting Traffic Engineer Jonathan Ehrlich, EIT B.A. University of Colorado, Colorado Engineer Springs B.S., Columbia University B.S.C.E. University of Kansas Matthew Wey, EIT Engineer M.S. University of South Florida B.C.E. University of South Florida Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 84 - 08/10/00 Consultant Staff David W. Filipiak, P.E. Senior Associate B.C.E., University of Minnesota Lisa Goddard Engineer B.C.E. University of Minnesota Thomas G. Hillstrom Senior Environmental Scientist B.S., University of Minnesota Joyce Pickle Environmental Scientist M.S. Iowa State University B.A. Augusta College Sabrina Cook, Ph.D. Ph.D., University of Minnesota M.S., University of Minnesota B.S., University of Minnesota Montgomery Watson APPENDICES APPENDIX 1: Mall of America Expansion -Development Assumptions - Alternative 1 - Alternative 3A APPENDIX 2: Traffic Technical Memorandum -Forecasting Methods and Results APPENDIX 3: Storm Water Technical Memoranda • Mall Of America Expansion -Met Center Site Draft EIS - 85 - 08/10/00 • • • APPENDIX 1 Mall of America Expansion -Development Assumptions - Table A-1: Alternative 1 - Table A-2: Alternative 3A • Mall of America Expansion -Met Center Alternative 1 AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT BLOOMINGTON CITY HALL • • s VJ 9 C J C O 9 Q Q M c m W Q 16 U d a 0 i • 8 o g S o S 8 S 8 8 ~ g 8 8 a 1 ~ 0 ~ 1 ~ $ N 0' LL M T N O W pl O O l0 A N N t0 ~ N h N ~ ~ t0 N N O ~ ~ p N N N M a J IQ- 0 'm O O O O O O O O O 00 H ON 0 m 0 m O O > Nt0 y y Y ~ O ; y J O p O O O O O O O O S g N N p N ~ N N ba Oa O N m O Y J p1 S O O O O O O O O O p N N O m ~ ~ ~ m S y O J y O O O O O O O O O o N$ $ H S p ONO ~ m N a f ~ N >> O p O O O 0 p 0 O O p O O p O N N N = q S S S g N 0 N NN ~ O N t••D a fO < W N > ~ r 7 M fO J m fah S O O O Og Og O O O g Q O O ~ ~ Gp' $ $ $ a a a > ~ r Q CNY Y ~ th N N t • Y O m mp d 0l O S p0 S 0 S M 1Mh ~ th M ~ O O O O g OO 0 S f{{~ 00 a O O 000 O g 0 O N A O cN'1 h ~ 0'l il f NN C1 a J Y 000 O S p0 S 0 S M °'h t+) M O O O 0 S 0 g S g O O S~ O O O ~ a N 00 >> la. v 1Nn to m N N ~ tgi nN J 01 m A~ S O G O Od p O CN Q `YS O O 00 C 00 O S O C O O O O O S N N aD b ~ h N a a m > A V M N O D J 1Op 0 0 8 0 8 0 8 O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O r N 00 m m o cMi a cNi J d N O 0 5 g g g O O O O S 0 p O 0 00 10 p 0 f0 O O 0 o 0 0 O O S O _ 01 m I~ O 0 th fh 0 N o 6 N fh r h ~ r n v1 a ~ N O J Y a s m N 10n O O O g g S O O O O O O O O O O Q `1(1 N N iD y' N 0 0 N N I O J d Ih 1+l N 0 O O b 0 0 0 0 t~ 0 0 0 ~ O ` O O O O O O S b N O 0 p ~ m N 1n N a 0 1fI O1 0 ~ N a N IA O N N N N N N N N M N ' N 10 0 m 0 N 0 th J m O N N N 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 f0 ~ m O ~ J O 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 8 0 $ 8 0 O O O S S "N O Y O O V S 0 S 0 01 1(1 lh C m >> S N 10 ~1 0') 00 M 00 Op n OD M 10 n 0 n ~i N N N n M N M N ~ ~ ~ ~ N N ~ N N N ~ ~ ~ N a ~ • C O N O N O N O N N N N N O O O 00 N O N O O O O O O O O O O O N fD 00 {h 0)l0 N ~ ^ A ~ ' N A N ~ A d m S O O O O S O O S O N aD O O O 01 S W f W M A 10+1 ro n ~ 0 N NNa ~ ~ /NV + a f p p N N ~ N M O e'1 f K O W K C W F W U W W LL li li Z jp 1- 6~ F . 1 U1 f n y Q O m H J V to F W . ~ ~ QQ U D u1 Z Z Q f~ f7i ~ 2 Z 2 ~ H 1- ~ Q i ~ M W .~ Q W W U W U U F W Z W ~ Z ~ U j ~ 0) m # 01 - ~ Q U ~ W ~ LL ' W Z J Q Q U ~ ~ O f Q F N ~+ O Q U ~ U IL ~ to J Q H Y ~ U O o = S = o = O W a F Z R W O f W W 6 W ~ W S D LL W O Q O 2 Se N W d U 0: N 3 Q 6 LL N W O C H d • APPENDIX 2 ~~^ Traffic Technical Memoranda - Forecasting Methods and Results - Traffic Study for the Mall of America Expansion i • CONSULTING GROUP, INC. TransFortation • Civii • Structural • Environmental • Planning • Traffic • Landscape Architecture • Parking SRF No. 0003008.8 MEMORANDUM TO: Clark Arneson, City of Bloomington Jim Gates, City of Bloomington FROM: Steve Wilson Senior Associate DATE: July 31, 2000 SUBJECT: MALL OF AMERICA (MOA) EXPANSION -MET CENTER.SITE DRAFT EIS: TRAVEL FORECASTING METHODS AND RESULTS This memorandum describes the travel forecasting process used for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Mall of America Expansion and the resulting forecast volumes. It also includes an assessment of general levels of service for regional roadways in the vicinity of the Airport South District in Bloomington. PROJECT SUMMARY The proposed Mall of America (MOA) expansion is located in the Airport South District of the City of Bloomington, bordered by the I-494 to the north, TH 77 to the west and the Minnesota River to the south and east. Several redevelopment projects are planned in this area by 2006, including: Construction of the second phase of the Mall of America, including related retail, office, hotel and residential development; • Development or redevelopment of several office/hotel complexes; and, Building removal in the safety zone of a new north-south runway at the airport. The Mall of America expansion will be constructed near the existing Mall of America site. Two alternative locations and two development intensities at each location are being considered: one north of the existing MOA (Met Center Site) and one east of the existing site (Adjoining Lands site). Developmendredevelopment is anticipated to occur at the following locations through year 2006 (the EIS study period): existing Ceridian/Health Partners lot (the "Olnick" property), Metro Office Park property, and Robert Muir property. Because of the development of a new north-south runway at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, the RPZ block (at the northeast quadrant of 24th Avenue and 80th Street) is assumed to be vacant by 2006. Figure 1 shows the study area. Table 1 summarizes the proposed Mall of America expansion alternatives and the "background" development assumed to occur in the area through year 2006. One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150, Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443 Telephone (763) 475-0010 ^ Fax (763) 475-2429 ^ http://www.srfconsulting.com An Et~~ra! Opportunity Enrnlvuer • • VJ `W Q Z W J Q t!1 w O LL N Z O a N W r W mZ Fa- J ~ ~ w m ~ i 'y ~ u O c:] ~° m .ya~.X E~ E u o ° 3 Q ~~ ~ 'u n. EE-° o u~e v > EoE~-E.. ° d ° -n ~ . ao N c ~ , n ,,, ~ y O ~,A ~ u o o f o'- _" m w u u ' c ~ a~ e ~ eN c u ~ c ye, u ~~ o 0.3 ~ ~.~~ ~ w l0 m u y C N O [~] O N Y v lQ ~ V C - r Y1 V O A L N ' O N ~ d N ~' H ' a L p Z~ {ir 1 ~. N . . V N ~ ~>~ C a' apt C. O.. C ... C C V '~ ' 1 lC C t7 C 4.. OD ~' .. d ~ y o^,a H . N °O.e ~ o00 0 E ~c i Nia 'C v C C eoe ov'~'c u~ ~~ C CY n° ` `" 0 o o 5 , u A J r O ~ O O ~.. M~ 'fl O 0 n^ ... .. N c O u .O v X to • x y ' C ~ a~ ~ C w ~ a~ O N ~ -L on v, R A=~ . • . . . z p . w c R..E~d ..t~v p c u ,~•v ~o ~ I 1 I f 1 i ..d 0 O Qyj ~+ N ~ N pry D y ~ '.., O N 7 O v W uo° Li O H> E N E .~ N .y. V E O ~ c 'a..~ " m 00 o"a oq N 3 ..1 F vl u ,~ u ° ~ e E ~ E' o, ~ E ~ ' F~ 'o a x rs. eo e Y e e d ~~ ~ c ~ H' y ~ ~;~ ~ c- ~ o ~.~°O a u ~ ¢~ po ~~ e.o ~wx n.u A W ,~ ~ ~ ~ g - S ~ .y .~, .y a F :: y C $ o ~ ~ G r. H :+ •N u Q~ Y+ ~'- u o ~ :v o0 oo t0 ..r H ~ E ~ C ~ ~ C `° a . v 'c g .c y y 0 p ~ ~ . u .o A E ~ v O E u r. ~ N ~D O ~ 4 ~ O 'O ~` 'C ~G ~~i ~ O b~'. O r i P1 ~ y 'a' N N Or O _ •x ~ a ~ C y C h O a r 1. O M e}' 'O U • • • • • ,~.. W p, ,c ...1 'O ..l 'C y ~ I i 1 ~ I I I ev "'~ a y ~ v ~ ~ u .C O a C ~ C3 Q fn ~ A d •C ~ c H a m n a ~ ~~ ~ W ° ~ y ~ . . i u c C u ~~.. N ~ _ -oo h • e .~ ~ 'C y e b N c O N F ~- K O O D L O ' r+l ~ O y N .~ ~~ Opy C ~,,, ~.~ ~.Kw N C r. d d R y j u° ~. N i E ~ ~ ,O ~ 'b ° ~ N O N V' r,.~ ~ O O ~ O b N C O .~ F' w~ o C 7 .O • D L O A • ..~ rr o ... N V er N O O ~ V A C CY.. 'i O •= u X• = H N C rVir~O f 0 ~ u y u R y .~ I i 1 I I i 1 I W to y ~' ~ O '1". ~ A ~ F . .. N= •c v m ~ u ,~ "' y u y v u °' ~ OD a Y p+ b0 e3 d m ° ° =' 0 C 0 r 0 C __ ' ~ •y ' • 'fl ' O W X r°~ y d . 'D ~ ° O .~ ~ O _ C ~ C C to y N p iy C J ~ O O w i " ~ u ~ E ~ + en , y u . 0 Y. O d O V Z O :: o o E W 00 y c~ . ~ O a c C v i u o C°° m A ~ c ~ ^ f7 al ~O P'1 ` ~ C C N M b O N C Q: O u y y° O Oa I 1 I I I 1 I I oD u E"' ai 0 p ~ ~ :~t u `° ~ ~ o. -~ .o N o` ° u E ~ v m n u cya~ a e , ~ 3 m"~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ u ~ y -~` ' G xw m~ „ a. ~ d ~ ~ • Q ~ ~ O Q N u N N C L X _ C 'C C • ~ ~ A A C • 7L . U 7L O_ y G 'fl O. 'x u c a ~ V /1 .. ~x e o x O. °- " ~ x U ~ N `° u 'fl U ~! N O w u ~ C w •. ~ A w :. - W z w J 'o .. ..l 'o H' z 1 i 1 i 1 I 1 ~ u Ln7 ~ F u ~ F r ~ " v> > a N z~ O m to c m W = ..~ N E U o z ° ~ ~ d a ~ W ~ ~ ~ < a w ~ ~ U 4 L p v a 1 O o^ Ve C _ 3 V N '~ e Q QI v z v W = o •a .y V ~- • • W Z W J Q ~_ W O '~ VI Z ~a d~ ~~ c cn v~ a v W r J 0 Q Q f- J ~ u ~ LL ~ ~ G H E N .. > W O c N h Y ~ .. ~... ~^ p N O p .O ~ u at C F o° ^~ 00 u o M `o v ~ y Q r M {O C V1 A C N .u„ N y ~ N N N y a N u O C > > C ~ ~ ~ •X o0'X N ~ ~ u v O O u m 4" ~ ~a H II S~ y N C u O~ " V V C ~,] O C i O v ra .. ¢ != t~V ,C Qa c~0 ,C N N C Z O G O oO ~ • ¢ C O n"D C a'C p C . S N N C C to ~ C O A O ~.. N~ O to ~ u ~° ~ •c o ~ O ~ o O u 00 a '' u °° " ~ u = o ~' • •; U o , ~ h c v n e`a x ~o `O. ~ '? 10 m I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 .. M W N ~.., O ,,., 0 ~ N „~ ~ a o N 0 N p ~ ,.., ~. U R O • E•+ O ai O u t/y ~ U o0 vi C) M G ~•'~ v u N ~ ~z-~• N N N ~ u v C 7 eca ~W,,, s~ ~ N c u ~ t uo o u~ c .1 p ~ 0 ~, OD II Y N «~ U u tr, =d GO z _ 0 ' u~ O C A O N ~ O U v1 7 O O O 00 u U V ~ O O vl 00 v O O 00 •- t~ P E N N W¢ VJ W ~ Ci I I I I I I 1 1 I C N ~ N N p ~ ~ W o H H O N v1 N ~ e ~ ~ to h ( ~1 A C Y: R N .u. N •C N N ~• ~ ~ N O `'' ~ ` ' 7 CN W X O C x u i C u a ~ (~ -~ II ~ '~ 6D p -~ Q E R e as c y ~ N u u u c~^.. c u o ° _a . = O y t^CV ~ .. A G o° a'v a a.~ O o c • s~ N N m . c c ~ c E o O ov,oo:. O ooo• c~ --'6 N N W¢ v) w a Ra I 1 1 1 I I i ~ I t .. W h o0 ~-- o ~ ry °' U a N O ~ N O N O .-, ~. - ~ ^ X V C ¢ yOj 00 U CO h U W M ,,, u N U N N • N z C N C ~ ~ G .- I~ p,.- u „ • E O~ u N fl U 'p a! O N y M N N N ~ ~ U ~ v° 0 N~ C N 7 W O v N C v .~ II ~ ' O eua i t"i u a C ..1 p_ -p C ~. 0 a ~ 00 II .¢ E ~ c ca ~ c H G. N ~ u u u o u ~ ~a A ~ z e a ^ ' 0 ~ btt,u,.~,, p o ~ •°- ~~ ~ C C O •n o:x o°oo°. ~cw • _•~> O ' E .N O C ..~ 'ti.~ h ~ C O o v~ N oo :.. O o 00 '- vl tb r` o ~ N cf ~D ^ E N h x .O W< A h ~ W ~ CO I I . I I I I 1 1 I 00 Oq u •S7 U •C ~ ~C N h ~. NCO C ip •C7 N = ~ u ° o ~' u tv y o E: ° ; E N to to s ~ E O O. u u T O u' C v y i ~.•. ~... C N vi U O v i M l R h A O f N ~ N N M C ~ C ~ („ = L"• ~ N N v NU ~`! C4 O ~ O u 'O ~ N O? to O O ea u O • O ' ee .-+ C N C ~ O V N O y~ 7 N U O N ._ C O ~. Q II Y 11 •~ y U ~ ~ ~ ^ ~~ O Q .C ~ ~p, ~ ~ A A 'O ~ C p• OC 0 ~ ~y, m O L a ~ V+ ~ ~ C O O - o ~. N• o v,• ,_ N O u N u O 00 u - .- C N C O O N 3 u N ~ O X ^ •~, u C O u C a ,,., o X a o x O v1 0o u O oo u ° a r` `4 ~... q `° o x W x •v r„ N v~ :c u c p x A ~ ~ X A B z 1 I N F N N I I 1 W . u U ~ .Z H~ N N W I 1 i' W I LL 1 s o z ~- ~. E 0 °4 ~~~ `~ a a m ~ ` ~ ~ u N ~` .. ,~ .^ -+ F ~ • ~ M` u p 3 4 a ~ o v O ~ '~ '~ •C •v Y r ° ~ V N IY.. N N y y ~ c M !n c t a ~ c~ G ~ O T C tz u L °,..° Lc. fn N o 4 4 Ci C V C Z h V ti d `o s ~~ W O ~ v Oi ~4. O c, O c • • -~ W c 0 rn .~ 0 0 m 0 a ,~ U !"~ t0 O O N F- W 1- to }- Z W a O w W 0 F- 0 oc 0 a cr a u z 0 r z h M u m 8 pm O o. z LL. Q N TRAVEL FORECASTING PROCESS The travel forecasts were prepared using the Twin Cities regional travel forecasting model, modified to improve responsiveness to issues relating to the specific study. These models are ,.. computerized procedures for systematically predicting travel demand changes in response to development and transportation facility changes. ~ - The models, used primarily for major project planning efforts, are calibrated and validated at a level of accuracy sufficient for planning regional facilities such as freeways and major arterials. This provides sufficient accuracy for most regional and corridor-level planning. The models were completed in 1994 using data from an extensive regional Travel Behavior Inventory conducted by the Metropolitan Council and Mn/DOT in 1990.. , .., The eight main components of the travel forecasting process are shown in Figure 2 and described below. Detailed discussion of assumptions specific to the Mall of America Expansion EIS are described in a subsequent section. Highway Network Representation _ All of the freeways, expressways, and major arterial roadways in the Twin Cities area are compiled into a computer representation of the region's highway system. In addition, most minor arterials and many collector roads and other local streets aze included. The attributes of the roadways aze described in terms of area type, facility type, distance, free-flow speed, number of lanes and capacity. ~ Additional roadways in and near the Airport South area were added to the regional model to better estimate the effects of different development and highway network assumptions for the. E AUAR. Specific future-year highway improvements are discussed in a subsequent section of -. this report. `~ Transit Network Representation All regional transit routes. are included in a computer representation of the transit system. The transit network looks at the transit system in terms of links (which represent the highway system) and lines (which define a transit route's frequency and path). Data in the transit network include link speed, link distance, route frequency and route type. Specific future-year transit improvements are discussed in a subsequent section of this report. Zonal Socio-Economic and Demographic Data The regional travel forecast models divide the seven county Twin Cities Metropolitan azea into 1165 geographic transportation analysis zones (or TAZ). Various demographic and socio- economic data are allocated into these zones for the purposes of the forecast models. The zones also serve as the beginning and end locations of travel in the region. In addition to the 1165 zones, the 35 most important points of entry into the region are identified and included as "external" zones. The zonal system was determined primarily on the basis of physical boundaries and major roadways.. MOA Expansion EIS - S- SRF Consrrlting Group, Inc. Travel Forecasting Technical Nlemorandum 07/31/2000 Demogrphic Forecasting Socio-Economic ~~ Land Use Projections Transit c~ Highway Trip Networks Generation Representation of Estimates of Future Transportation Systems Travel by Zone Travel Time Between Zone I Trio Distribution Estimates of Zone to Zone Trips M d A il bilit o e va a y b Travel Times Mode Choice Estimates of Transit, Auto Driver, Auto Passenger Trips Travel Time by Route Trip Assignment Projected Use of Transportation System Elements Congestion b level of Service Multiple Iterations Travel Forecasts _~ Timm a of Day Model Estimate of Peek, .Off-Peak Trips City of Bloomington ®CONSULTING GaOOr, t.N C. TRAVEL FORECASTING PROCESS FIGURE 2 SRF NO.09e30Gd For the purpose of this study, the three TAZs in and near the Airport South district were split into a total of 23 TAZs so that more refined trip estimation and traffic impact analysis could be conducted. The Metropolitan Council's demographic database dated July 1999 was used as the source of - zonal-level information. This database includes socio-economic data provided by the City of Bloomington, reflecting their planned development through year 2020. This .base assumes implementation of the 1996 "Regional Blueprint" of the Metropolitan Council. Communities are in the process of refining their comprehensive plans based on the policy direction of the Blueprint. Trip Generation _ , Trip generation is the process by which the number of trips. attributed to a zone are estimated based on the amount and type of activity in that zone. Trips are either "produced" by or "attracted" to a zone, depending on the type of trips. The end result of trip generation estimation is a total number of trips produced by and attracted to each zone. The trips at this point are called "person-trips", and do not have any association with a given mode of travel _ The determinants of household trip production are household size, the number of automobiles owned and location. Several factors contribute to trip attractions, depending on the trip purpose. The main. variables are retail employment, non-retail employment, amount of activity within a . -given proximity and area type. The trip generation phase of the forecasting process uses trip rates (i.e., number of trips per person, household or employee) based on the 1990 regional TBI applied to each zone to calculate the number of trips taken, by purpose. This study uses the regional trip generation model, ` supplemented with site-specific information Trip Distribution - 1. The trip distribution process converts the person-trips estimated in the generation step to movements between pairs of zones based on the amount of travel activity in a zone and the generalized travel time proximity of the producing zone to other zones. The resulting trip .tables provide the number of trips between zones. Most standard models consider only highway time in the distribution function. The non-work models in the Twin Cities are based on this method. However, the work trip distribution .models in the Twin Cities region employ a composite impedance function, which treats distribution based on overall time and cost, including that of alternate modes. .Trips beginning or ending outside of the Twin Cities area are modeled using agrowth-rate model based on TBI trip distribution patterns. MOA Expansion E!S - 7- SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Travel Forecasting Technical Memorandum 07/31/2000 • Mode Choice The mode choice phase of forecasting. uses mode choice models to identify the number of person-trips between each pair of zones and determine whether the trips are made by single- occupant vehicles, carpools, or transit riders. The models are further used to determine whether the trip is a candidate for a high occupancy vehicle lane. Time of Day Estimation (Temporal Distribution) Time-of--day, or "temporal distribution" models, take the estimated trips and distribute them across periods of time for the purposes of more accurately reflecting peaking conditions on roadway and transit systems. The basis for the temporal distribution is the 1990 regional TBI. The time periods considered are: • A.M. peak hour • A.M. peak shoulders • First P.M. peak hour • Second P.M. peak hour [generally used for operations analysis] • P.M. peak shoulders • Off peak time periods Differentiation among peak hours enables better estimates of congested conditions on an hourly basis. Highway and Transit Assignment The trip assignment models choose the route between zones for any given trip. The highway assignment process chooses routes based on travel times that reflect the appropriate traffic volume, roadway capacity and speed relationship. It is an equilibrium model, which uses multiple iterations to balance demand with capacity. The models will permit a demand in excess of the designated capacity. Capacity in the Twin Cities area is generally defined at Level of Service D, therefore assignment of additional demand indicates Level of Service E or F. The default congestion functions in the model are link-based, meaning the effect of intersection and ramp-meter queues are not fully accounted for in the modeling process. MOA F,xpansion EIS - 8- SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Travel Forecasting Technical Memorandum 07/31/2000 AIRPORT SOUTH AREA-SPECIFIC ASSUMPTIONS Roadwa S stem Y Y The planned road improvements may be classified into regional system improvements and Local improvements. The most. important regional development in the vicinity of the Airport South District is the proposed I-494 reliever arterial plan and the reconstruction of I-494 in Bloomington and Richfield. The ring-road system is assumed to be complete by the time the land developments are in place (2006).. The freeway reconstruction is assumed to be in place by the year 2020. Near the proposed Mall of America expansion, the most significant road network development is the proposed connection between East 79th Street and East 80th just west of 24th Avenue, as part of the ring-road system. Consequently, the existing intersection of 79th Street (east of 24th) and 24th Avenue will be eliminated, and the intersection of 80th and 24th will become afour-legged intersection. The complete list of planned road improvements assumed in the forecast modeling, completion dates and lead agencies can be found in Table 2. Development Assumptions • t Five development scenarios for the year 2020 are considered. The "No Build" alternative assumes that the Mall of America (MOA) expansion will not be built and the Met Center and Adjoining Lands parcels remain, in their current use (parking), while the other proposed "background" developments in the area (see Table 1) will still take place. In Alternatives 1 and 2, it is assumed that the second phase of the MOA will be located at the site of the former Met Center, and a 1.0 msf office/hotel development will be built on the Adjoining Lands parcel immediately east of the MOA. In Alternative 3A and 3B, it is assumed that second phase of the mall will be located at the Adjoining Lands, and 1.0 msf of office and hotel development will take place at the Met Center site. All "background" developments assumed for the No Build alternative are also assumed in the alternatives 1, 2, 3A and 3B. These land use assumptions. are summarized in Table 3. - The background traffic assumptions for the No Build and all Build development alternatives include the expansion of the HHH Terminal facility at MSP International Airport, including a parking facility with an assumed peak parking demand of 7,800 spaces. For the 2007 (one year after project completion) analysis, it is assumed that the planned "background" development sites in the Airport South area will be fully developed and occupied by 2006. .Regional and Airport South Area developments beyond those assumed as "background" growth were prorated based on expected growth patterns between 1999 and 2020. MOA Expansion EIS - 9- Trave! Forecasting Tecicnica! Memorandum SRF Consulting Group, Inc. 07/31/1000 • • • TABLE 2 -~ SUMMARY OF ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN TRAFFIC FORECASTING AND OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS ROADWAY SCHEDULED TO BE COMPLETED BY LEAD AGENCY Regional System Improvementst~~ • Longfellow Avenue -Reconstruct 2002 MAC • 77th Street -Complete to 24th 2003 Richfield • 66th Street -Reconstruct Interchange 2003 MAC • 77th Street -Add north tamps, close Diagonal Boulevard ' -ZOOS Richfield • 24th Avenue -Modify westbound to northbound free tight 2002 MAC/Mn/DOT • 79th/SOth Street -Construct bridge at I-35W 2003 Bloomington • Lyndale Avenue -Reconstruct interchange 2003 Richfield • Nicoltet Avenue Ramps -Close (subject to completion of I-494 upgrades >2010 Mn/DOT Penn to Portland) • 12th Avenue Ramps -Close (subject to prior completion of Portland >ZO10 Mn/DOT Interchange) • 1-494 - 34th to TH 100 >2006 Mn/DOT • 34th Avenue - LRT 2004 Mn/DOT Local System Improvementst=~ • I-494/34th Avenue north side -Provide up to five lanes at tamp, as needed 2006 MAC/Mn/DOT off-ramps (dual left-turn, two thmugh, one right-tum lane) • I-494/34th Avenue south-side -Provide up to minimum of four lanes at ramp, 2006 Mn/DOT/Bloomington off-ramps as needed (dual left-tum, left/through shared lane, right-turn lane) • East 79th Street (TH 77 to 24th - Reconstruct/realignment/ geometric 2003 Bloomington Avenue) improvements • East Old Shakopee Road/28th -Signalize intersection, improve geometries 2006 Bloomington Avenue • 24th Avenue/Lindau Lane -Modify Lindau Lane~I'H 77 to 24th Avenue 2006 Bloomington • 24th Avenue Operational - 1-494 to Lindau Lane (geometries) 2006 Hennepin County/ Upgrade Bloomington/Mn/DOT • 24th Avenue ITS Information - 1-494 to 86th Street 2006 Hennepin County/ Signs Bloomington/ Mn/DOT • 80th Street Upgrade -Upgrade of 80th Street between 24th and 34th >2006 Bloomington Avenues to provide five approach and three departing lanes at critical intersections • E. Old Shakopee Road between -Capacity Improvement (3 lanes in each >2010 Hennepin County/ Killebrew Drive and Cedar Ave. direction) Bloomington summary prvv,aea oy mrvu~ r ly, „yy/. ~2~ Summary provided by City of Bloomington Public Works (8/17/99). MDA Expansion EIS - 10- SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Travel Forecasting Tecitnica! Memarandtun 07/31/2000 • • TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF LAND USE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES SITE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE Existing No Build Alt, l Alt. 2 Alt 3A ALT. 3B (1998) 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 Units Met Center General Office - - 600 .480• •~ 750. 750 ksft'~ Hotel - - 1,650 1,320 700 700 room Residential - - 353 .278 - ksf Retail - - 3,425 2,740 - ksf Parking 7,500 7,500. 13,154 10,523 3,000 3,000 stall Adjoining Lands Shopping Center - - 1,000 1,000 ksf General Office - - _ _ 456 700 ksf Hotel - - - - 1,235 1,500 room Residential - - - - 264 1,200 ksf Retail - - - .2,600 1,700 ksf Parking 1,775 1,775 ?,500 7,500 9,300. 7,500 stall Mall of America Shopping Center 4,200 4,200. 4,200 4,200 4,200 4,200 ksf Hotel - - - 1,000 1,000 room Olnick GeneralOf~ice 865 2,237 2,237 2,237 2,237 2,237 ksf Metro Office Park Office Park 466. 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 ksf Ceridian -Bluff site Corporate - 207 207 207 207 207 ksf Headquarters RPZ Block General Office 790 - - _ _ ~f 1 Hotel 28 - - - - - room Robert Muir General Office - 750 750 750 750 750 ksf Airport Park-N-Fly - - - - stall 2,000 VTC Plant (Lucent) Manufacturing 175 439 439 439 439 439 ksf Rest of Airport South Mixed 3,265 3,265 3,265 3,265 3,265 3,265 ksf Hotel 2,563 2,563 2,563 2,563 2,563 2,563 room Parking 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 stall ,~,.. ivvw ~c{uare iee~ gross ~easao-e area t MOA F_xpansion EIS - 11- Travel Forecasting Technical Memorandum SRF Consulti~rg Group, Inc. 07/31/?000 Transit System As of October 1999 the Airport South area is served by 21 transit routes, including several different providers: Metro Transit Minnesota Valley Transit Authority, Southwest Metro and the B-E line contract route. Nearly 400 public transit buses depart the Mall of America between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., as shown in Table 4, an average of about 28 buses per hour. TABLE 4 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE IN AIRPORT SOUTH AREA (Buses Departing Mall. of America: 6 a.m. 0 8 p.m.) • • Route Number of Buses Route Number of Buses BE Line 27 440 6 M-15 19 441 2 M-19 41 442 16 445 13 444 16 M-5 38 446 2 52A 3 590 10 M-7 44 880 14 M-72M 3 890 14 80 42 S-4 30 428 11 415 - 6 S~ ~2 Total 38b Source: Metro Transit, SRF analysis 2007 and 2020 forecasts assume completion of the Hiawatha Comdor Light Rail Transit line from downtown Minneapolis to the Mall of America. LRT service is assumed at 7-1/2 minutes frequency in the peak periods and 10 minutes frequency during off-peak times. Three LRT stations are planned in the Airport South area: 1) a station in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of 82nd Street South and 24th Avenue South serving the Mall of America area; 2) a station along 34th Avenue South near 80th Street serving the eastern ~-:d of the study area; and 3) a station within the proposed Olnick Development. MOA Expansion EIS - Il- Travel Forecasting Technical ,tifemorandum SRF Consulting Group. Inc. 07/31 /1000 Trip Generation ITE trip generation rates (6th edition) and other external sources were used to develop traffic estimates for new developments in the Airport South District. These rates include both weekday and peak hour trips. Where necessary, trip rates were modified to match the current volumes produced by the Airport South Area. In general, the ITE rates produced a better replication of existing traffic than rates based on the Twin Cities regional forecast model. Trips generated by the Mall of America, including phase 1 and 2, were based on information prepared by the MaII of America (Mall of America Phase 2 Expansion Traffic Study, prepared by BRW, a consultant to MOAC Inc, June .1999). For the purposes of this analysis, peak hour traffic was determined using a "design hour" based on historic mall use., the design week for the existing mall is in August, which yields the second-highest traffic (after the Christmas shopping season) with 2.2 percent of the annual trips. The August design week is 16 percent higher than the annual average of 1.9 percent. The design. day approximates weekday (not weekend) traffic _ conditions, including the .combination of shopping and .work trips. The peak hour was considered to be between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m., representing 8 percent of the daily traffic and coincides with the peaking on the adjacentlocal and regional roadway system.. The estimated number of trips are detailed in Table 5. If the Mall of America expansion is not built, new trips will still be generated from other new ("background") development proposed in the Airport South Area. Under the No Build alternative, the total number of trips for the Airport South Area is estimated to be 189,225 per day. If Phase 2 of the MOA is built, trips will be generated by the MOA as well as by other office, retail, hotel end residential generators. The number of trips generated by MOA Expansion Alternative 1 is estimated to be 52,750 per day, based on the previously mentioned study. The total number of year 2020 Build alternative trips generated within the Airport South District will range between 256,350 to 275,950 trips per day. The current number of daily trips generated within the Airport South District is 172,000 per day. The existing Mall of America generates approximately 82,000. (47.7 percent) of these trips. Table 6 shows the estimated p.m. peak hour traffic generation for the alternatives. Not shown in the tables are the estimated 125 outbound peak hour trips assumed from the LRT parking facility. MOA Expansion EIS -13- SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Travel Forecasting Technical Memorandum 07/31/2000 • ~....~ TABLE 5 DAILY TRIP GENERATION BY DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES SITE LAND USE DAILY TRIPS Existing No Build Build 1 Build 2 Build Build 3A 3B 1997 2020 2020 2020 .2020 2020 Met Center General Office - - 5,950 4,700 8,275 8,275 Hotel - - 14,400 11,450 5,750 5,750 Residential - - 1,225 975 - - Reta~l 38.250 . ,0.225 Total - - .59,825. 47,350 14,025 14,025 djoining Lands Shopping Center - - 20,975 20,975 - - GeneralOffice - - - -. 4,400 8,400 Hotel - - - - 10,700 13,500 Residential - - - - 900 7,200 ta'1 28.300 34.800 Total - - 20,975 .20,975 44,300 63,900 Mall of America Shopping Center 82,000. 82,000 82,000 82,000 ..82,000 82,000 to 9,000 9.000 Total 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 91,000 91,000 Olnick General Office 6,950 14,425 14,425 14,425 14,425 14,425 etro Office Park Office Park 8,125 16,300 16,300 16,300 16,300 16,300 Ceridian -Bluff Corporate Headquarters - 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 .1,600 ite Z Block Office 5,950 - - - - - Hotel 500 Total 6,450 - - - - Robert Muir General Office - 6,225 6,225 6,225 6,225 6,225 Parking 800 - - - - TC Plant Manufacturing 650 1,650 1,450 1,450 1,450 1,450 (Lucent) Rest ofAirport 67,025 67,025 67,025 _67,025 .67,025 67,025 South District otal Airport 172,000 189,225 269,825 257,350 256,350 275,950 South District MOA Expansion EIS - !4- SRF Consulting Group, Inc.- Travel Forecasting Techrrica! hfenrorandum 07/31/2000 • Z Q w Z W a O ~Y W Q J W ma Ha ~ M~ , r M ,,~~ ~ i~ ~ ~~ r~ r O r r r r r O ~ C p~ .-. I .--w O M N ~ N ~ N ~G O\ N ~ ~ '~ .d ~ O~ ' ' M ' ' 00 M t~ ~^ ' ~ 00 ' M ' ^'~ ' O ' ' ' ' ' j •~ Q N ~ ~ I ~' N N ~ C' ~ ~ ~ O^ N O M ~ M M ._. .r O ~ N E.r ~ N O O~ et \O N r p r r t t p r ~D ~ ~p r M r ~. r p r r r r r Q .r b M ~ O I ~ N • v1 N ~ O '~t ~f Ow N I ~ ~ N N ^' ^' ~rj ~"~ ^' ^' Q~.r r~ Q ~ ._. et' [~ N N ' O r r r r p r te ' \p ' M r r p r r r r r ~~ +r ~ M ~ I rG C ~ ~ ~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ N a ~ w a b 0 r r r r r r r r r r r r r ~p ' ~ r~ r .~ r p r r r r r p l l d~ I ~f I O~ N z M ~ ~ M .-.. .r ~ r r r r ~ r r r r r r r r r ~p r ~p r 0 ' M ' ' ' ef' ~O ' G ~ I ..r ~ M y ~ '7 tt O O ~ M ~ O~ K M M ~--~ W ,~ N r r 00 vl N ' ' M N ' h N '~ ' O r N i r r r r O m l ~ N tfM' . . N~ v1 ~ O ~O .~ ~ O N M ~ l N N M t~ r~r ,~ N EO ~ t r ~N I 00 M' ' ' N M 00 ~M~ ~ v1 ~ '~ ~ N ~ '~ r~ r~ ~ r r r r r M ~ V ~--~ f M ~f ~ M M O N ~ N et O r p r r r r 0 ' V ' et ' f~ ' et ' V'1 r r r t r E"~ O 't7 O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ M ~ N ~ O ~ N ^" M M ~"~ ^' ~D O~ O t}' D\ r p r t r r p r~ r ~ r~ r~ r V'I r r r t r Qr '~ N M I~ 00 N1 ~D l ~O fi fi M ~ h N ~ .-~ Q~ O~ . r . r '~1 ~ N M t ~ _. p„ b O r , r r I r r r r r r r I r r .~ ~ r .~ ~ r~ v, r~ o r N ~, r r r r r O = N M ~ EI 'Z ~ ~ M f'~'1 ~ r r r r r r r r r r r r r N r N r ~ r ,a r r i r N ~ I N 00 t1' N O~ . M M X W W i i ~ O U U w U ~ U U~ C U 6J U w y ~ O `~ ' oo O `-° ' on O .~ o z C ~ _ G a y a :? ~ .. u u ~ ~ c u ° ~ .`°. o ° is o ~ ~ o a ~ u :° o a~ o a i o . ~ , c o V Z ~ H cn V = u: E-~ cn ~I E-~ C7 O C~ x O .~J E- ~" • h N U ~ fir`" W C • ~. . 7 ~ r.~ ~~"' V iy Y V1 4? 00 ¢ c~"".. ~ U c c w O c o U •o ~ ~ ° w •_ N ~ Q ~ O ~ U °o ., o a~ ~, V o r h O U r h 1 r Z r 0 ~~ G ~ O Q N V 0+ C W 1 ~, oa <~ • • z W z w a ~~ m H- ~~ C = O ~ v = ~Y W Q J W m a ~a ~ ~O ~ ~ ~ ~ ... ~ M O~N M ~ N O~ ~ N W ~ Q N ` I~ N Q~ ~p O j N Oa ` ~ ~o E" ~ O N -p O ~p ~ ~ ~ ~ .-. N ..r O~ ~ to ~D ' ~ t~ N C~ V ~ Gr x ~ N et ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ° ~ N O a ~ N .~ w CL ,~ O ... N ,~ , ~ , h ~ , M , N E z ~ N ~ ~ 00 . ~ ~„~ i p~ ~ ... ~ pp ~ ~ ~ ' X mot' O W ... ,O O ~ ~ ~ ~ i o ~ ~ Qa N cn -. M 00 ~ N .~ .-. .d O~ ~ ~ 00 ~ O~ ~ h O ~ [~ -`7. .~ M NO 0.1 N ~i' ~ O_ O ~ N ~, ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~, ~ ~ -.~ a - ~ ~ v. ~ ~ oo ~ rn ~ ~ o ~ v, ~ ° , o. .d O•-N a~ ~ ~ oo ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ H zmo G ~ ~ ;~ ~ ' M O x ~ ~ o0 LLl ~ ~ U ~ - c w `" A O z Q ~~ a C -~ ~ X Va ~ ~ ~ o t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. o ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ° C a i U CL~ ~ N.. ~ F" Q ~o° ~, o N 4 ~ M Uo ~0 r v :::a ±~ --~ _~ b ~. i e a v .~ v F:' W ~° .y V ° c o, w `, - ~ G ~~ ~_,- ~ .- Highway Assignment Process . The regional forecast model uses link-based speed adjustments to account for congestion on the roadway system. This method does not typically provide a good replication of the effects of freeway ramp metering. Ramp-specific delays of three-to-eight minutes were added to the model to sufficiently control demand at the ramps. The implications of ramp metering are discussed in the section on analysis and results. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Trip Generation As discussed above, each combination of land uses generates a different volume of traffic. As Figure 5 shows, however, many of the alternatives are similar. The No Build generates 189,225 daily trips, 10.5 percent more than currently generated. • All of the development alternatives are fairly comparable in terms of trip generation. The lowest of the Build alternatives (Alternative 3A) generates 256,350 trips per day (35.5 percent more than the No Build). The highest alternative (Alternative 3B) generates 275,950 trips per day (45.8 percent higher than the No Build). Therefore while the alternatives generate significantly more traffic than the No Build, the differences among .Build alternatives is not large, with a 7.6 percent difference between the highest and lowest. FIGURE 3 COMPARISON OF DAILY TRAFFIC GENERATION L 300,000 r°n 250,000 r o a 200,000 a T _ ~ 150,000 d d 100,000 c - , d _ ~ 50,000 ~. 0 Q 0 Existing 2020 No 2020 Alt 1 2020 Alt. 2 2020 Alt. 3A 2020 Ait. 36 Build Alternative MOA Expansion EIS - 17- Travel Forecasting Technical Memorandum SRF Consulting Group, Inc. 07/31/2000 Trip Distribution The effects of the proposed developments on the regional transportation system .are linked not only to the amount of traffic. produced and by the destination (or origin) of that traffic. Figure 4 shows the direction of approach for trips to the Airport South azea. Approximately 67 percent of the trips generated by the Airport South area are longer than five miles, compared to 60 percent of the region's trips as a whole (based on the 1990 regional Travel Behavior Inventory). A significant effect of longer trips is the need or desire of those trips to use regional highway facilities such as TH 77 and I-494. Conversely, the longer trips have a lesser desire or ability to use the local roadway system. _ .., Figure 4 shows that overall directions of approach are generally consistent with the population distribution patterns in the region as a whole, and also reflect the sub-regional market that could be served by new commercial development. The dominant direction of approach is from .the west/northwest along I-494 and TH 62 at 19 percent. Approximately 16 percent of the traffic approaches from the south in the TH 77/I-35W travelshed. The totals on Figure 6 do not add up to 100 percent because 34 percent of the trips begin and end within 5 miles of the site. The internal-external-through trip -pattern for the Airport South District alternatives is summarized in Table 7. The distribution of current trips generated within the Airport South District was determined by calibrating the trip distribution• against available cordon counts. Traffic data was collected at the approach roads of the Airport South district in August and September 1999. Out of the 172,000 trips currently generated within the district, 26,750 stay within the area. Because both ends of these trips are within the district, they represent 15.5 percent of the total .trips generated by the study area. This is reasonably consistent with data from the 1990 Travel Behavior Inventory, which found approximately 13 percent of trips are less. than one mile in length. Furthermore, the relationship between the hotels located in the Airport South area and the retaiUdining opportunities at the Mall of America validates the reasonableness of 15 percent of trips staying within the study area. Similarly, 2020 modeling results projected that 15.8 to 16.5 percent of the trips (for all alternatives) stayed within the area. The cordon total includes an estimated 12,200 through trips, with both trip ends outside the district. These trips, 7.7 percent of the total cordon crossings, can be attributable to the presence of the minor arterials through the study area: Old Shakopee Road/24th Avenue South and the 79th/80th arterial ring road. These roadways, depending on the time of day and trip origin- destination, can provide a more convenient travel option to using the freeway system.. The number of through trips is estimated at between 13,350 and 19,400 depending on alternative. In general, as the number of trips generated by the study area increases, the number of through- trips decreases. This is amibutable to the increasing congestion on study area roadways, which lessens the attractiveness of those roadways for the through trips. MOA Expansion EIS - !8- SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Trave! Forecasting Technical Memorandum 07/3 //2000 • uy :.;. w.w•w. M ,~v.M ~~ `~~ 9% ~~ Mall ._._ Ame 2% MOA EXPANSION DR.AFI' EIS 135E 0 FIGURE 4 QIRECTION OF APPROACH TO THE MALL OF AMERICA 5/10/00 TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF AIRPORT SOUTH INTERNAL-EXTERNAL VEHICLE TRIP DISTRIBUTION Trips That Stay Within Alternative Total Trips Study Area c2) Total Study ~4~ Generated by Study Area c~~ Number Percent Throu h Trips ~3t Area Trips 1998 172,000 26 750 15.5% 12,200 157 450 2020 No Build 189 230 29,880 15.8% 19 400 178 750 2020 Build 1 269,82 43 700 16.2% 13,350 Z39 475 2020 Build 2 257,350 42,460 16.5% 15,800 230,690 2020 Build 3A 256,350 41,270 16.1% 16,150 231,230 2020 Build 3B 275,950 45,000 16.3% 13,400 244,350 Notes: tll Measured in trip ends (trip origin or trip destination) c2) Internal trips have both trip origin and trip destination and are counted twice: once for the trip origin and once for the trip destination ~3~ Through trips have neither trip origin nor trip destination in study area -these trips pass through and are counted twice: once as they enter the study area and once as they leave the study area _ (4) Sum of study area trips plus through trips minus trips that stay within study area Mode Choice Transit ridership is estimated to currently account for 4.5 percent of all person trips in the Airport Study Area, or .9,800 trips per day. Approximately 65 percent of those trips are on the S-54 and M-80 routes, the express services between the Mall of America and the downtowns of St. Paul and Minneapolis, respectively. Table 8 shows the estimated transit ridership for each alternative. Transit ridership under the No Build is estimated at 13,625 riders per day (3,825 riders more than today). Under the Build alternatives, transit ridership would increase by 9,075 to 11,375 riders per day over current levels. The percent of Airport South area trips that are carried by transit is expected to rise to 5.6 percent by the year 2020 due to the construction of LRT in the Hiawatha Corridor. The build _ alternatives, which focus more activity near the Mall of America transit hub, would increase the transit market share to 5.9 percent overall. MDA Expansion EIS - 20- SRF Consulting. Group, Inc. Travel Forecasting Technical ~femorandcrm 07/31/2000 TABLE 8 ESTIMATED YEAR 2020 TRANSIT RIDERSHIP IN THE AIRPORT SOUTH AREA Alternative Estimated Transit Trips (includes LRT) Estimated Transit Percent Estimated LRT Riders ~'~ Existing 9,800 4.5% N/A No Build 13,625 5.6% 7,500 Alternative 1 19,700. 5.9% ..., 9,500 Alternative 2 18,875 5.9% 9,100 Alternative 3A 19,175. 5.9% 9,200 Alternative 3B 21,I75 5.9% 10,500 Source: S1tF Consulting ,Group, Inc. ".~ Forecasts of LRT ridership for the Hiawatha Avenue Corridor (August 1999) show a total of ~` 9,500 daily trips generated by the LRT line at the stations in the Airport South area. That 1 analysis assumed a 50 percent increase in development in the•Airport South .area, which is comparable to Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. Alternative 3B could increase the LRT ridership by nearly 1,000 passengers per day. Forecast Daily Traffic Volumes Estimates of future traffic volumes on the area roadways were prepared to determine the effects J of the land use alternatives. Year 2007 and year 2020 forecasts were developed for the purposes of analyzing traffic, air quality and noise impacts. Two year 2020 assignments were prepared for each alternative: one assuming that the additional through lanes on I-494 would be constructed as HOV lanes and one assuming completion as mixed use lanes. -' It was deternuned that a "worst case" condition existed if the lanes are constructed as HOV lanes, since I-494 would carry fewer vehicles per Lane because the HOV lane would operate with fewer than the 2300 vehicle capacity of a mixed use lane. This resulted in more vehicles on the local roadway. system as well as more congested conditions on I-494. Amore detailed operations analysis of I-494, including a comparison of HOV versus mixed-use capacity will be conducted in 2000 and 2001 as part of the I-494 Final EIS. No improvements are scheduled for I-494 in the vicinity of Airport South by the year 2007. Figures 5 through 11 show the existing and estimated future (2007 and 2020) average daily traffic on roadways in and near the study area. Traffic forecasts for future years in these figures include No Build, Alternative 1 and Alternative 3B conditions. Alternative 1 represents the highest level of proposed development for the Met Center site and Alternative 3B is the highest development proposed for the MOA expansion of the Adjoining Lands property. These two alternatives represent the two "worst case" Build alternatives. M0.4 E.rpansion EIS -11- SRF Consulting Grouo. Inc. T.. ,. .r r - .. ~ . .. ' r r------~ r-- .. , .. ~5:. m • y ~. rn~ d:+ ~~~ ~~ ik, ~k~~ J u~a~~~ ,y.., yid+s~t- • to ~ }t, \ - 1 ~r, r. • -7:1 ~ `,~,..* t.''• ~ ~: 1:'r: 1 y~ ~, ' f. i.1 ' .l:n,` - n~ -S. «~ ~~.: ~~;, ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ S~ ~ ~'1k "..~i E~.~.'?l:'Y R1 0 ~ ~~ ~ m ~ ~9"; z z ,~t~. ~~ C Q it O Z ti, 1 v '~ r ~~-~ ~~~ „~~ ,e t } e ~ '~ ¢y iyy M ~i- x an e M s o ~ ~~ii Q v ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ (• ~. ~ ~ c cn ~., o C ~. o '_~ m ~~ h' ~~ N V - ~D • :,~{M ~~' ~ - i':'i `•~ S ~~~ _ ~ J- 1-p° ~ V o ~ V ~ W ~ p 1=" _ ~ n O °f N t4 ~ O V N a ~, O $ F+ w ~V to S G F+ v Q1. 00 iD ~> S O ~ t .~ o ~~~~ OD ~2~ (S` v V o~ r V 1a ., D j~ `-D - .;.,; v a- 0 0 wr w~ 4 ~f a ~t .j a x:7h i i r~ ~y~! nA ,r w~grl[ "L 1.l l 1 --~--~-T--r-r-~ ~ 5 . ___., r,...... ~-.__ ....... _, • • JJpp~ ~ Yl'' M; I.M ~'y''~"~ ~f 4w,,o, 1 r:~., k . ~ ~~~ I~~~ it~^ ".3;y LIrG. I i~~5 1 H y_,r o ~~I.y ~; ~~~ ~: '9ti f~~:~a, ~d l ~. '' ~ N - ._ S ~:~1 :: k . ,j , ; '~'tl'IvG ' :'~' :1+: i. K~%~'~'94 t A ~~~~,.yyy~~~~ ' ,~ r ' ' ~~ ~:. • ~r~l~~7 j+hy,lv •; 1zy_^r ~ oli~iK. 1. i_ } '•nt(gNti1r Y I~}tt176~ a.~l;, ,... I,v~ ~~~ so I ..~~~.~~~~~~ ell ~~ c:~ ~ $ ~' ~ $ ~~>~ ,~x 1 r ~ ~~~ lr~.Y $ p ~ ..S ~r'ir~ t~v~3 ~+_x Q F \`ro Eft '~1~~ •~ `~Y ~.h= C '"t'C'll. ",tl 1~1 W 'i1y ~ r ' b '!, F '~Y d s ~'' l•'.. ~~t=~, tll ail bp S~'~4,~.} ijA~ ~` ,~~tuu..._ O u ~~ N O p O „y D m .;~ n ~ Z ~,~~~,P>~' ~j b ~1F u= -~ m ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ `~+ Z Z -~ m m ~~ i ~ ;5~~~ ~,~x ~a ~ O 7'' .,f~Y ~ ~ '~ ~ x ,~ it~r h ~ ~ .fit w 9r p. '1l ~rr.M ~ ~ .Y ~ ~ O` y M: o C ,4 m ~" _ ~ . ...~.= i~~ ski .~ ti~ 10 ~L~ N N OD S Of W d S 'Vr'~ `~"'~( + y ]M) n; ~. '~ i' i ` ~1:`~ . (~.' 6 ~ ! r fi ~ ~~V '~:i~~yf;~t`7~[ 7~T~ 1~ Nx~~ r i + ~A ~a~'J ~~ ~ ~~ `}J` 4~~= ~~ ~ = 1 1 ~'~ r~ ~.:. N ;~ . W ' o S N,•. ~O 'sn;t~~rr ;'v,' ....,; V'~~ r g 4•'1i ,.~ fy1s~~ (: 1 ;., :~ , ~'~ I,a ~4 ,~ ':~1. . '~~, ~ r 1 . ' ~~:. , . , , 1 J. \ 1~j '_ _ ;. . ,:.1 r, .Y~f: fir. ..{ •f.. '\ - ~ _ z ~ ~ ' y ,:;, r ~ ,. T _. ` t1./:l . fir. . ,;;. ;'.; ~`~~ <:: ''';1~' N O ~ O p 11 D ~D"' m _z ~ ~ z ~' Z ~ v m -+ w ~ ~ e ~ x e N ~ ~ o ~ C o ~ m --._._... r---- ,___., ,- - _ __ T 1 I-~ 1 • ~~~~ r`l•~'~~ I ~~7}~~~ Pi1~; d;:'1' '4~!' t ~'- ~ 1~r, -1 ~t ~'tijv. .1 '~ 4t• y~li ~ M.1 ,Y~ ., ~l. .~,AI' 1.I' I~C X11 ,1'it ~.j ~' ~:• :i :. ~'_YAJ yUac'~. z ~' W~ s q~:n~:~.,:.~'~r: 4tr;~' ~,~~,~. ~J~~~ ~g~ ~1^~>y~~ a1u~ ~lti'#Ji~ ~~~ ~~~~~ 4 ,: 'N ~;~ YI'~~~,~ V 4;~i,i L'~"t'~F~ - 1 ~ - ~ ~~ Q ~ •D ~t z: i N ~ ~,~~E ~h" ~i~ o rn ~, r D ~~ip'~" ~~ ~ ' ~ Z Z ~' •161 < R1 ~ --I ~~ ~~~ ' ~tl ~ m ~ ~,y ;. li'~~~ rn"~S~ e e ~~ IJI 11 ~ ,1 ,~ ~ .~. , k x J 1q'~1 U Y gy t (- S t e h S -'1 ~~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ - s o -' -' C ,. ~a o ~ m : „ ~ °~i:i „.1 . 7 , t~- .~~. ~:~~ r V si99 ~.~,;jiSAt l ~i71{~~dd~, ~~~, ~' b o0 ,o ~ Y,. S °~', Ag o g ~, f+ ~ OV r _~ S o c in g ~. ~~ S S N O y~Q S ~[F.sa~'t s ~'Y•1 +L".fS N A ~`lalii': J .. ~ ,D r O N V O S N oO S ~ li g •~~~r ,l~~i17~ ~~ t ~.,. ~! ""~~;rr I i~:.'IC1.~ ~~'~:f ~ ~ 1~ as N ~~,h i~r~-c... \ ;1, ~: +;: ~:: ~ ~4:: 1.. ,q. .!q .,Y1,' lir. ~~ .1 ~. .t;. T ~~ 1 Impacts on Regional System Roadway Segments Table 9 shows the estimated current levels of service in the p.m. peak hour. The analysis reflects a comparison of the projected traffic volume demand to the carrying capacity of each roadway facility. For example, a mixed use lane can carry 2,300 vehicles per hour, but an auxiliary lane carries traffic only exiting and entering nearby interchanges and .therefore has a lower capacity (assumed at 50 percent of a full lane, or 1,150 vehicles per hour). HOV lanes are assumed to cant' 1,400 vehicles per lane at capacity. (Asa "worst case" condition, the modeling used in this analysis assumes the planned lane addition to I-494 will be an HOV lane.) This level of analysis is adequate for planning purposes and for the purpose of comparing . alternatives. Roadway segments operating at or near capacity, resulting in unacceptable levels of service E or F ("slow-and-go" or "stop-and-go"), are highlighted in Tables 9 through 1 S. The following segments currently operate at LOS E or F: • I-35W and TH 62 Common Segment • TH 77 River Bridge -- I-35W north of 60th Street I-494 west of Portland Avenue • TH 55 north of TH 62 (Hiawatha Ave.) • I-494 west of Penn Avenue • I-494 west of TH 77 As shown in Table 10, improvements planned for construction by the year 2007 will alleviate congestion problems on I-35W and TH 62 (Common Section), I-35W North of 60th Street and t TH 55 north of TH 62. These segments would not be overly congested under a No Build case. i However, TH 62 east of Portland becomes congested by year 2007 for No Build conditions, along with the remaining four segments that. are currently congested: - I-494 west of TH 77 - • TH 77 River Bridge • I-494 west of Portland Avenue • I-494 west of Penn Avenue Table 11 shows that traffic generated by Alternative 1 would add to No Build traffic volumes, `~ .resulting in undesirable levels of congestion in these additional segments in Year 2007: • I-35W north of 60th Street • I-494 west of 24th Avenue South Table 12 shows that the same segments would be congested in 2007 under Alternative 3B. 1~fOA Expansion EIS - 29- SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Travel Forecasting Technical Men:orandum 07/31/2000 • • • W U W N L~ O J W W J x Y W a a W Z J !"' Fa- W '~- m hhhhhhhhhf`~hf~hhhhf`~htil~lthhhh O v WWWWWWWWWWWWWL:IWWWWWWWWWWW ~ m Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q •~ ~ ;t it ik ~ at ~ ~ 3t 3t ~ ~ 3t it ~ qL 3t ik ~k it it 3t it it ~ Z L a~ ~` R ~ Q J t9 V O 3 9 C ~ J ~ L 'o °~ S Y m 10 ~. 3 ~ O L 3~ m ~ C O ~ _ i C m ~ a " D Y .M.. ~ e QI a L O ap x V C CL F 61 > ~ QO m G J c O m J °o°oo°OO°oo°°o°°o°o°o°oo°~°°o°oo°0°°0OO°°o°oo°o° ~ ~ N N N N O N N N r~ N N N N~ N N N N N N N N Ihil W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W Z2Z2ZZZZZZZZZZZ22ZZZ2ZZZ2 W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WWW W Z Z' Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z G Z Z Z o i e e o o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e o 0 o e e o 0 ~N~';~ OOO~?hOtl~~OhNONOOtnOCfO1~O to NOT GC) NN~tCNNttjKj~N~tjiGiCC'<•jNtGCC to ff! tCl In tl~ ~ iq In to tD t~7 In to LL7 In ti 3n In <O CO iA 47 in tf~ {n o e o 0 o e o 0 o e o o 0 0 0 0 o e° o o e i o ~ O tly t~ t1) to 4'f O O ~ O O to ^ O N h O ~ ~ T ~!! O ~ t!) tGtChhCCCA0DQ11~~CC00OC~0t~0)W o0~1~t~t~E0t01~ O°° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O°OO Ott~4'f OOtCJOOO~~OO~OOOOOOO Q1 ~ ~ ~ t0 ~. N ~ ~ tD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OOD ~ O QOf C ~ ~ h O O T T T T T !~ !" ~ T ~o~om~~rv<~ver<c<c<cocca~ccaio~amm~ovac T N d c ~ ~ G O > O ~ m N ~ L fA cVor~~=~ o~~ QQ~o`ri^ m,L c c ~~~ mNtD Ox=M.•= N O) y mtt~ OWN c~~'x ra.. ° O a w ~ C 'r' 'o ~ N a ~ c~7 N ~ ~ F '= W `w .d a ^ H OF-L O _~ OLL07m O per.... O O ~-.m O Or..u. O O y~~ y y d~~ d> t r m N H~~ y '! 7 7 y y t 7 co ~ o w co 0 0> >> >_ m a~ Z Z ro~ N N~ m Z~ N ~ZN NN1lf iA~'tafnf/~5~~ ~ ~~ ~33~ccocc~n~~au~~n.rv~titiv^33vv33 x~~xxxxxxxxxggqxxqx~cqq~ ~==~ HHF-F-FHF-t-...HF-.~F-...... O ~ ~ c y m y y ~ ~ 'O t0 W Q1 rn x ~ O O L 4 `' m d ~ a L y O ~ U U Q~ L ~ > O Q ,~ •~• L to °I ~ c c d ~ d c m U R E c r m °' c ~ O f0 C ~ c O 0 f0 ~ ~.. y U ~ v L ~- ~ d F- O. y ~ 0 .0 = C d ~ ~ j ~ c 3 0° d w m~ a 01N y ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ Y ~ QfO of Oi ~ ~ a m~T c%~ v m y ~ m o' coo F- cn ~ c X ~ U t0 w R > >, _ 'co ~ rn ~~ O ; t O jp ~o p ;tea o Z ~. ci o o 3 ~ o ^; L Qo Z h O V M C tl _~ v r u c4 O C ~_ ~ a~ ~ ~ O n { o ~ ~ ~ ° d ~ > UU~tt1000UUUUU~O~UUWwppiitiUU m ~ o ~~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ Nf V o ~ m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OOOOOOOOOOOOOtf100000000000 O C ~ = d^ D)rrM MMrMMMC~OMOf'~OgOMOOI'7M Or r N N N N N r N N N r r N N N N r N N N N N N N N O ~ Q1 O ~ y Q J y ~ V O U t zo ~ d E !''1C'0000 gC01~Or 06)LhC7~[Dgf~h!'7 q f~~rCO'V r 4~g0 el NtD ttMN ~ ~ ' ` ~ d d ~ 3 y r N-~ Oetrgr tD fi f ~7Mr r r r N r r r r r r r r r N r r r N ~ r N N r r t!1 ~ d = ~ J O m t ~ ~ ~ d m > p ~ O O S _ Q T rn Y m q~CO~ONO!'7M~p(prq(p~Orgp~r-~~OOM O OQ»l~~Or~rNriCQ~rt'OgNrQ~OGh~N1A'~O gCO M m c ~; o ~ C y d ; ~tntDNl~rOtntief OOtONrq l ')~Dti'~7NNr NNNf`')Mtnt~tOtnMPtO V' Ol~helet U R ~+ O O O C ea ~ E o ° 33 = o rny~~ co k x O o ca =- "- N ~ c ~ ~ ~ o o e e ~0 0 0 0 0 0 ~o ~o 0 o e e ~o ~e a~ ~ ~ t0v C ~ C~DNet r a?gtnhOtnll~~NNCOtO'QO~t OQf~700tn M f OY ~ ~ -- Y N N~ ~`'> NNE.=IV NMfh~~CNP'lrtri ~N~+J Nr ~ou~~n~n~i~n~n~nco~~~n~n~cc~n~~~ ` }- ~ a- a ~ ~o~~a ~ a~ 0 W i ~ V ~ c O „~ m ~ ~ > ~ "` ~ o ~ o e o e o 0 0 0 0 o e o e o o e o o e o ~ o 0 3 0 O OI~tAIANNf7c01~NtD~ON~f~Otl~EDhe-~MOOQ~tA G ~ ~ 0 d ~ m~"~ = c ~Dt 1 ~CUgO~t~Qic9CUQ1gf~CUCC1~OfhtCl~l~tOh m ~N y ~ IYp v p j O d W U ^'i :° > ~ a - r Y ~ CA O ~ n ~ i ~ ~ a ~'3~ ~ 0000000000000000000000000 °O oo° °O o ° °° ° ° °°° ° ^ M V r ~ o oo O_ oo ooo oo oooo _o o o oooo ~ tC ~ (,() V C V C _ _ t r r Oi 0~ CD r r CO ('7 O N CD M /~ O O ~- C1D (O q O~ t!J ~t O OhOOCD Ln C7 ~O (D of l~gOhtl')O~gONf`7 Qf 1~-rr {~ { a- ` / ~ ~ r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r N Li. `` ~ r W '' ^^ V/ ; D tL Q .. 0 ~ r- ggqet~f ~~ettttttatOtDOtDgtOODtOtDtDtOtOtCq . W r W ~ ~ J e=o ~ o°~i ..I r H ~ ~' 0 s Y ~ C _ ~ e ~ ~~ a a m y > m ~ ~ o n~Q c ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ d o ~ 0 2 ° ~c ~ 2 `1' N ~d2H ° ~ rno ~ = ^~ » iW = o - •- v0 .c O n a ~ , y ~ m c2 o C o`o`o o =m o =~N`o o. .m``o`ow~ p`o om o`o o F- o o m ~ m ~ •- o ~ ~ W C o ~r ~ r t« rs ~~r l0 C O l9 f0 0 0 0? j~ d y y ~ O N j 7 7 y y~ 0 - o o m d o o w ' ~' m m zww3z ? = > Q `o ~ e 'y U r„ Z I . co cn C o o Q: fn fn2~~ZZ~~f~fn33zCn N ~ e i ... ~ ~ N N N {A In V7 -~ ~ ~ fD~~tOCD~Otf)tnlAV7Lt9toQtt<f~h~l~.~~QQ~~ O C y L~~ Q O o Q7 O G7 Q~ In to Qf Of lA to Sc~MS222222~2 22 St~c'~ MM j 1'- Q p y ' o 0 <~ c ~ ~ Jy UUWtuUUUUUUUUpp WpUW WppLttiUU y ~ ~ ~ N ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O t9 C m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O tf) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ yv Q~rrP7 MMrNNNOOMOC'7OO0MOOMMOr .-. ~ `'NNNNNr NNNNrNNNNNNNN D> ~ R C ~ O ~ J ~ U ~ L O ~ MmrOO~rONmhNC7O~NtArEDMO)(pOMt~l~ m O r t~ 0 '~Y O O 1~ fh M M M In l17 O ifl lf~ O N IA to O M r r t(y ~ 4 *'r~N~~~O~'Q'NC+7(~7mtOrtt7N0~-COtOta4]~:- y 7 C r r r r r r r N r r r ~~J r r N N r r ~ N J U _U d t ~ V m ~ d Q ~ O ` O _ Q '~ ~ Y O O M r 0 0) M Of of N N I~ O P. tO 0 er er O ~p ti O Q1 N 0 C d~ O m MMtCQf mO~'lnml~rln00teO~ttaet}ffN(~ Y~fOP'OO~MtnN O C _~ a ; ~tNCti'NV MNeM-NNN~~t~AOO<OtNOf~ti~ef t~Nrst~ V ~•E ~ ° 3~ ~ '~ °~ y~ ~ OVf~ N ~ S C O Q ~ '~- N e o e o 0 0 o e e o. o e e o e o e e e e e e e o o ~ C cC0 a' ° C)CONttrmlALnt~Ott~t[~efNNODtOQO'crOCf~tmtn /9,~,~'- ~ = fYl~Ne=Mee~~CVNrrNNIMl7e~fOCV Nf~tl~t+')NMNr ~ N p, 16 O tr1 tp tCl tf~ tp to to to 1(~ CO In tt7 lq lp to fD to Ip i0 to to in {t~ t1) {t7 am f-am~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o e e a° o o~ o o e o o a a o e e o e o e o h o p 3 0 41 O Oh1!lONNMmI~NC°C°Ntt t~Otn 00 t~r~l'9 COOtA w mC'7 a O cCtOPI~aDCOaOCUI~CiNaDOicUt~cU~l~QlhtOhf~tOh RN y _ .~ _ eY0 "" O y O U ~ ~ U ~ m L m a ~~ ~° V o00000000000000000000000o a~3r ~ o00000000000000000000000o v v ~~ 0000000000000000000000000 `W C V CO CV atNf7a~~fVNt~ CiOajO C~QNfONOV OCNDe^~-O C~ Oh Qfrf~tnC7C°f~'~f mOrQ~~ r r r r r r r r r r r r N r r r LL O Q Q W /J/ mmo~vvvva~t~t~cccmo~ommaoaoccco~o~amm {jam r r N ~ Q = O Y J C O a `° o a ~o ~ ~° .x ~ ~ ~ v R d N ~. ~ W O m Q ~ m~ W F F- cV w~^~c°m m~ QQm.~t~ ms'o c `-C°U~ =O Z ~NtOO 0===~ m ~= C mL.'t..'~O ti Q1~.N C ~L= t N aco,,,,a f-H_ o» o~~O=f =~oo~m m o`° o~v, !, W oar o a °L °m°` c om o o`o Dom o oa:w o`o ~ ~`oi t L L A L L O O L L> r .J C N C O 10 fp 0 0 0 0~ 7 7 d y y 0 0 y>>> N N '0 7 ~.- Q W Q o W wZww~ZCn3~ o o h °~ mZZ m~ o o m y o o °~ J ''' N NNNtA~f7~tl7fnfn~~~ ~ fAt/~3~ZN y O ti ~ tD~~tOtOmtptt)tn~tntner~'at~^erti~~~f'R~~ O C Q O o SM~mi2=222=25=°~a~°'==°~=rmie~n°~a~~e~n.~ ..~y"f"Q Z r ___ ,..~ ci o o C ,: V o C 3 Z V i M b b 0 v ~~ W °° t O V ~a~ v W~ ~• u E` ~ V O N ~ ~ UU W WUUUUUUUU~~lt1OU~LLIO~LLLiUU to ~ ~ = ~'~` '~ N w ~ U o ~ m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O tC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W = Q .~ ~~ . O r r M M M r (~ M M O QI M O M O QI O M O O M M O r rN NNNNr(~{NNrrNNNNrNNNNNNNN ~ C ~ h t1 ~ ~ > V 'J R V ~ m ~{ ~0 ref O to M O N CO N N M O et !C) r 0 M Qf fp M Y! to h to to Q1 !O O O O M M M tC) CO In O O N O M Ili In O~ In O to O O L ~' r to O r l[~ M CO et of N M M CD ~D N LA N O r tD CD i0 {n tt r r r m N a 7 m r N r r r r r r r r r N r r N N r r N N r r ~ ~ J O ~ L - U U m L o c O ~ o ~ Y m rOM QfOO Gp6l~Nf~I~Of~MretQ10Cp1~00!*tp0 tOMtO NCAO CCtntDP.tn ~tOQfrO f~.rtOf~CDNtO~-N G1 c y le d ? _ _ N to e+f CO Ch c0 CD < O tt7 ~ iD O r of ~ O Qf i0 N CD c~tO f. ~d'C~N rNNN~!'etKJCOtO~DM00~0'ettAl~l~~at o i V ~ C ~ 3> a ~ ° m~ C O = ~ ~ O y .L-. m ~ C ~ ~- O w e o e e o o e o e e e o e o e o e• e o e e e o e e \ \ \ e \ e \ e \ o e o a e \ \ \ \ e e \ - \ v t0 C ~ ~ ~ C C o OO N elr00 tnll)f~Otn lA'~7NNOCD~OttOQ1t1'NtA O ~ V ~ Y C s N tM !V r C~7 et N N r r fV N M f'7 r CD fV trf r to Cr! N M CV r inu~v~~~n~n~~n~ncoin~n~n~~ncoin~<oinu~~~~~ l0 Y~ y ~ n a ~ v m ` ~ ay ~ v O m D Y ~ X e e e o e e o e e e o e o e e o o e o o e o o• e o e o o e e o\\\\\e o ~e ~~o ~o o ~.~\\\ OhtntffNN C'7OhNfOCDN hOt m t0 ~O m ~ 3 V ~ ~t nODi~r0lMCDOtp ~~ ~ ~:aoco aia~hcia~acaiaol~aoaol:o~-~cc1:t~~D1~ 0 ~ ~ x m~ ` ,~ ^'+ ~ a ~ o a n°. _ y w w L ~ U a ~ L a °' a~3> ~ W ~„ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-0 0 0 0 ~ a; j 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 { ~ C V ~ N ~ ~"> ~''> ~ N N N 'V O CV M O CO fV t~ t0 Qf t~ O t0 {!f GOO ! C O -~, W ~I~tn MtD1~t70O~O~00D ~ N 0 r i r. -e - e -r e ~- -Nr~~ 0 ~~ W ~~ j ~~ w a° J ~ ~. r coOJ00~~~~~~~~ccocoo~oa~coao~coco~c~acow r ~ ~ m ~, °' Y r Q ~~ o a, ~ - _ ~ C G a ~ X ~ Q ~ m ~ ~ ~ c ~ r J M H ~ ~ ~ w O` Q O d d y C t0 ~Y. W~ i W ~ L w ~ ; ~ ~ > E w ~ Nom ~ ~ u / / ~ n ~Y_ A\vIRI~ mt~ C (O~(C CU r ~nOOO ZD .~ Q Z ~ a~wa=~~~ c»= ° rn~~O`~x'QC~iaNO m o^~ E-a ~ ~' rnv~ ~,,h ~ i W ,~,~,..~z pMev,~ -- ,"..aa .. m O Om p O O ~ ~ Om ~ _.~ t> N LLCI F-L., it O OtL LL o h ~J c meo ac~'odoo~?>>>ai ccm~o'ommao y `on =o W a o a i w c~zww~zcnCa 'z~3zz3~cnv~33zcn ° ° o , ~~ I J ~ c nc n N NNNtnln to ht~ ti ~ m O a ° V ~ O O O O Of Ql ~ t1') Ol O! to t1) gF~'c~'_t'gc~'" F"'`~`~HHt=--=-~ = = ~~Y'~~r = H H Q -c v I .. F t -t - °vv O v z • • Tables 13-15 show projected regional system operations for year 2020 conditions for the three alternatives. Table 13 shows that planned roadway improvements continue to provide adequate capacity on I-35W and TH 62 (Common Section) and TH 55 north of TH 62 for 2020 No Build conditions. As a result, these segments would not be overly congested under 2020 No Build conditions. Congestion would continue to be a problem on the following (currently congested) segments in year 2020: • I-35W north of 60th Street • I-494 west of TH 77 • TH 77 River Bridge • I-494 west of Penn Avenue • TH 62 east of Portland Avenue Note that the analysis of the I-494 segments includes planned capacity improvements, but these sections still have capacity problems by year 2020, due to increasing demand. Increasing development in the region would also cause congestion on the following additional segments relative to today: • I-35W south of 82nd Street • I-35W south of 94th Street Table 14 shows the effects of Alternative 1 in 2020, with the following additional congested segments relative to the 2020 No Build: • I-494 west of 34th Avenue • I-494 west of 24th Avenue South • I-494 west of Portland Under Alternative 3B (Table 15), the following segment would also become congested in addition to the segments listed for Alternative l • I-494 River Bridge Table 16 summarizes the roadway segments where congested conditions currently exist or would exist under the No Build or Build alternatives. The Mall of America Phase 2 development would not contribute over six percent of the peak hour/peak direction demand on any segment of the regional highway system. .., MOA Expansion EIS • 34- SRF Consulting Group, Ltc. Travel Forecasting Technical Memorandum ~~i~ t~»t)~ O V o° ~ ~ ~ UO W cLUUUUUUUU~~GOUW U. W !LI W O~U y ~ N 4~ J N > V o ~ O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000011') 000000 01[111700 c ~ O tl 67 ~v _ O r r M l~ M r M t7 !7 0 O M~ O Q1 Qf !") 0 0 1~ h O r rNNNNNrNNNrrNrNNrrN N N rrNN ~ r ~ r' S '+ o r ~ y ~ O U ~ c 10 ~ ~ ~ V 10 = .-; h - O r 10 00 117 !t) CD ~~tlp{) N (D 1~ 1~ to O 1n 1n r 1'9 Qf ttJ N t0 01 CD !q N r ~ O > ~ ~^ O ~m a M tl ~ ^ NtiM O M rn `o ... V y C I ~. ! f D 1 1 1C7 / ') t O C ~7 OO i m t~t AN r r N N r r r r r r r r r r r r r N r r t" r r r 0 > ~ m o. ~ ` ~ y 61 ~ ~ d O U ~ L = > 0 O . L '~ 1X104'f1nOC1170~tN7NNC0tlQ1o'1tl"7tD'tt11'1~f N1t1N t7 <OMrfDhQ>Otn000ofh1~hiDNttOOOrMrQ1 h ~ ~ o ~L ~' = N 10 th h Q 0Th r tl 01 lh 117 N t0 Ql 49 t~ ED N iG O c7 tD OD et C'7N rMNN'ct ~100.7N1D 17 CD f0 tf) 1C1 Of 0117 ~ r 47 y Y ~ ~ ~ ~ U a ~ a. o r aci rn 3 > m o m °~ ~ ~ _ O ~ ~° ~ C __ C ~ e o o ~~ e o 0 o e a° a° o e e ~ o a ~ e a e g o o y U C A G oaDNslrtllntt7hOtntpstNl~ODtDiCOQ O t~MNtA V M N rJ t ~~ ~- 1 r t e CV CV r ~ CV 1V M fV tC lV ~ C Y9 Nl iD h (V ~ 1n tc7 to tt7 to 1A to td tp tD to tt'~ to t[~ 10 tO to 1n tO u~ O tt! tl~ tp tt) ~ 'D p, C G • F ~ y O m Y R ~ Q Y U C W t ~ d > 1 a ~ e o 3°0 ~e a°e a a°e a ~o.0 8°0 ~e e o ~~e o Ego°m ~v~ ~ "~'' p ~ O S Ott 1n1r7NN1~~1~NtDtD NtD010)tnQihr C>C~1`90)in tG1D1~1~ODp~ WOO1~QioJO~QiCU1~CpCD1~Qf1.; iCt~CL1tD1~ YN ~ d W ~ O v~ °3~_ m ~ t. ,= m ~ a W ~ X ~ 07 Y ~ C ~ f W m ~ ~ ~n' d1~a~a `-' ~ V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -~ ~ v W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (~ C U C ~oNrlCNetl~MOi.-rCjQ10Of~OQ1NPN'71~N Q~ rpprNh1DM10PefOOrt~hrOpOref 1lfN0)N1'7 r r N r r r r r N r r r N r r r W Q1 f" ~ W ~`- a c O W tltltla}~~ef~~st CD tD IDNtlmtGOt0 i0 t0NNCO Cp r r' r e"' r ^ ~. W J ~ C tl y O 01 ~ J C m F- ~' o F p _ `° ~ Y ~ ~ '% ~ o Q W y ~+ ~ ~ a+ ~ ~~ ~ lfl ~ 0~1 _ n- o ` ~ o ~ m ~ t= ~ Q N . Q. D LL7~ ~ ~~ _~ Q CAN OZ ahONt 0 2 z ~ °a°O~~H~ o»= ° c1~~Oq=~o~iaNO d c~~ a~l rno, yt° - ~ ,~ ,,_,_ ~r~a~1.,N,..~~ ~--~aa O ` m O O ~ ~ t > _ ~ m `" O ~.C O MB-t~ p=L ' NrtmmLLm O Ott « c 0 W Z C O fC 0 10 f0 0 0>> 7 7 j y y 0 O m~ 0 0 m y 0 0 W caZ W W ~Zfn -~ ~L"~~ZZ~~~ ~~ ~ZVJ ~ O io 7 ~ e V v i ..1 C) m ~ t7 L t c N NNNtltn u7 hti ~~y~t~>~ t0tc~tlt01DtD4~tt1uY1171[1to<of~1~t~~h } 9 a~rna 0 y p C H 4O ~~ F¢ N O ~ c?r12Z2S22=S~ ~.-S °'S~e~n+~o-rn~rOi --__F-E-f-f-i--~F---f-?4? = ~ 4? Q y ^ °O `t > - t f- t-__ __ v N z _ , V ° m u o° ~ m U~WtipUUUUUO~pWWppWLL.W4JW WpU ~ ~ N Jm ° c~ ~ ~ ~ Oo ` 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0000000000000~[f000 61 of C t0 fi 0000{[~tgOp O~rt'1c'7co~-t7t~coO1OMl~r000eh OO1~hOr ~` ~"NNNNN.-NNNrr-NrNNre-NN > NrrNN W C y ~ C J ~ ~ ~ V U ~: 2 h •' m C 00~04"fNOWrNd• W t~Or000tnI.O~DtOO~ltnt~'f 1~chcOhePC'~tAC~MO.-c~~•)CSONNI~'f r iD .. 't ° p L N W Qft~N N~Olh1~~l~tptl]sftA~fOteO)f~eraoehaoQli0tCltDN rrNNrr - - - C m E r~ ' ~ rNrrrrrNrrrrrr ~ O, O = l ~ m J V L v ~ m > ~ ~ O `' x e ~ r Y m rO~MOetOfONI+IQfMNOI~rOt!lMrMl~Ottfof O WOOOt0~~c4Nf 1~~0!"101~af tp ~Cf O~ riti r ` O of C O^ O d E V e Nm t A C'7~000'~YMNr ONtA~'~-Pi0~0NrQf iD1~Ot{7(~r l7~7N~er©pPt°of Of 10tp11yOOf'7tn O C O) U t0. C r ~+ O tai, ~ ~ m E c~ m C ~ ~ N ~ m O = c o ° ° f0 •_ ~` C ~ d W e e O O O O O O D O O O • O O O e O O O O • O O o o e ~ \ \ \ \ \ o \ \ e ~ \ \ ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ o Q~CONetrCAY~tn1~OtAt[»NP.GOfO<OO U O C ~ C) ~ ` N O Y C ~ O ef O1~MCO~ CV C7ltir-f`•:'~CVIti~-NNC~~NtON 0 tt) to tee ~[! tt) t17 to ~ ~7 tp tt) tC! t0 Y7 tfJ t° LC1 10 ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ aN a G 4 9t ~tt 1 fft il~ y f„ a n ~ S ° ~~~ x ~~~ o ,~ L O O o e e e o e o e e e o e o• e o e e o 0 o e e o 0 ~ \ \ \ \ e \ \ e \ \ n e \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~ ~ \ \ Ofd 1fltpNNC~COhNtOtDNCOfOItACf tfJ ~ 0 3 0 0 ~ m C7 ~ N O b e.~ Y~ rQfCOMOt[7 cDCO t~1~CO W COO~hQicOO~CaDt~CUaotioil~fGthCO~OI~ f ~ ~ 0 y ~ ~• a ~' ~.- a e m H .~~°-- a, U d - ~ c m r am3; W W N 7 v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v v ~ c V C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W ~ Q NOT'rtO~tty~^O.=Qi~'~~e"f IAtONaOgqe)EO~O Vf ~ N f° Ch tD h tCJ O Q1 O ' 0 Q m ~ Q7H ~•„ r N r N ~C IA N O M f~ ~ N e - r Nrrr Nrr „J ~ a W m ~ W <~ J ." tCC° CO et '7'~t'7'V'C~fDtDCNm COt0Ot0t0tCNNfDO ~' r r H r O C N^ x J m~ 4l Y r R k- a O ~o ~ c ~~ d. c > n ~ W m . m m o m Q d ~, E; ~ ; ~~ m ~ °t- ~ a z, ~ Q Eve c N ~ >°> `6 inv> >ts ~ N QO >'` a Q Z D m ~~ t=~~ h Q!.=r C c Rtf G V O~^~ o° ' N p = z z = N ~ ° ° ~ =~ ~ 01 ~QVp gxya io i° -0»2 Oro .f ,.- -- ~ Or ac .a ~~ ~ W ~~r ° ° ° °zmm`o orr o`o ° °"m ° oar. c o. o y ~ e r ...~ C lN0 C O ty0 l9 m O O m> j~ 0 O N 0 ~ y j 7 7 N N~~ r- Q 'y :• W Q O W m2W W~2y ~~ O O> e eZZ m~v~tn m mZ~ C3 3 ~ ~ ~ 3 N ~ °~ e H N ~ v ~v °~~a~ ~ v~tiv ti33v ~33 '~~' t e ~ u7 2 = = ~ = = = o c F-Q 4ja~ ..1 h 'c 7 _HHF ',~~gc F -F -F -~Sgf=„~''{~~c -HF -F -1 o ! O o vv Z ~ E: i .. ~ ~ -- ~ ~ o . ° ~ ~ ~ UOtitiUUUUUU00WW WOOWtLlt! W W WOU y ~ o C1 J N ~ H ~ V o L m Q O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OOO 00000000004') 0000000 {ntn p ~ C ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ p O r r P7 C7 C~') r M C7 f`') O O l"! ti r O O Qf M O O ti~ O r- r' N N NN NrNNNrTNTNf\TrN N Ne~TNN .-~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ C ~ v ~ h V aJ ~ ~ V 0 o t h d r rn ~ .- o~ rn .- ,- T cn co ~ co T ~ 4i o .- N ao m to m .- th CO M O f~ O M O O~ C7 M r 00 t+! t! t~ h h N i0 N Cf r tf) N NI~ m a ~ 7 d T~tO~htntnetCtAOi~QftD~CCOe~JCO Q~iCtOtAN r" rN Nrr ~-rrTTNt~rrTrNrrrrrr tf7 ~ m _ ~ ~ ~ J v V ~ L ~, ~ ~ a m > ~ o o ~ o 2 Q '~' Q, .Y R m N tf~TNf~OTNehtnNMOfhl~L70tO1t~P71r 0p t~NO et to N 'et O !~ CO C~ of fD O It'j ~ W Qf O~ O ff) i0 O t~ iD O in !7 O N y O C d ? O~ O~ Qf C'7 W tnr-TCOtAtnNPPCDCNfQf ID 1~~-htDT MOCDetMN~-<`7frlNttstiOCIP©~QltO tt~ 47O Cf etL1~ __ U ~• ~; T ~ ~ ~ `° ~ E o' 0 +, m c ~ c ~ ~ $ ~ O= m °.° y ° o o e o h o 0 0 0~ o o e o ~~ o ~ o ~~ e o h o ~ _ ~ m ~ V~ v C ~ OJN~rppy~{nti0{n{n'RN-~CCDiDO~Oti~"9Opin MN ~Y m 0 y ~ O N r'Cle~~}NtVr~NNR1etNC)fVtf 1~1flMtOhfV~- 4 7 4 7 4 Z 4 7 t 1') I n C O{! 9 t 0 C 4 7 u 9 47 4 7 m 47 ~ 1 t' t t F- ~ d= a ~ ~ ! !! f f~ 47 O O t o F' O_m o > ~ .- ~o O t9 V t ~ ~ C Y C ~ j ~ _ ~ o o e v o a o 0 0 0 0 o a e o ~°o 0 o e a o e~ o~ o a _ Ot~tAtnNNMChNtOCONiOQ~OtnQltlr0100~'9~tA tG D : h O ~ Ot''~ ~ ^ Y t l c O~CCCU1~~cO0~Qi0Dt~CJCOI~Qf I~t~1~00tah ~ ~ N ~ ~ . } 7 ~ e c~ O ~ V ~~ma ~ W _ U t > U ~ a Y ~~•m~° T J P" ~ '~ N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v v ~ C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~,~, = V Q~ r NtDQip~7 CDQiCirNrh~hNGitOOl~f OfOtt W M NQ>~-Nt~COC'')tD/~1A00NTO0r-Oe-MetOt'70N1") - 0 T r N e- ~- r e- N a- r N e- e~ a- N N r T J ~ H m A J Q ~ r (DpN`~~~tet~t'~f~fDfatDNEDCtDOtCLCtONNtDCO ~ 0 ~ ~" r T T ~ O o Y J ~ a i Q cCO ~- a ~o ~ _~ •~ ~ b a C U o . C > dQ p d f0 C ~ ~ d W O ` ~ t 6 ~ Q OL=~h C Nt0 tt7~ QQ(/) C _ cND m 0 m ~ U N= F ~^ C C O _ = O u Z L c o s Z~ 0 2 H Q1~ dcNC ;°_c~H~~ o»= o~QVp~2'o~m y pco= o,rn E•°: •. ~ W O F O~ O O L ~ m m O O m `p `p C O p m 0 0 0 0 t O; Lc~ Qo T J C t L ~ ~ o "m cyo °' o'o ~~>> ~ m m o o d> o o d o o a ` '„ ~ J Q O d fOZ ~~c°n cn°~33ZZ3z~nm33ZV~ o ~ 7 O i m o N ~ N NNN~n ~n co~~~ococca4)~au~u~vvv^tiv'`~S'vv~~ c `_ ~°'~ O =~~SSSS=222=o~O+ef_SQ'2t~+'~t~+i~'~'c~%ir~i ~~ • • • H H N ~ O ` G O ~ N N N N N N ~ O _ O ` ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ N f6 f0 ~ L L L L L '_ d '~ ~ L • 7 .O m ~ 7 7 7 m >. tIl m ~ ' ~ a ~a ~a ~ °1 ai QE:Q~¢E: c c ~ c c v c ~ ~ o ~ 'o cca •° ~ ~ ~ C ~~ 0 ~ 0 ~ V N V ~ m a i H ~ io -- •c •o C m E ~ e~ O~ O o` E `o 'S E . ~ 'm d ~ '~ ~> oooo`o`oE E E = E O co>o 0 ~~am~~ -°aa co m ? co ? ooZ Z i E C~ ~.~ ~.3 Vl N 4! ~ N d y O. ~ d O ) C m V~ U O U~ d C1 !D O y 7 C 'O 7 ~ C a,E j~j~=~m cyn ~ N~c`~o d~c°~Ec•°ia~imd E cc`o cEc~c~d a 4. mcon- ai~oceEoaiioy•io o Xo oEoEoEO~p ~p modp RC~XOC~o U w aU taU coU ~~: ~ ~~U ~o~ - _..... .. . : U IoW aU coU io w ~ .._ ... ~. m ~ ~ ~ ~o ~= c W e o 0 o c ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o .C O '= N .~• N t t t0 t ' N ~n co v' C7 N c~7 i0 a ° s U ,II ~ _........_.__ _......._. .... C v R ~, N ...» _~ ...~ .......... m m F m °a ~ ° o ~ o 0 0 o 0 0 0 ~ o 0 0 ~ o a o 0 _ = W to t t 7 t ~ N ~ N N N .- N to i ~ V a ~ L1. ` ~ G1 M O W W W W W W W W W U ti W W Q ~ C1 V • _. ~ N N ~ ~ C m N D Q O W W W p W W W W W U W tL ~ O ~ .1 N ~ ~ ~ {~ a m O w w w p O O w p w U ti ti !~ J ~ z a V i ~ d c ~ ~ an x w W O O U O U w w W W p W L W " _. ...._.._._ ~ ..._...... _ Z C 0 H x W W ~ ° °' m °' E ' = ~' m ~ ~ '~ ~ (~ L C L Q Q ¢ f=0 t~ ~ ~ 0 N O N '7 G7 O ~ O ~ L L C ~ h = ~ d ~ ~ N M ~ d d t- r ~ C F- L L L m O O O O O L O ` W ay g ~ ~ o o a ~ z ~ cn ~ ~ ~~ ~ a z ~ J ~ 3 ~ 3 3 ~ ~ w ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° •? - - i a 4 a Y o i a 4 'v c = Z 2 =t I- N ~ - - t- t- E-- f0 E co ~, N C N a t L `O z `o c E m m o ~ ~~ ~ ~ c ~ a E -L ~L c 3 U C O O H N m m C O ~ ~ U 3 c o aEi W a~i aEi co c E of N N C m ~ H ~ ~ ~ a '~m~ m~a~i c a,Q~m ccHQ C YOU O O O C CUl d .~ ~maa ~ ~.., .., a~"Ne~ °o o 1 V o 3 V 00 .. b r 0 E v cy zo O h V e u ~a ~' -- O ,'c Freeway-to-Freeway Interchanges • Table 17 shows the effect of the developments on principal arterial interchanges near the study area. It can be seen that by 2020, interchanges will experience peak hour growth generally in the 20- to 30-percent range, even under a No Build condition. Ramps that would experience congestion are highlighted. Freeway interchanges were first analyzed relative to their physical capacity. It can be generally assumed for planning purposes that a freeway ramp has a capacity of 1900 vehicles per lane, with an inside loop ramp having a capacity of 1200 vehicles per hour. Under that assumption, the following ramps wauld be above capacity in 2020 under the No Build alternative: • SB I-35 to EB TH 62 • WB TH 62 to NB I-35W • EB TH 62 to SB TH 77 • NB I-35W to WB I-494 Under both Alternatives 1 and 3B, the following interchange would also exceed capacity, although it should be noted the ramp would be near capacity under the No Build alternative: • NB TH 77 to WB TH 62 The build alternatives would result in a volume increase at this ramp of IO to 14 percent for Alternative 1 and Alternative 3B, respectively. The projected contribution of the build ' alternatives to the total ramp volume at this location would be Ies's than the potential error in the travel forecast model. A major factor in the freeway-to-freeway interchanges is the metering of the access ramps. Meters are used to control flow onto congested roadways, and metered ramps are frequently constructed with queue detectors to detect whether the queue will spill ,back onto the adjacent mainline freeway. The metering rates for a given traffic demand greatly affect the average wait time at a ramp. Assume a ramp with a metering discharge .rate of 6 vehicles per minutes and a demand of 500 cars in the peak hour, which would result in an average wait of approximately 10 minutes. Assume also that 'under the no build, this demand increases to 650 vehicles (a 30-percent increase) and under a build alternative increase to 750 vehicles with no corresponding increase in discharge rate. The resulting average wait would increase to approximately 23 minutes for the no build and 31 minutes for the build. However, if it is assumed that the discharge rate is increased by 33 percent to account fora 33 percent increase in mainline capacity (on I-494, for example) the average wait would drop back to nine minutes- under the no build and 15 minutes under the build alternative. The proposed I-494/I-35W interchange ring road, in combination with the 79th/80th Street arterial system (see Figure 12), will reduce the effects of the proposed development on the ~- I-494/I-35W interchange by providing an alternate route along I-494 and an alternate access point on I-35W. This will serve demand for shorter trips along I-494 as well as potentially reducing demand in the I-494/I-35W interchange. This roadway system is covered through MOA Expansion EIS - 39- SRF Consulting Group. Inc. Travel Forecasting Technical,tifemorandum 07/31/2000 TABLE 17 2020 FORECAST VOLUMES ON SELECTED AREA FREEWAY RAMPS System Interchanges Near Airport South rom: o: xisting Volume (1) No Build ercent Change from Yolume Existing 2020 Forecast Alternative 1 ercent Change from Volume No Build Aitemative 3B accent Change from Volume No Build SB I-35W EB TH 62 2110 2625 24% 2725 4% 2800 7% WB TH 62 NB I-35W 2047 TSSO 259'0 2650 4% 2725 NB I-35W WB TH fit 480 600 25°'e 650 8% 650 7X a EH TH 62 SB I-35W 537 675 26% 725 7% 725 g /e 7% SB Cedar Ave. EB TH 62 106 125 18% 125 0% 125 0% SB Cedar Ave. WB TH 82 146 175 20% 175 09'e 175 WB TH 82 SB TH n 551 675 23% 775 15% 825 0% 22% W8 TH62 NS Cedar Ave. 132 175 339'e 175 0% 175 NB TH 77 WB TH 82 1461 1825 25% 2000 10% 2075 0% 14% NB TH 77 EB TH 62 485 600 24% 700 17% 725 21% EB TH 82 NB Cedar Ave. 139 175 Z6°k 175 0% 175 OaK EB TH 6T SB TH 77 1615 7000 24°~ 2700 10% 2275 14% SB TH 5 EB TH 55 399 525 32% 525 0°,6 525 0% S8 TH 5 WB TH 55 537 875 26°~ 675 0% 675 0% WB W9 TH 55 TH 55 SB TH 5 NB TH 5 140 200 43% 300 50% 325 6396 NB TH 5 WB TH 55 331 799 425 1025 28% 28% 425 1200 0°~ ' 425 pS6 N8 TH 5 EB TH 55 276 375 3696 500 179 0 33% 1200 525 1786 ' EB TH 55 NB TH 5 692 850 23% 850 0% 850 409 0 0% EB TH 55 SB TH 5 851 1100 29% 127j 16% 1275 16% SB TH T7 E8 TH 13 243 300 23% .400 33% 425 42% SB TH n WB TH 13 777 1000 29% 1125 13% 1175 18% WB TH 13 SB TH 77 30 50 67% 50 0% 50 0% WH NB TH 13 TH n NB TH 77 WB TH 13 508 650 28°k 750 15% 775 19% NB TH n E8 TH 13 30 186 50 250 67% 3a% 50 250 0% 0% 50 0% EB TH !3 NB TH n 251 325 299'e 425 31°~ 250 450 Day, a E9 TH 13 S8 TH 77 29 50 72% 50 0% 50 t6 38 ' _. 09 e SB TH 7T EB 1.494 224 275 23% 375 36% 425 55y SB TH 77 WB I.494 184 225 22% 225 0% 225 , 096 W8 I-494 SB TH n 790 1000 27% 1100 10% 1150 15% WB I.494 NB TH 77 461 575 25% 675 17% 725 269' ' NB TH 77 WB I-494 715 900 26% 1175 31 Ye 1125 0 259' N8 TH 77 WB 194 (HOV)(2) 64 75 17% ° NB TH 77 EB I.494 353 450 27% 550 22°Ao 575 289( EB I.494 NB TH 77 425 525 24% 525 0% 525 , pay EB I.494 SB TH n 7so 875 23% 1075 10°'0 1125 , 15% S3 i-35W EB I-494 431 525 22°k 650 24°'e 675 29% Sii h35W WB M494 407 525 29°k 525 0% 525 096 WB i~94 SB i•35W 541 700 29% 800 14% 825 18% WB 4494 NB I.35W 456 575 269'0 875 17% 700 22% NB I-35W WB i-494 1071 1400 31% 1400 0% 1400 Og( N8 I-351N EB I-494 701 900 269'0 1000 11% 1025 , 14°6 EB I.494 NB 135W 566 725 28% 725 0% 725 OY EB I-494 SS I-35W 1334 1725 29% 1725 0% 1725 e 0% Notes: (1) Mn00T Trafitc Management Center All Detector Report (April 1999 data, published 10/99) (2) Existing HOV bypass assumed to be removed as part of 1-494 roconsWctlan. _. 3 3 f MOA Expansion EIS - 40 • SRF Consulting Gr•rop. lnt. F~avel Fa,•eearting Ttc/tnicol Memo,•oedum 0%.31/2000 Mn/DOT's Integrated Corridor Management System (ICTMS), a coordinated freeway-arterial traffic management system along I-494.The effects of the development alternatives on the I-494/TH 77 interchange are somewhat mitigated by the presence of direct ramps to and from the Airport South area to and from I-494. FIGURE 12 INTEGRATED CORRIDOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROJECT AREA ~ EDINA ~ V ~ ~ RICHPIElO ~~ N I Y • • I s ~ e c u z "i c r = ` ~ ~ S i s } . I = 6 R ti'i w _ I W.7llhh I I E>6tRSt. I ' I ?M k W. fih St I ~ E T,th St. ' ~:..' .... I E 7ttd S~ ~ ~... M 1 II I t. 7xn s~ H - - ~ ~. ~ :..........~ w.lansc 1w.7>,ns~ ....`~ I t.lansl. W lR S I, Eltchh Y ~ . e ~ II W~ ,j W.MnS~ W.t11hSc 11 I' BLOOMINGTON Source: ICTM, 1999 Project routes are solid dark lines. Dashed lines are proposed routes. L i Acces Ram s . Table 18 shows the .existing and forecast demand at local access interchanges adjacent to the Airport South area. By the year 2020, traffic entering the freeway system from those interchanges is expected to increase by 51 percent over current conditions. The most significant r increases are. expected at the 34th Avenue interchange, where traffic will increase by 88 to i 100. percent (westbound and eastbound, respectively). This increase can largely be attributed to ., the redevelopment of the MSP International Airport HHH Terminal area. Development from the Mall of America Phase 2 will contribute less than 10 percent to the increase at that interchange. The loop from westbound Old Shakopee Road to southbound TH 77 will have a demand exceeding its capacity under the both build alternatives. In particular, Alternative 3B centers the increases in demand to the south on Old Shakopee Road and Killebrew Drive, whereas Alternative 1 focuses demand more on the Lindau Lane interchange. The three southbound accesses to southbound TH 77 will be subject to significant ramp metering and therefore .experience increasing peak hour delay and require additional storage capacity. The interchange at I-494 and 24th Avenue South will have a peak demand of approximately 1,350 vehicles per hour under the No Build. This would require a metering discharge rate of approximately one vehicle every 5.3 seconds per each of two metered lanes. This rate of discharge would be high for a congested facility, where cycle lengths .tend to be in the one -- vehicle per 15 to 20 seconds or more. Under the Build alternative, the required discharge would be 4.4 seconds. Adequate .storage capacity at the interchange or traffic management via. the ICTMS network would reduce the effect of longer vehicle queues at the interchange. MDA E.rpansion EIS • 4!- SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Travel Forecasting Technical Mema•andum 07/3//1000 o o o e o 0 0 0 0 0~ o~ o~ o ` Z~ G N r Q~ CO O O to CO N N O O 4~ m t 9 NM Mlntt'~tMtANN y O Vo C7 ' ~' w _ R i m 00 tnOtntnOtntnOtf)O e w E ~ C~O O- r~N ~ON~~ ~ Q ~ ~e C O C r r CD N r r r U ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ CZ~ O CO 1~tnC'7 01N'~lsl'OtiO r, ~ N CO O Op t- r N r N > ~m ° "' : N , . e a G V p OO t1)tfltpOOtAOCnOO i +~ + ~ h0 NNt~tt~ONtnl~l~0 p Q ~t r r r N CO LA CO O CO ~ M LL. ~ r r M CV r r N ~ O N ~ o o ~ o ~ o 0 0 0~ o 0 ~ C: ~ C ep N O O CO a0 t10 N Ch ~ CA Ch st tl)lt~ O CONNCOet~f~OJN O ~ r ~ r.. 'O e W C 3 r- m O p O tp t0 tC~ O O tp tt9 to to O O O Z ~ ~ (~ N N to tp -~ N N N O to t thC70 OOrt*N1~C71tACON y O ~" N N r ~ !q > n ~ ~ ~ } ON O)CL~1`NtTOr~thr O In to QS ~ - ~ r to O O t7 O I~ O O Q C m CTS t[7 ~f O r C'7 N 0 CO N CO N r d . H E r r '~ ._ ~ W N W ~ ~ w ~ ~ Q ~ o ~ ~ ~ Q o ~~r~--r~r.r. `r `t ~ ~ `t ~ ~~ a ~ ic c i io i c YY YYY~ = = = = = F c o w ~ ~ I -t -F -I -F - ~, O ~ ~ V o w,.,, mm mmmmmmmmmm Q a a ~ ~ w w~ w3wzcnzcnzcncn ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ z'~ mm ~ U 3 `r O Q 3 w a c n ~° ~ W ai E o o °' . E ~ _ to ° ~`- ~ m ~° ~ c ~ O~ G W C N ~ o, O E 0 v ^ CO ~ d C .. ~- ~ : N ~ ~ C N ~~~ O' O ~ ~ ~ v Q N t!J!n fA(n 47 0 E >>a~a~m CO O p m p p p tU 'G E N O CU U ~ c`o 0 S O V ~, W a ~ c c c c ~~ o 0 0 ~ ~ ~~ ~ i °° Q v ~~~ -Y Y Y ~ > > > > J J J 3 3 f/: H O ~ ~ ~ ~ c c :. C O Q c O c O c O C Q Q Q Q >>>~~ L L L O U V z u U to C m N V Ceti etef C C,C =_~~~ W ' J J O O ALL H N J NN MC 7 J YY000 (nZ r .. , O 'a E: CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Transportation • Civil • Structural • Environmental • Planning • Traffic • Landscape. Architecture • Parking SRF No. 0983008 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Clark Arneson, Planning Manager Mr. Jim Gates, Deputy Director of Public Works CITY OF BLOOMINGTON FROM: Marie Cote, P.E., Associate Carla Jones, Engineer DATE: July 31, 2000 SUBJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THE MALL OF AMERICA EXPANSION -MET CENTER SITE (DRAFT EIS) IN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON Introduction 4 . We have completed a traffic study for the alternatives being considered in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the expansion of the Mall of America (MOA) development, located in the southeast quadrant of TH 77 and I-494 in the City of Bloomington. The purpose of this study is to determine the transportation impacts on the local roadway system related to the planned development of this site and other properties in the Airport South District through the year 2006. Proposed MOA expansion development includes a mix of retail, office, hotel and residential uses. This study considers the impacts of existing and future (2007 (one year after project completion] and 2020) conditions during the p.m. peak hour for the no-build conditions and four build development alternatives defined in the project Scoping Decision. Document. Traffic operations were analyzed for existing conditions at the following key intersections in the Airport South District (see Figure 1): • 24th Avenue and I-494 Ramps ZOth Avenue and Lindau Lane • 34th Avenue and I-494 North Ramps • 22nd Avenue and Lindau Lane • 34th Avenue and I-494 South Ramps 24th Avenue and Lindau Lane • Thunderbird Drive and East 79th Street • 24th Avenue and East 82nd Street • 24th Avenue and East 79th Street • 20th Avenue and Killebrew Drive • 24th Avenue and East 80th Street 22nd Avenue and Killebrew Drive • 28th Avenue and East 80th Street 24th Avenue and Killebrew Drive • 34th Avenue and East 80th Street • 28th Avenue and Old Shakopee Road One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150, Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443 Telephone (763) 475-0010 ^ Fax-(763) 475-2429 ^ http://www.srfconsulting.com An Eau.,1 ~Dt70rt[rnftU Enttrlv;rr~r I ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ ,~ ~~~~ ST. 9 1 Minneapolis- St. Paul International ST 0 ,e h M /1 •! A h D ~1 b ~ w sT. (Wold- Chamberlain Field) SL ~ /// ST < < ~ <~ ~' ~' ~ ~ Ind 71a ~ .rr z ~~ FORT SNELLING s S ~ ~ = ~ ~ $ ri NATIONAL CEMETERY 7~ dt 5 sT a 8T. ° I n ~ a ST. ISI ~ M. / 4 ~ 9T ~ m o t E 7tM '• < ST. ~ ~ aa0 W i Oq $ d I S I ~ ••~C ~ E •n St < E bin ST. I ° °t E Wtn ST E Wei ST. ~ E eu ST. ~ APPIf'fREE d ~ E ett S SCWR_ etrt eT. D ~ Qnd a ee ei ~ ~ E ~ 'd ~ ~ MOA e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~+ ~ sr. < eT m r < < s Lands ~ °~o ~ ~ ~ ~ Ew a ~ ~ "tr "~oow ~ e~ N si. ~ E OLD ~ RES Q°• D m < u1 ST ~ 5 ~~O W ~ Long Meadow Lake W KtR=r ~ ~ BLOOMINGT W ~ E eTO~ sr. n ~ ~ ue, ~ sT. 1990 POP. 86,335 lJ ~ st. ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~u~st E < Ntn Z R0. ~ !! dt T. 19 SKTIIE oa. H ~' O P~~ W ~ 5 ey e~ C RiVQt RiO°E CIR. 3 ~ s ~ ~ g ~ ~ esm sr. < < !a ~. ~ ~' W < ~ 0: u - ~ W m ~ Si ~4 5 O S ft n n. ~ - 4 0~~ D ST e Legend /~ ` • Existing Intersections (t \ - * Proposed Development Driveways v ~ --° Proposed Roadway Correction ~ , oc~ c` CITY OF BLOOMINGTON FIGURE ©CONSULTINC GROUP, INC• KEY STUDY INTERSECTIONS TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED EXPANSION OF SRFN0.0991008 Mgl_1 nC AF/ICRIr A • • Mr. Clark Arneson Mr. Jim Gates Existing Conditions -3- July 31, 2000 A traffic operations analysis was conducted for the p.m. peak hour at each of the key intersections to determine how traffic currently operates within the .project area. Current traffic controls include signalization at all key intersections, with the exception of 28th Avenue and Old Shakopee Road, which has side-street stop control on 28th Avenue. All intersections were analyzed using Synchro for the key signalized intersections and the Highway Capacity Software for the unsignalized intersection. Traffic volumes used in the analysis were primarily based on 1998 and 1999 intersection peak hour turning movement counts. As shown in .Table 1, results of the analysis indicate that all key intersections during the p.m. peak hour currently operate at Level of Service (LOS) C or better, with existing traffic controls and geometric layout. Table 1 Existing P.M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis * Indicates an unsignalized intersection. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE 24th Avenue and I-494 Rams C or better 34th Avenue and I-494 North Rams C or better 34th Avenue and I-494 South Rams C or better Thunderbird Drive and East 79th Street C or better 24th Avenue and East 79th Street C or better 24th Avenue and East 80th Street C or better 28th Avenue and East 80th Street C or better 34th Avenue and East 80th Street C or better 20th Avenue and Lindau Lane. C or better 22nd Avenue and Lindau Lane C or better 24th Avenue and Lindau Lane C or better 24th Avenue and East 82nd Street C or better 20th Avenue and Killebrew Drive C or better 22nd Avenue and Killebrew Drive C or better 24th Avenue and Killebrew Drive C or better 28th Avenue and Old Shako ee Road* C or better Proposed Development This study includes the analysis of future conditions during the p.m. peak hour for the Draft EIS No-Build conditions and Build development alternatives described in Table 2. Note that the No-Build scenario assumes development of a number of parcels in the Airport South area as "background" development, but retains the existing parking uses at the Met Center and Adjoining Lands parcels. O O N --, ~t i N r.. L W L w N O '~ a. E N y N :r Q ~ m .x V ~ cd ~ r ~ U ~_+ ~ ~ ~: i ~ .S ~ C c`II cC ~ ° H NN ~ d a Ao°O ~ u Y U ~-^ o ~ O aJ O C O .~ Y .C O0 to u ~ ~ 4 u C h ~ C •C y ao . F u ~., u ~ a x a .c y ~ .. a ~ E~ v• 7 u u u .o ~ a A»' y Yy ~W ~ ~ H o ~ A sc y ~°" `~ • W ° •° ~ ` o. X ° a 'u'A e - A m ~ m e o_ p •. . C O C y ou U O O • • ~ ~ y 'fl . ~o ~ ~ ar y C ` ~ , O .. 'C N C rn U Yi.. in .Y.. N C :. E O tC y a C C y C C a an y 9 C C ..a so ~ °:•ootz]Eu o.$sy ° c .. ~oEou•E "' `W^•v ~~`~,c ' d y 0 ,1 a u ... u ~s p h C O O E O o o Y m p ~° a.o ° ~ ` y Y y Y OO Y . A E~ c i°o E °dy I ' ^o' ^.~':N a 'y ° a ,Q •v~ ~~°-a ~ °. o E: ~ ^r o~, r~ a ~ o ~ ~ n ........ h ~a~ c'y . . . . . . o Z •X = c H d ' w f ~° - A u 1 .o u° o " • m 1 I . as v ~ ... .c ~ o 1 I 1 I ..1 d y u ~ ~ O O t' 'r ~ H ~ Y V 7- m u O u W uo H> u u o, u o m ~~•n. u~ ~ h u S E W ~ H u dv m .X~ ~ed.S W Y H Q1 m c Y O L 4. q C to ° y c ~ ~ o°~ C - O ` ° ~ .y ~ 'fl y m ° r.~ ~ L p ~ ~ - 'd q t y •y m r ~ C ~ ++-°' ~ G p E c rn e - ~D m . d N L^ a . .~ y .0 V O h E v C V 00 `• ~ 9 ai V C vYi a) a) a u o v ~ ~n ~, m cs, •_ V •o V •v ,,,,, ~ O p c.. O e+1 y U tt ~ N N L1r ~ 3 C v i C y 0 ~ .-:s o M v•oU . . Z w cs a•v a•~ oa 1 I I I I I i N 1W r a y w ~ ~ `° •~ E.y _ v y~ y 'C u al o `° f y N N u m C m C~ d i u t H v o n, A d -~ N -~ ~ ~ u C ° c . ' W x ~; :: O E y ~ 00 C y C ~ y D y L O' O .y c0 a) t~ C ~ y~ y' y C A E C N~ N ~° N y C 7 .~. E ~ O C ~ L ` ~ .D C A ~ ~+ ~ N u tY N ~ ~ O O '` U F, ~ RS COL a ~1 O .~ y x H ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ U f~ ~~ O O u Oa I I I I ( I I 1 .r Gra ~ y y ~ {~ ~ •L. W as _ H . .. "•' u ~~~ Y = y ~ u E ~ ;~~ ~ 3 ~d v, o a~ " ~. y a 7 O T ~ a ea v, a d ~ m y '- ai u ~ W u ~ C . , y C C ~ .. p y ' ' O V _ ' ' ~ W ~ v Y ~ x O y .D Y - 0 0 '`y vi O C C - m vf C ~ C fl vl vl ~ C t~ E : a E °~c~" ~°oo v y ~,v '~ a c • ~~ . ~ ~~00 o m A H ~o v_ c o o ~ -' M u m t'1 M E 'x ~ E=. O Y C1~. a w O~ _ y u X U -o C y 'v .c=i C y 0 0 ~ I I I I I 1 I O O C ~ ~ ~ N~ ti yfZ. C ~ a) Y y y N av6 'o a ~,; H Y ~ ~° ~ y Q, ~ a A ,~ a A tr . irO ~ e i ~ u ~ e 0. c3 m w o p u c O ~ C • A u E~• U a YO C~ C yO ] •m ~ a) ~ 00 ~ 00 C ~ ~ U .C ~ ;C ~ " _ _L •X . c~ c ~ ~ ~ » ~~ v 6>;i . C b a U ~ ._ A C C 0 ~ x w~,o A W.,°W _ Z W y ..~~ y ..avy z l I , I I I 1 w ~' ~ ~' F,, ~ ~ ~ ~ a Z ~ m = • 3 o ~ F ~ .~ N ° U ~ Z C c • ~ ~ o e , U W U e C7 ~ ` ~ „ ° s ~ ,~ o u Q ~ < Q is ~ G U 0 O O N M s • N ~Q L d ~J Q W L N 0 fl. N = ~ N ~ ~ cQ ~ ~ d U ~ ~ co ~ N ~"~ ~ U~, ~~ .. .- ~ ~ F- J u u ~- ~ ~ y ~ y E o > O O O N ~ q 0 ~ ~ p y O O .- ~. u~ C O OO Vl U 00 h U 00 ri C v q ~ h t~ y E C y y 'fl Vl ~ '1 y. • O v i N y V v y O v .p 7= 7 H O C N D\ '- s c u N c u ~ °~ o ° c J o c ` F u o ° ~= ~ A o N ~ o v> > O tJ ~p p o •~ Y o ~ oo a 00 U h V .~ •° u E u . m I 1 I I I I I I 1 ~ '"' W H oo ~.. v+ ~`! a u c - ~_ O y O . `p- K ~ F" ~o ~ c~i oo voi u '^ . . ° ~ y V " y y ~ C' h ~. G= h q= O U ~ „ E Z C y.0 y y= N y N • • y O O a W 7 .7 ~.. W ..+ ~ .C ~ N ~ U G~ V V a C ~-.~ O C ~ G QG II x ~ v v v ~ op Z is Q = ° q~ c qz7 Oo .C ~ y N = c ~ ~ °~ ~ ° c c a w ~ c vOi i ~o rn v ~o •X v"' ~ ~ •X R; O O o ~n oo :. O o 00 '- h -= E ~i h W a w ~ W Oa I I i I ! I I t 1 y N O ~ N u > r.1 y 0 y O _ vl O y p O .~: r v^ U v~ O. • H 0 ~ U Oq h U f+l U O V y d y y ~ y U ~ R: O ~~ N y y_ • • y ~ O ~ O ~ 7 . iy 7 LC . C W E" x x N C _ O C u s V ~ vi a p O r ' II X oD 11 -~ y o A R .° OO 2 `° v o q •- a O 'fl = ~ = 0 O= JC y y C C W = O A U •O ~. N~ •O O h O U 0 V Ub V O pY O O OO Ny Ooh.. hN N ^~ U ~ C> ~ ~ ~ r./ 0 n' ~ h ~ G n' w O C V1 R4 ~ y of ~O X ~ p !0 _ X _ !0 O O o v~ oo ~. O o 00 ' h -- E r v~ , W Q ed v] W CL' ~ I I I I 1 1 ( I I rM C y r ~ u ~ H y ~ N U~ G- .. C o y o y p o ~. ~ ° u O, E, Q o - u .~. o d V1 ~ U OD V'f V '~ ~ , -, o y d u ... y y C y y. 7 l 1 A e0 = h ~ G. !~ q. O ~ U U E O U y •C U y ~ ~ a y= f 1 y y U N m. N ~.X y ~ U ° v U O ~ !G0 7 ~ O ' 1 .. td W X .... O C U N C u = p U y U ~" ~ C ~ ~ 11 Y OD 11 ~ y q , u u ~ ~ ~ OD .Z ~a 'O Q = O q `•1 C n"C 7 O u~ u O O 00 C .= L y y ~ C ~ = • O A • N O V1 U O V U ~O U O . ?L O O 00 U o0 ~... h U .~ ~ a~ y w j O o v, oo `. O o 00 •- h a E r y W Q v~ w a: ~ I ~ 1 ( I I I 1 1 V U ~C ~ y h E N V u ~~ ~'fl L~ L_ ~ ~ q u ~a 3~ m y ~,,,, O ~ ~ N h U y 0 q U y ~0 ~ O u X O O V y ~ O C „•, y O y ~ p ^ ~„ O !0 .- ~ _ _ ~.. y is ~ O . . "• a ~"• O • O y_ O vl 0 O O ~ ~. O C L O 00 O~ C ~ . N'1 A ~ A ~ N . 0 h N • V h r 0 y ~ y b y = L= A C •u y N - G • • C • ~ U O ° N y ~ y f . y ~1 ~ X N~ X _, y t~ G U L ~ V •C . E ~ ~ l ~. ~ y ~ N ~ O U C ' U L. O C U "_. . u C i H ` ~ 0 O b e n q d Cp`C Q N ~ ~ ~. ~ A a `C O q II ` C D II . Q E ~, _ O ~a = w y. U A~ " o a° = o0 .= ie vi= ' U` -' N o x ~ o ~ ~ ~O c = on •F' "' _ _ = 00 q •p = q .0 7. O 7 O ' O C = ~ y U C - _ . C = O ~ ^ • R ' ~ •y U U O C f! U 3 p ~' N = - O V ~. N V 1 • O O U ~ U O O Y 00 V O 00 ~ h ~ : n y .y_ ~ OO a' l0 •C y ~" y SJ.' O 1.. y ~uj • •_y ~_ 0 n' V1 O= a' O= O h W v O o0 v h i0 h q ~ ~.. C ~- O N y X w X ~ ~"' `O„ O u H N ; y O u x ~ w .- E q G' () 7 Z in e0 ca >+ W X W eo CG z I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 ~ ` t z ~ ,, ~_ A o O W :~ ~ u ~ a _ °~ t ~. G. ~n ~ ~- ~ Q ~, Q ~ F ~ ~ ~ oN a -~ 3 .- - ~ ~ ~ ~ y~ v u v ' u U ~ ~~N ~ C u ~Q 0 O Q O a ~ ~ °D . it N a Mr. Clark Arneson -6- July 31, 2000 Mr. Jim Gates Forecast Traffic Volumes Traffic volumes utilized in the 2007 and 2020 intersection operations analysis were based on site trip generation data and local street volumes obtained from the regional forecast model. Distribution of turning movements was allocated based on current and projected travel patterns in the study area (see separate S}2F technical memorandum on travel forecasting methods and results for this project). Site Access Mall of America site -Currently, access is provided at the following locations: • Two driveways on Lindau Lane at 20th Avenue and 22nd Avenue. • Two driveways on Killebrew Drive at 20th Avenue and 22nd Avenue. • Two driveways on 24th Avenue between Lindau Lane and Killebrew Drive. Old Met Center site -Currently access is provided at the following locations: • Two driveways on Lindau Lane directly across from the current Mall of America driveways, on 20th Avenue and 22nd Avenue. • Two locations along East 79th Street, east and west of Thunderbird Drive.. • One access provided on 24th Avenue at East 80th Street. Existing Mall of America and old Met Center access driveways on Lindau Lane will remain at their current locations. However, proposed modifications to the TH 77/eastbound Lindau Lane connection and driveway. access restrictions have been recommended to improve overall operations of the access driveways and ensure continuous vehicular flow on Lindau Lane. To accommodate forecasted traffic demand to the old Met Center site, a "fly-over" ramp has been proposed for the southbound TH 77 off-ramp to eastbound Lindau Lane, which will directly flow into a proposed parking facility for the redevelopment of the Met center site. The left-most travel lane of the southbound TH 77 off-ramp would lead into the fly-over ramp and the right- most lane connects to eastbound Lindau Lane. In addition to the fly-over modification, traffic traveling eastbound on Lindau from southbound TH 77 would be prohibited from performing a right or left-turn maneuver at the 20th Avenue driveway. Motorists desiring to turn left into the Met Center site will be serviced by the fly-over ramp. However, right-turning vehicles into the Mall of America site will need to continue eastbound to 22nd Avenue driveway. Also, channelization has been proposed for the northbound TH 77 off-ramp to eastbound Lindau Lane, which will separate through vehicles from vehicles turning right into Mall of America at the 20th Avenue driveway. Traffic originating from northbound TH 77 that is destined to the old Met Center site will need to make cleft-turn at the 22nd Avenue driveway. The access to the old Met Center site on 24th Avenue at East 80th Street will be changed with the roadway realignment planned on 79th/80th Street. An additional access to the old Met Center site is also proposed on East 79th Street, to provide three full access driveways along East 79th Street from Cedar Avenue to 24th Avenue. j Mr._Clark Arneson -7- July 31, 2000 Mr. Jim Gates In addition to the Mall of America site and the old blet Center site, analysis was also completed for the Adjoining Lands site, bounded by East 82nd Street to the north, Old Shakopee Road to the south, East 28th Avenue to the east and East 24th Avenue to the west. Access to this site is ~r. proposed at one location on East 82nd Street and one location on Old Shakopee Road, both of which would be centrally located between East 24th Avenue and East 28th Avenue. Additionally, two access points are proposed on 28th Avenue. I Besides the key intersections previously listed, an intersection operations analysis was 1 completed for the following driveway access intersections for year 2007 and 2020 conditions. These access driveways were considered the most critical when compared to other driveways for the sites. • 79th Street Eastern Entrance to Met Center Site • 82nd Street and Adjoining Lands North Driveway • Old Shakopee Road and Adjoining Lands South Driveway Local Street Improvements Based on discussions with City staff, the following local intersection improvements are planned ~:' for implementation by the year 2007 and are included in the analysis for the Airport South EIS/AUAR operations analysis. ' 1 ;~ I-494/34th Avenue North Ramps: ~ Minimum of 3 lanes: Left-turn lane, left/through shared lane, right-turn lane. Maximum of 5 lanes: Dual left-tum lane, 2 through lanes, right-turn lane. • I-494/34th Avenue South Ramps: Minimum of 3 lanes: Left-turn lane, Ieftlthrough shared lane, right-turn lane. Maximum of 4 lanes: Dual left-turn lane, left/through shared lane, right-turn lane. • East 79th Street from TH 77 to 24th Avenue is scheduled for reconstruction and partial realignment. East 79th Street will intersect 24th Avenue at 80th Street, and the existing signal at East 79th Street/24th Avenue will be removed. The geometrics on the west approach of the realigned East 79th Street will consist of a dual left-turn lane, three through lanes. and aright-turn lane.. The geometrics on the east approach of East 80th Street will also consist of a dual left-turn lane, three through lanes, and aright-turn lane. • East Old Shakopee Road/28th Avenue will be signalized. The west approach will include a ~ left-tum lane and three through lanes (this could be modified to a dual left-turn lane and two through lanes if needed). The east approach will consist of three through lanes and aright- turn lane. Mr. Clark Arneson -8- July 31, 2000 Mr. Jim Gates • The intersection of 24th Avenue and Lindau Lane may be improved by adding a southbound to westbound free right-turn lane and/or dual right-turn lanes. • 24th Avenue will be upgraded from I-494 to Lindau Lane to provide an additional southbound through lane. This additional through lane will lead into the southbound to westbound free right-turn lane on Lindau Lane. • Lindau Lane will be upgraded west of 24th Avenue to provide three lanes eastbound and westbound. Driveway restrictions and roadway channelization would also be implemented on eastbound Lindau Lane to reduce the potential for weaving. As previously stated, traffic from northbound southbound TH 77 traffic will have limited access to Mall of America and old Met Center sites. • 80th Street will be upgraded between 24th Avenue and 34th Avenue to included five total lanes of approach and three departing lanes at each of the critical intersections. No additional local intersection/roadway improvements have been identified for implementation prior to analysis year 2020, with the exception of 28th Avenue being extended to the south of East Old Shakopee Road.. -~ Future Traffic Operations Analysis To determine how well existing roadways would accommodate the proposed development with planned roadway improvements, a traffic operations analysis was conducted for the years 2007 (one year after opening) and. 2020 using Synchro for the key signalized intersections previously mentioned. The future no-build and build alternatives level of service results for the year 2007 and 2020 are shown in Tables 3 and 4. Since the level of service analysis for Build Alternatives 1 and 3B resulted in an acceptable level of service at all the key study intersections, -- no intersection operations. analysis was completed for the other two build alternatives: 2 and 3A, since these propose less intense development and would result in operations the same or better than Alternatives 1 and 3B. The level of service analysis was completed for the p.m. peak hour, since this was considered the worst case scenario. However, the intersections of 82nd Street at 24th Avenue and the Adjoining Lands north driveway were also analyzed for the a.m. peak hour due to high turning movement volumes generated by the office development on the Adjoining Lands site. The analysis resulted in LOS B for No-Build conditions and Build Alternatives 1 and 3B at the intersection of 24th Avenue/82nd Street. The intersection of 82nd Str~eet/the Adjoining Lands north driveway resulted in LOS A for Build Alternatives 1 and 3B. • Mr. Clark Arneson -9- July 31, 2000 Mr. Jim Gates Year 2007 Analysis No Build: As shown in Table 3, all key intersections, with the exception of 34th Avenue at the I-494 North and South Ramps, are expected to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) C or better in the year 2007 without the proposed Mall of America expansion. This analysis includes all local street improvements previously discussed. The intersections of 34th Avenue at the I-494 North and South Ramps are expected to operate poorly due to traffic generated by the expansion of the HHH terminal facility. Without traffic generated by this facility, these intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable LOS B. Build Alternative 1: ~~~ All key intersections are expected to operate at LOS C or better in the year 2007 for the proposed Mall of America expansion -Build Alternative 1, with the exception of 34th Avenue at the I-494 North and South Ramps. These intersections are expected to operate at an unacceptable level of service due to traffic generated by the expansion of the HHH terminal facility. Without traffic generated by this facility, these. intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable LOS B. In addition to the local roadway improvements previously mentioned, the following improvements were also assumed for build Alternative l analysis: • 28th Avenue and East 80th Street -Protective/permissive phasing is recommended on the south approach of 28th Avenue. • 34th Avenue and East 80th Street -Adequate storage is needed for the dual .left-turn lane on the west approach of 80th Street for stacking vehicles. Based on the analysis approximately 400 feet of storage is needed without the traffic generated by the new parking facility at HHH. With the additional traffic, 500 feet of storage is needed. 20th Avenue and Killebrew Drive - A dual left-turn lane is recommended on the west approach of Killebrew Drive due to queuing. Build Alternative 3B: Similar to results from Build Alternative 1, all key intersections are expected to operate at LOS C or better in the year 2007 for the proposed Mall of America expansion -Build Alternative 3B, with the exception of 34th Avenue at the I-494 North and South Ramps. The poor LOS is due to traffic generated by the expansion of the HHH terminal facility. Without this additional traffic, these intersection of 34th Avenue/I-494 North Ramps is expected to operate at LOS B and the 34th Avenue/I-494 South Ramps is expected to operate LOS C. , The same intersection improvements listed for Alternative 1 are recommended for Alternative 3B. t Mr. Clark Arneson -10- July 31, 2000 Mr. Jim Gates • • TABLE 3 2007 P.M. PEAK HOUR CAPACITY ANALYSIS _., Notes: Analysis rncludes new parking ramp tcrminal facility at HHH terminal and no improvements to the existing s geometries. Studies are currently underway to determine needed roadway improvements for the proposed parking facility. t2~ Analysis of operations without increased traffic from proposed HHH result in LOS B at this intersection. _ to Analysis of operations without increased traffic from proposed HHH result in LOS C at this intersection. ~'~ Analysis assumes protectivelpermissivephnsing on the south approach of 28th Avenue. ts) Adequate storage is needed for the dual left-rum lane on the west approach of 80th Street to prevent spiltback from stacking vehicles. Based on the analysis approximately 400 feet of storage is needed without the traffic generated by the new parking facility at HHH, and 500 feet is needed with the additional traffic from the parking ramp. tee City staff expressed concern that an at-grade intersection at this location would not be a practical design due to the proximity to TH 77. In response, a southbound TH 77 to eastbound Lindau "fly-over" ramp has been proposed to eliminate left turns into the Met Center site at this intersection. This level of service reflects the inclusion of the fly- over ramp. Additionally, cbanneliution will restrict traffic from southbound TH 77 from turning into the existing Mall of America driveway at this intersection t" Due to proposed channelization at the 20th Avenue driveway, it is assumed that all eastbound traffic originating from southbound TH 77 that wishes to access the existing Mall of America site will use this driveway. In addition, southbound TH 77 traffic that does not use the fly-over ramp can access the Met Center site at this intersection. tat A dual left-rum lane is recommended on the west approach of Killebrew Drive due to queuing. LEVEL OF SERVICE • INTERSECTION NO-BUILD ALT.1 ALT. 3B 24th Avenue and I-494 Rams C or better C or better , C or better 34th Avenue and I-494 North Ram sttl Fczl Ft21 F~~1 34th Avenue and I-494 South Ram s~tl FtZt Fczl X31 Thunderbird Drive and East 79th Street C or better C or better C or better 79th Street Eastern Drivewa to Met Center Site -- C or better C or better 24th Avenue and East 79th Street - _ _ 24th Avenue and East 80th Street C or better C or better C or better 28th Avenue and East 80th Street C or better C or better~41 C or better<''I 34th Avenue and East 80th Streettsl C or better C or better C or better 20th Avenue and Lindau Lane C or better C or better<6~ C or better 22nd Avenue and Lindau Lane C or better C or better['] C or better 24th Avenue and Lindau Lane C or better C or better C or better 24th Avenue and East 82nd Street C or better C or better C or better 82nd Street and Adjacent Lands North Drivewa C or better C or better 20th Avenue and Killebrew Drive C or better C or better~81 C or better<$1 22nd Avenue and Killebrew Drive C or better C or better C or better 24th Avenue and- Killebrew Drive C or better C or better C or better Old Shakopee Rd. and Adjacent Lands South Driveway 28th Avenue and Old Shako ee Road u~ -- C or better C or better C or better C or better C or better Mr. Clark Arneson -I 1- July 31, 2000 ~Mr. Jim Gates • • Year 2020 Analysis As shown in Table 4, the year 2020 level of service analysis shows very similar results to 2007 results for the no-build condition and build alternatives. This similarity is due to relatively small increases in traffic levels forecast to occur between 2007 and 2020, since the majority of the development/redevelopment in the study area is projected to occur by the year 2006. TABLE 4 2020 P.M. PEAK HOUR CAPACITY ANALYSIS ALTERNATIVES INTERSECTION NO-BUILD ALT.1 ALT. 3B 24th Avenue and I-494 Rams C or better D D 34th Avenue and I-494 North Ram sf~l Ff21 F~zl Ff2~ 34th Avenue and I-494 South Ram sf'1 Ftz) Ft~1 Ia3) Thunderbird Drive and East 79th Street C or better C or better C or better 79th Street Eastern Drivewa to Met Center Site - C or better C or better 24th Avenue and East 79th Street -- - - 24th Avenue and East 80th Street C or better C or better C or better 28th Avenue and East 80th Street C or better C or betterf4~ C or better[°~ 34th Avenue and East 80th Streettsl C or better C or better C or better 20th Avenue and Lindau Lane C or better C or bettert6l C or better 22nd Avenue and Lindau Lane - C or better C or better~~~ C or better 24th Avenue and Lindau Lane C or bettirr C or better C or better 24th Avenue and East 82nd Street C or better C or better C or better 82nd Street and Ad'acent Lands North Drivewa -- C or better C or better 20th Avenue and Killebrew Drive C or better C or betterf8~ C or better<81 22nd Avenue and Killebrew Drive C or better C or better C or better 24th Avenue and Killebrew Drive C or better C or better C or better Old Shako ee Road and Ad'acent Lands South Drivewa -- _ C or better C or better 28th Avenue and Old Shako ee Road C or better C or better C or better Notes: ~'~ Analysis includes new parking ramp terminal facility at HHH terminal and no improvements to the existing geometries. Studies arc currently underway to determine needed roadway improvements for the proposed parking facility. t" Analysis of operations without increased traffic from proposed HHH result in LOS B at this intersection. ['~ Analysis of operations without increased traffic from proposed HHH result in LOS C at this intersection. ~'~ Analysis assumes protective/permissive phasing on the south approach of 28th Avenue. rs~ Adequate storage is needed for the dual left-turn lane on the west approach of 80th Street to prevent spillback from stacking vehicles. Based on the analysis approximately 400 feet of storage is needed without the traffic generated by the new parking facility at HHH, and 500 feet is needed with the additional traffic from the parking tamp. • [`~ City staff expressed concern that an at-grade intersection at this location would not be a practical design due to the proximity to TH 77. In response, a southbound TH 77 to eastbound Lindau "fly-over" ramp has been proposed to eliminate left turns into the Met Center site at this intersection. This level of service reflects the inclusion of the fly- over ramp. Additionally, channclization will restrict traffic from southbound TH 77 from turning into the existing Mall of America driveway at this intersection. ['~ Due to proposed `channelization at the 20th Avenue driveway, it is assumed that all eastbound traffic originating from southbound TH 77 that wishes to access the existing Mall of America silo will use this driveway. In addition, southbound TH 77 traffic that does not use the fly-over tamp can access the Met Center site at this intersection. _ r"~ A dual left-turn lane is recommended on the west approach of Killebrew Drive due to queuing. Mr. Clark Arneson -12- July 31, 2000 Mr. Jim Gates • • Summary and Conclusions Based on the analysis performed, it is concluded that the proposed Mall of America expansion and other development assumed in the Airport South District can be supported by the adjacent roadway system if the following roadway improvements are completed, in addition to the local roadway improvements already planned for implementation by the City of Bloomington. 28th Avenue and East 80th treet -The installation of protective/permissive phasing is needed on the south approach of 28th Avenue. 34th Avenue and East 80th treet -Adequate storage is needed for the dual left-turn lane on the west approach of 80th Street for stacking vehicles. Based on the analysis, approximately 400 feet of storage is needed without the traffic generated by the new parking facility at HHH. With the additional traffic, 500 feet of storage is needed. 20th Avenue and 'llebrew Drive -The addition of a left-turn lane is needed on the west approach of Killebrew Drive to provide dual left-turn lanes due to queuing. 20th Avenue/22nd Avenue and Lindau Lane -Based on forecast traffic volumes for Mall of America and old Met Center sites, mainline Lindau Lane would. operate at an acceptable overall level of service with the implementation of the proposed southbound TH 77 to eastbound Lindau Lane "fly-over" ramp and channelization/turning-movement restrictions at the 20th Avenue access. However, the existing MOA and MOA expansion (Met Center) site driveway approaches to Lindau Lane at 20th and 22nd Avenues may experience operational problems due to limited availability of space for vehicle storage and internal site circulation in the vicinity of the intersections. This does not affect traffic flow on Lindau Lane, but the internal circulation of these driveways should be closely examined as plans for the project are. developed to ensure that adequate lane storage is provided for queued vehicles. MC/CJ/smf • • APPENDIX 3 Storm Water Technical Memoranda - XP-SWMM - P-8 • • SRF No. 0983008 MEMORANDUM TO: Clark Arneson, City of Bloomington Jim Gates, City of Bloomington Shelly Pederson, City of Bloomington FROM: Lisa A. Goddard, Engineer David W. Filipiak, P.E., Senior Associate DATE: May 18, 2000 SUBJECT: MALL OF AMERICA EIS/BLOOMINGTON AIRPORT SOUTH AUAR WATER QUANTITY ISSUES: XP-SWMM MODELING RESULTS Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the water quantity issues for the Airport South District (ASD) in Bloomington. The study includes an analysis of various redevelopment scenarios as described below. ._ A brief background, analysis and recommendations are found in the following paragraphs. Background/Study Area Description The Airport South District (ASD) is defined by I-494 to the north, TH 77 to the west and the Minnesota River Valley to the south and east. The water quantity study was prepared as part of two concurrent environmental reviews: the Mall of America Expansion -Met Center Site Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Airport South Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) process. Both environmental reviews address impacts of proposed developments in the ASD through year 2006. The AUAR assumes development of the properties identified ,as: the Met Center Site, Adjoining Lands, RPZ (Runway Protection Zone), Metro Office Park redevelopment, Olnick • Clark Arneson, City of Bloomington - 2 - May 18, 2000 Jim Gates, City of Bloomington Shelly Pederson, City of Bloomington. property, and the Muir property.. The Scoping Decision Document for the EIS describes the locations and types of development planned for each property. The primary difference between the EIS and AUAR development scenarios relates to the intensity of development planned on the Met Center and Adjoining Lands properties. The EIS compares the impact of a "No-Build" alternative on these two properties (i. e., the existing parking land uses remain) to four "Build" alternatives of varying intensities. For the purposes of the water quantity study, all Build alternatives were assumed to result in the same amount of impervious area (since all Build alternatives would likely have the same footprint). Therefore, all Build alternatives would have the same amount of storm water runoff. The AUAR does not address a separate "No-Build" scenario, but it does review the impacts of the proposed developments and compares these impacts to the existing conditions. To provide an assessment of water quantity impacts for the EIS and AUAR studies, this memorandum will compare the existing ("Baseline") water quantity conditions for runoff from the ASD to two development scenario alternatives. The first development scenario, identified as the "EIS No-Build Alternative" or "No-Build" in the remainder of this study, addresses the no-build alternative for the EIS. It assumes the existing land use (parking) will remain at the Met Center and Adjoining Lands properties and assumes .development of the remaining parcels as described in the EIS Scoping Document. The second development scenario, identified as the "Proposed Action" in the remainder of this study, assumes the 2006 "Build" conditions for all of the proposed redevelopment parcels in the ASD. It should be noted that the proposed development scenarios include conversion of the RPZ property from its existing developed (mostly impervious) condition to an undeveloped, full pervious condition and that the proposed Olnick development plan includes construction of on-site ponding for surface water detention and treatment. Other than the Ohuck site, no other sites were modeled with onsite ponds for the Proposed Action Alternative. The Adjoining Lands site currently contains a storm water detention pond. This pond is included in the Baseline and No-Build alternatives, but is assumed to be removed for the Proposed Action Alternative. Table 1 compares the .Baseline, No- Build and Proposed Action conditions for the development sites and lists the assumptions for each site. Using the information in this table, the average percent impervious for the Baseline condition is 79.8%. There is a decrease of 38.2 acres of impervious area, resulting in an average percent impervious of 61.4% for the. No-Build condition. The Proposed Action condition has an average percent impervious of 67.0% and has 26.4 acres less impervious area than the Baseline condition. The reduction in impervious area can be mainly attributed to the changes at the RPZ site. Storm water from the ASD discharges to Long Meadow Lake, which is located within the Minnesota River valley. The majority of this water is routed through one of two ponds located adjacent. to Long Meadow Lake: Pond C and Hogback Pond. The remainder of water from the study area discharges directly to Long Meadow Lake via the outfall near the Ceridian headquarters. This study focuses on the discharges into Pond C and Hogback Pond and the. discharge rate out of the Ceridian pipe. A secondary part of the water quantity study is to locate areas with high flood potential .and suggest methods to mitigate this potential. • Table 1: DEVELOPMENT SITE HYDROLOGY AVAILABLE. FOR REVIEW AT BLOOMINGTON CITY HALL Clark Arneson, City of Bloomington - 4 - May 18, 2000 Jim Gates, City of Bloomington Shelly Pederson, City of Bloomington. Modeling The XP-SWMM hydrologic model was used for the analysis, using data files as supplied by the City. Models were modified based on the following information:. • The models as calibrated by Montgomery-Watson (December 2, 1998 Memorandum) were used in the evaluation. The memorandum suggested a reduction of the impervious percentage by thirty percent provides a best fit of the rainfalUdischarge data collected during a number of storm events. The modeling effort reflects this recommendation. • The Baseline schematic for the Ceridian/Ohuck model was modified to include changes that have been made to the study area since the original model was created. These include the construction of the Ceridian Headquarters and the rerouting of an area, that previously had a separate outfall, to .the storm sewer system that outfalls near the Ceridian site. • The future percent impervious for the development sites was determined from preliminary site plans or from preliminary site descriptions. • All of the redevelopment areas span numerous nodes within. the .models. Detailed grading , information for the Olnick site identified changes to the drainage boundaries and pond storage, which were incorporated into the proposed models. All other sites were assumed to discharge. in the same location as the existing conditions for the Proposed Action, with the percent impervious calculated as a weighted average. Table A-1 in the Appendix compares the hydrology conditions for the Baseline, No-Build and Proposed Action alternatives for all nodes in the models. Two schematics were used as the basis for all models.. The `Main' model contains the majority of the ASD storm sewer systems and includes the outfalls to Pond C, to Hogback Pond and a third outfall in the northeast. sector of the study area. A second model, referred to as `Secondary Model', contains the information for the storm sewer surrounding the Olnick redevelopment site and leading to .the Ceridian outfall. These schematics are included as Figures 1 and 2 in the Appendix. Two storm events were modeled for each of the scenarios described above. The SCS Type II 100-year/24-hour storm event (5.95 inches of total rainfall) was used to determine locations with high flood potential and to gauge the amount of flow into the ponds and Long Meadow Lake in extreme events. The second storm event modeled uses a 2.5-inch Type II storm event, which is slightly lower than a rainfall expected for atwo-year storm event. This storm event was modeled to provide continuity with the P-8 modeling. Since it is also a more frequently occurring storm event, it can be used to assess water quantity changes for more common storms. Clark Arneson, City of Bloomington - 5 = May 18, 2000 Jim Gates, City of Bloomington Shelly Pederson, City of Bloomington_ XP-SWMM Results and Analysis Tables A-2 and A-3 included in the Appendix compare the results for each of the development scenarios and the two storm events. Table A-4 identifies changes in runoff volumes attributed to the various redevelopment scenarios. An evaluation of the results provides the following conclusions: • Models run for all development scenarios indicate that there is the potential for localized surface ponding at several locations throughout the ASD area for the 100-year event. • A smaller number of nodes show the likelihood of surface ponding for the 2.5-inch event. • The decrease in runoff. volumes to outfalls 85U37 and 23M42, when compared to Baseline conditions, can be attributed to the rerouting of a portion of the drainage area through the Olnick site and the decrease in impervious surface. Outfall 85U37 (discharges to Long Meadow. Lake at 80th Street) shows a decrease in runoff volume for both storm events and for the No-Build and Proposed Action alternatives. Outfa1123M42 (to Hogback Pond) has reduced volumes for all but the 100-year Proposed Action condition. (See Table A-4.) • Runoff volumes for the Secondary model generally show an increase in runoff volumes for all storm events and development scenarios when compared to Baseline conditions.. However, the increase in volume is due to the rerouting of water, which previously drained to outfall 85U37 and 23M42, through the Olnick site. Based on grading plans for the Olnick site, all water draining onto the site will be routed through at least one of the four proposed treatment ponds before discharging to the City storm sewer. (See Table A-4.) • For the No-Build and Proposed Action conditions, it appears that in general there are slight reductions in the high water levels expected for both storm events. (See Table A-2.) This can be attributed to the reduction in the percent impervious for the majority of the development sites, as well as the removal of impervious surface from the RPZ site. Changes to the land use within the Adjoining Lands for the Proposed Action condition is the one exception, as it will likely result in additional impervious surface coupled with the loss of the ponding area. The model contains the existing pipe outfall from the pond, which may need to be enlarged to handle flows from the proposed development. • Except for the Pond C outfall, the existing pipe systems appear to limit the discharge rates for the 2.5-inch event. • Th fl w rate int Pond C e SWMM models also show that there will be no increase m the o o , Hogback or Long Meadow Lake from the Baseline condition to the Proposed Action scenario for the 100-year event. (See Table A-3.) The main reason for this is that the pipes upstream of the Clark Arneson, City of Bloomington - 6 - May 18, 2000 Jim Gates, City of Bloomington Shelly Pederson, City of Bloomington. outfalls limit the amount of dischazge and cause storage to take place upstream. Another factor is the flow. diversion that takes place for lazge storm events between the Pond C and the Hogback Pond pipe systems. • As shown in Table A-3, Pond C can be expected to see slightly higher inflows (by approximately 3.5 percent) during the 2.5-inch event for the Proposed Action alternative. This is likely due to the change within the Adjoining Lands, as there is not as much water going to Hogback Pond through the flow splitter during this event as in the 100-year event. • Discharge rates into Long Meadow Lake from the Olnick/Ceridian area can be expected to decrease for either of the build alternatives when compared to Baseline for the 2.5-inch event. (See Table A-3.) The proposed ponds within the Olnick site and the reduction in impervious area aze the main reasons for the decrease. • For the 100-year event, there is no expected increase in the peak flows into Long Meadow Lake from the Olnick/Ceridian area. As noted above, the capacity of the pipes limits the discharge rates and causes more storage to take place upstream. Conclusions. and Recommendations Based on a review of the model results, we have made the following observations: • Changes within the systems upstream of the Adjoining Lands will result in generally less surcharging than would exist today during a 100-year storm event. • The models indicate an increase in localized surface ponding at a number of nodes downstream of the Adjoining Lands site. The modeling indicates that all of these nodes would be surchazged in the baseline condition.. • Total runoff volume decreases for both storm events in the No-Build Alternative. This is due to the decrease in impervious surface within the RPZ, Metro Office and Olnick parcels. Total runoff volume decreases .shows a slight decrease in the 2.5-inch event for the Proposed Action Alternative. • Dischazge rates from the four outfalls that flow to Long Meadow Lake will remain lazgely the same, primarily because the pipe systems will likely remain in place. The minor increases in the Proposed Action for the 2.5-inch event for Pond C will have little impact on -the .pond's performance. Clark Arneson, City of Bloomington - 7 - May 18, 2000 Jim Gates, City of Bloomington Shelly Pederson, City of Bloomington. • All additional runoff being added to outfall 86N7 near the Ceridian site will be treated in the proposed Olnick ponds prior to discharge to Long Meadow Lake. From the observations, we would recommend the following course of action: • The actual development plans for each site should be input into the model to evaluate impacts to the local storm sewer systems. For instance, the changes to the Adjoining Lands .parcel may require construction of a new storm sewer along Killebrew Drive. • Without further refinements to the models, the duration of surface ponding at each node and. the time the various ponding areas will be at the elevated level are only an estimate due to the loss of runoff at the surcharged nodes. The model could be refined to better account for storage at the surface, which would also provide opportunity to define potential changes within the storm sewer system that could alleviate the capacity issues that the model predicts. • The splitter device configuration at node 1 T26 should be reviewed in light of the treatment mitigation scenarios between Pond C and Hogback Pond. It may be desirable to modify the splitter slightly to balance out the 2.5-inch storm event between the two ponds. LAG/DWF/smf _ Attachments: Appendix A -Figures 1 and 2 Appendix B -Tables A-1 through A-4 t APPENDIX A • • APPENDIX A TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure 1 - XP-SWMM Model Schematic -Main Model Figure 2 - XP-SWMM Model Schematic -Secondary Model AVAfLABLE FOR REVIEW AT BLOOMINGTON CITY HALL • APPENDIX B • • • APPENDIX B TABLE OF CONTENTS Table A-1 -Hydrology Summary Table A-2 - XP-SWMM Output -Node Summary Table A-3 - XP-SWMM Output -Link Summary Table A-4 -Runoff Volumes AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT BLOOMINGTON CITY HALL • • MEMORANDUM To: Jennie Ross, SRF Date: Draft May 18, 2000 From: Sabrina Cook Reference: Subject: City of Bloomington Airport South District AUAR/EIS Water Quality Impacts Assessment 1.0 Background/Study Area Description This water quality assessment was conducted for the "Airport South District" (ASD) in Bloomington. The area is defined by I-494 to the north, TH 77 to the west and the Minnesota River Valley to the south and east. The study was prepared in conjunction with two environmental review processes being conducted concurrently within the Airport South District: the Mall of America Expansion -Met Center Site Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Airport South Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) process. Both environmental reviews address impacts of proposed developments in the ASD through year 2006. The AUAR assumes development of the properties identified -as: the Met Center Site, Adjoining Lands, RPZ (Runway Protection Zone), Metro Office Park redevelopment, Olnick property, and the Muir property. The Scoping Document for the EIS describes the locations and types of development planned for each property. The primary difference between the EIS and AUAR development scenarios relates to the intensity of development planned on the Met Center and Adjoining Lands properties. The EIS compares the impact of a "No-Build" alternative on these two properties (i.e: the existing parking land uses remain) to four "Build" alternatives of varying intensities. For the purposes of the water quality assessment study, all Build alternatives were assumed to have the same surface water runoff quantity and quality characteristics (since they would likely result in the same amount of impervious area for all Build alternatives). The AUAR does not address a separate "No-Build" scenario, but it does review the impacts of the proposed developments (compared to the existing conditions). To provide an assessment of water quality impacts for the EIS and AUAR studies, this memorandum will compare the. existing ("Baseline") water quality conditions for runoff from the ASD to two development scenario alternatives. The first development scenario, identified as "EIS No-Build Alternative" in the remainder of this study, addresses the "No-Build" alternative - 1 - Prepared by Montgomery Watson 08/30/00 "EIS No-Build Alternative" in the remainder of this study, addresses the "No-Build" alternative for the EIS: i.e. it assumes the existing land use (parking) at the Met Center and Adjoining Lands properties and assumes development of the remaining parcels as described in the EIS Scoping Document. The second development scenario, identified as "EIS/AUAR Build" or "Proposed Action" in the remainder of this study, assumes the 2006 "Build" conditions for all of the proposed re-development parcels in the ASD. It should be noted that the proposed development scenarios include conversion of the RPZ property from its existing developed (mostly impervious) condition to an undeveloped, pervious condition and that the proposed Olnick development plan includes construction of on-site ponding for surface water detention and treatment. Most stormwater drainage from the City of Bloomington Airport South District (ASD) Area outfalls to Long Meadow Lake after being routed through a stormwater treatment pond. Long Meadow Lake is part of a US Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge located within the Minnesota River Valley Floodplain. During low flow (less than 25 cfs), stormwater is routed through Pond C (Figure 1). During high flow, flows in excess of 25 cfs from the northern portion of the watershed are routed through Hogback Pond, with 25 cfs plus southern watershed inflows continuing through Pond C. Two small areas (subwatersheds Direct North and Direct Middle) always drain directly into the lake. The AUAR/EIS study area does not include the area west of Highway 77, however stormwater inflows from this area are used in the impact assessment because they are also routed through Pond C. This additional stormwater will affect Pond C removal efficiencies, and consequently, pollutant loads to Long Meadow Lake. 2.0 Impact Analysis Methodology 2.1 Load Assessment Effect of development on stormwater quality entering Long Meadow Lake was assessed using the P-8 Urban Catchment Model v. 2.2 (W. Walker, Jr. 1998). This model is widely used for determining relative effects of land use changes and best management practices on urban storm water quality. P-8 model inputs for the area west of Highway 77 were provided by the City of Bloomington and are used only to reflect total load conditions at Pond C and to Long Meadow Lake. Included with the model provided by the City is the Minneapolis particle data file, which provides measured pollutant-particle association information for the City of Minneapolis. Using this empirical data set created for Minneapolis provides for more likely load estimates and more accurate load removal efficiencies than using the "default" assumptions in the P-8 model. Pollutant loads were modeled for Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Total Phosphorous (TP), Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), zinc (Zn), Hydrocarbons (HC), Chemical - 2 - Prepared by Montgomery Watson 08/30/00 Oxygen Demand (COD), and Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD). • • <•-.-•-•-•-•-•-•---•- ModelfromWS6 Q Deuce (e.g., pipe or pond) Long Wa~rshed Meadow Lal~ Flow Sputter figure 1. Cityof Bloomington Airport District South P8 Model Flow Network: Baseline Condifons - 3 - Prepazed by Montgomery Watson 08/30/00 The original City of Bloomington P-8 model for the ASD Area is described in the technical memorandum, "P-8 Modeling for Existing and Future Conditions Airport South, February 1999," by Montgomery Watson. This model was calibrated for stormwater flow based on monitoring and XP-SWMM hydrologic/hydraulic modeling. Subwatersheds draining directly into Long Meadow Lake were added to this model, the flow splitter function was adjusted, and watershed areas were slightly adjusted based on the revised XP-SWMM model (SRF, 2000). Pollutant load analysis and stormwater treatment device efficiencies were analyzed for Baseline, EIS No-Build Alternative, and EIS/AUAR Build (Proposed Action) conditions as described in Section 1.0. Baseline is modeled using existing watershed characteristics and current treatment device design characteristics. The No-Build Alternative includes redevelopment of the Olnick, Metro Office Park, Robert Muir and RPZ properties without redevelopment of the Met Center or Adjoining Lands sites. Several development plan alternatives are considered within the Build option; however, there is no difference between: their pertinent watershed and device characteristics for water quality assessment purposes. All development alternatives are therefore assessed in the Build option scenario. Build alternative redevelopment of the Olnick property includes construction of four new stormwater treatment ponds to treat almost half of the area that currently drains directly into Long Meadow Lake from subwatershed Direct Middle (Figure 2). Some storm water from subwatershed 5002 is also rerouted through the new treatment ponds. Two. of the new ponds were modeled as a single large pond (Figure 2, Ponds 1 and 2) due to limited information on pond design and structure. Proposed design configurations for these ponds may result in less pollutant removal efficiency than predicted by the model; since the model can only simulate conditions for correctly configured ponds and current design plans show inefficient configurations. It is anticipated that the pond configurations will be corr-ected during City review of the development plans, when they are submitted for approval. Table 1 lists all watershed characteristic input values used for the various options modeled. Relative pollutant loads during three standard storm event situations were analyzed: 1. Type 2 Storm, of 2 inches of rainfall typically used for assessing urban runoff impacts; 2. Normal Year precipitation for Minneapolis/St. Paul area (based on 1981 climate data) to provide realistic situation analysis; and 3. Hi h Precipitation condition (Normal Year x 1.25) to assess impact sensitivity to wet years, when more runoff is likely. • - 4 - Prepared by Montgomery Watson 08/30/00 • • • _~ CCS U .~ •~ U +~+ H ~ ~ ~ o U d .'r ' .,..;. _ _ _ _ ~ RS ~ d ~ eh ~ ~O ~O `O ~C \C Q~ a M •~ ~ ~+ O 00 O •--~ ~ ~G ~/'~ N ~O ~ V O Q z N N N N ~ ~ ~ 00 r+y ~ ~ l/l M I~ '~ ~D V7 l/7 ~ d: ~ ¢, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w ~ ~ .--~ ~ O ~ v1 ct M O Q z ~ 00 N O ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~. ~ Q N .--~ ~--~ M N N M N d- ~ ~ ~~ a ~ ~ • ~ O M O cl' ~ ~O ~ Q N N [~ ~/'~ ~ ~ ~ v, M M d; ~o ~n ~, ~ ~ Z Q„~ o 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 C~ ~ .~ p ~t t/~ ~ M Q ~ 00 O ~ icy Q' V a .--i N [~ ~ 00 ""' '-+ ~`1 M N C ~`1 ~-+ \p C•j •--i M 00 N -2- ~ z z z z. a ~ ~ ~ ~ ..r .~ O • M ~ O ~ ~ O M Q Q~ Q Q' U M ~ z z ~ i z z ~ ~ (~ Y1 M ~ ~O lr1 Q„ ~ O O O O O O O i--i ~ N N z z z z Q' ~ O N .-. M ~ 1 v N ~ N '~ ti N ti M ti tt ti ~ ..L" ~ "~ " it O ,~ ,~ ,~ ,~ z ~ ~ ,-~ N M I v, v v v v v v ~ O O O O '~ s. '"' "' ~ s. v~ ~., ~, ~ ~ O ~ A A A A A Q 0 0 0 M ~ ~ ' o L ~ C ~ Q~ ~ 3 •L b ~ a> O ~ ~ a ~ c ~ c a 0 b b 'C b ~, ~Q ~- a ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ 1 .~ f /J ~y ~ W ~ ~ ~ O 1 Y O N '~ 3N O Q O O v1 ~ C . o ~~ o ,~'~' ~ U o Vr O ~ ~ 'O ~ ~ `~ w ~ O bA ~ " f i, O a> .Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ z o .., U •~ ~ .., ~ > > i. ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~~ ~ -~ z ~ • V Q fA ~-+~.* Figure 2 diagrams the flow network used in the P8 model analysis for No-Build and Build conditions. sw3 10.9 a SW1 SW2 978 x 19.4 x SW1 SW5 328.5 ac 15.2 ac P21 5002 5001 117.Oar 201.1 x 5003 Flaw 18.4 x Splitter \~ Z 3 ~ SW6 v c~ 31.4 ac 5005 SW8 SW7 2433 ac 420.4 x 27.2 ac P30 5004 31.5 ac SW9 - 12t1 x Pond sw11 C 733x SW11 HB Pond SWtO Direct 6502 x Direct MkHle-1 Nvth 6.4 ac 20.3 x New NW Pord ~•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•- Model from WSB Dirt Middle-2 New 2.S x Long Lar ePmd New Device e or n ~ 9•. pPe Po ~ endow Lake SW Panel Direct Watershed Direst Middle•3 Midde-4 31.Oac 28.6 ac Flan Splitter Figtae 2. City of Bloomington Airport South Distict P-8 Model Flow Network: Proposed Plan Conditions - 6 - Prepazed by Montgomery Watson 08/30700 • • 2.2 Criteria for Evaluating Impacts Estimated numerical loads are included in this report as an indication of relative pollutant load magnitudes. However, since there was no stormwater outfall water quality concentration data available, the estimated loads are not suitable for determining actual loading amounts or to assess impacts based on numerical standards. The model chosen for impact analysis is well suited for assessing relative effects. A conservative criteria of ± 5% change between Baseline and Proposed Action (Build) or No-Build Alternative loads and removal efficiencies was used to determine significance. Continuity. errors inherent in the analyses method (P-8 model) can be ± 2%, therefore a change of at least ± 5% can be considered significant and any smaller change is considered insignificant. Stormwater treatment devices designed according to NURP standards (MCES criteria) will have long term average phosphorous removal efficiencies of 47 to 68% for the Twin Cities area (W. Walker, Jr., 1987). Total Suspended Solids (TSS) removal of 70% to 85% is generally recommended by state environmental management organizations. Best Management Practices (BMPs) expected removal efficiencies in Minnesota for wet detention pond stormwater treatment devices, such as Pond C and Hogback Pond, are listed in Table 2. These removal efficiencies can be expected when ponds are designed according to NURP standards (2 inch rainfall permanent pool storage). Table 2. Long-Term Wet Pond Pollutant Removal Efficiencies (Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas: Best Management Practices for Minnesota, MPCA 1989) Pollutant Range of Removal Sus ended Solids 80-95% Ox en Demand 45-90% Total Phos horous 40-70% Dissolved Phos horns 40-70% Nitrate Nitro en 60-80% K'eldahl Nitro en 20-40% Co er 60-80% Lead 80-95% Zinc 40-80% • Impacts of development alternatives on stormwater treatment device efficiencies that result in improvements or reductions to their efficiency will be considered significant if existing condition removal efficiencies that do not meet guidelines move closer to guidelines (significant positive increase) or if removal efficiencies meet guidelines but move further from guidelines (significant negative decrease). - 7 - Prepared by Montgomery Watson 08!30100 • • 2.3 Baseline Conditions 2.3.1 Loads to Long Meadow Lake A summary of estimated Baseline pollutant loads to Long Meadow Lake is shown in Table 3 for Type 2 Storm, Normal Year, and High Precipitation events. Detailed estimated load information is provided in Table A-1 (Appendix A). "Total Load in System" includes all pollutants in stormwater prior to any treatment. The area west of Highway 77 accounts for approximately 41% of all flow and 37% of pollutant loads going to Pond C (and, ultimately, Long Meadow Lake), depending on the type of storm event. Most of the stormwater passes through at least one treatment device prior to discharge into Long Meadow Lake resulting in a total load reduction 74% Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and 45% Total Phosphorous (TP) during Normal years, and 62% TSS and 22% TP removals during a single 2" Type 2 Storm. Table 3. Baseline Estimated Pollutant Loads to Long Meadow Lake. Scenario Flow TSS TP TKN Cu PB ZN HC COD BOD acre-ft Ibs Ibs Ib !bs Ibs l Ibs lb 1 s T e 2 Storm k Load to Lon Meadaw Lak 2723 235643 2475 12022 126.0 207.9 689.3 7080 436228 62587 Hi h Preci nation Total Load in S stem 3442 1083195 5520 24579 257.7 784.2 1409 26711 1255345 18508 Loadfo Lon Meadow Lak 3447 283743 3065 14983 157.1 254.1 .859.0 8655 526259 7551 2.3.2 Treatment Device Efficiency Pond C receives inflows from 2,419 acres (low flow only for 380 acres). Of this 2,419 acres, 893.5 acres (37%) receive no treatment prior to Pond C. Hogback Pond receives flow from 411.5 acres (380 acres during high flow only) and 31.5 acres (8.3%) receive no treatment prior to Hogback Pond. This large difference in quantity and quality of water entering the treatment devices affects their pollutant removal efficiencies. Long term expected treatment device performance when designed according to NURP standards are shown beneath pollutants in the header. • Baseline Pond C removal efficiencies do not meet expectations for any parameters modeled (Table 4). • Baseline Hogback Pond removals: - do not meet expectations for Type 2 storms except for TKN, COD, and BOD - meet expectations for Normal Years - 8 - Prepared by Montgomery Watson 08/30/00 - meet expectations for High Precipitation years except for Cu and Pb. • Baseline Hogback Pond removals meet City of Bloomington target. removals for only TSS under Normal and High Precipitation conditions. • Table 4 lists the relative treatment device efficiencies for Baseline conditions. Generally, removal efficiencies were only slightly lower (2-6%) for High Precipitation conditions compared with Normal. Year conditions. Type 2 Storm event removal efficiencies were more than 10% less than Normal Year conditions. Although Type 2 Storms do not represent long term impacts, they do provide an indication of severe storm situation effects on stormwater treatment device efficiency. Table 4. Baseline Treatment Device Pollutant Removal Efficiencies. ~~ ~~~ TSS (80$5%) TP (47$8%) TKN (20-40%) Cu (60$0%) Pb (8085%) Zn (40$0%) HC (NA) COD (45-90%) BOD (45.90%) Baseline Type 2 Storm Pond C 47.6 12.8 9.9 9.9 35.9 10.0 35.9 25.5 26.5 Ho bads Pond 64.5 30.1 24.9 25.3 54.7 25.0 54.6 50.5 51.5 Normal Year Pond C 62.8 29.8 25.3 25.3 55.2 25.3 55.2 42.0 43.4 Hogback Pond 85.3 63.9 58.2 58.2 80.1 58.2 80.1 78.8 79.3 H" h Prec' nation Pond C 60.9 27.4 23.0 23.0 52.9 23.0 52.9 39.7 41.1 Hogback Pond 82.7 57.9 51.8 51.8 76.5 51.8 76.5 74.9 75.4 Values in parenthesis are MPCA wet pond long-term expected removal efficiencies for NURP ponds. City of Bloomington target reductions are 80% TSS and 60% TP. Bold values are within expectations. Overall, Pond C is responsible for removing approximate one-third of all TSS, 15-20% of all metals and nutrients, 25% of oxygen demand, and 30% of the lead in stormwater flowing to Long Meadow Lake. Although Hogback pond has a higher removal efficiency, because it treats a smaller volume of stormwater than Pond C, its effect on total load reduction is less; a less than 7% reduction in all pollutant loads. Table S lists the estimated amount of each pollutant removed by each device. Table 5. Baseline Estimated Amount of Pollutant Removed by Each Treatment Device. TSS TP TFW Cu Pb Zn HC COD BOD 63Seine Ibs /bas Ibis Ibs Ibs Ibs Ibs Ibs lbs Type 2 Sbrm Pond C 9775 23.68 91.59 0.96 6.46 5.26 219.9 7117 1084 Hogback Fond 1915 5.86 23.36 0.25 1.29 1.34 43.76 1764 265.3 Normal Year Pond C 325433 931.6 3622 37.96 215.3 207.7 7333 276766 41782 Hogback Fbnd 57941 211.4 843.1 8.84 38.81 48.36 1322 62001 9192 High Precipitation Pond C 361243 1016 3950 41.36 239.0 226.8 8139 302130 45668 Hogback Fbnd 70044 249 987.9 1a~~ 46.80 H6e~ d by'[~® om~'I~ tsod09ffi"8 1700 3.0 Impact Anal 3.1 Proposed Action 3.1.1 Loads to Long Meadow Lake Table 6 summarizes the Build scenario's effect on water quality entering Long Meadow Lake. Negative values indicate load reductions compared to Baseline, while positive values indicate increased loads. For all storm events and pollutants, the Build scenario reduced total load in the system and loads reaching Long Meadow Lake. Addition of new ponds and reduced total impervious area contributes to the load reductions. Detailed load information is included in Table A-2 (Appendix A). The significance of these load reductions are shown in Table 7. For all storm event situations, Build scenario load reductions to Long Meadow Lake were not significant (> 5% difference) except for Normal Year and High Precipitation TSS (Table 7). Reduction in load and flow are attributable to a net decrease in amount of impervious surface area and addition of new treatment ponds in subwatershed Direct Middle that reduced direct inflow loads 37-40% in all situations and inflows to Hogback Pond in Normal Year and High Precipitation situations. In summary: • Build scenario reduced all loads to Long Meadow Lake; • Load reductions to Long Meadow Lake were not significant except for TSS Normal Year and High Precipitation conditions. Table 6. Build Scenario Effect on Pollutant Transport to Long Meadow-Lake Scenario Flow TSS TP TKN Cu PB 2N HC COD BOD acre-ft Ibs Ibs Ibs lbs Ibs Ibs Ibs Ibs Ibs Type 2 Storm Total Load in S stem -1.10 -137 -0.90 -4.8 -0.05 -0.11 -0.28 -3.80 -162 -24 Load to Lon Meadow Lake -1.20 -464 -2.30 -10.2 -0.11 -0.34 -0.59 -11.40 -503 -75 Normal Year Total Load in S stem -13.0 -6168 -29 -124 -1.30 -34.30 -7:00 -147 -7122 -1050 Load to Lon Meadow Lake -13.0 -14648 -66 -271 -2.80 -10.10 -15.60 -343 -17327 -2556 High Precipitation Total Load in S stem -18.0 -7230 -35 -151 -1.60 -5:10 -9.00 -175 -8359 -1232 Load to Long Meadow Lake -17.0 -16608 -75 -311 -3.30 -11.40 -17.80 -389 -19503 -2880 • - 10 - Prepazed by Montgomery Watson 08/30/00 Table 7. Significance of Build Scenario Effect on Pollutant Loads. • Scenario Fbw TSS TP TFW Cu PB ZN HC COD BOD Difference from Baseline Build Type2 Storm Westof77 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pond C Inflow -0.6 -1.0 -0.8 -0.7 -0.8 -0.9 -0.7 -5.8 -0.9 -0.9 Hogback Pond Inflow -2.8 -1.8 -2.3 -2.3 -3.0 -2.5 -22 -22 -2.1 -2.1 New Ponds hflow NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA D~ectlnfbw -37.7 -37.7 -37.6 -37.7 -37.5 -37.0 -37J -37.7 -37.7 -37.7 Total in System -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 Total to Long Meadow Lal~ -0.5 -3.6 -1.3 -i.i -1.1 -2.5 -1.1 -25 -2.1 -22 Normal Year Westof77 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pond C Inflow -0.6 -0.8 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.8 -0.7 -OS -0.7 -0.7 Hogback Pond Inflow -3.3 -5.9 -5.2 -5.0 -5.0 -5.7 -5.0 -5.7' -5.9 -5.9 New Ponds hflow NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA D~ectlnfbw -39.9 -40.0 -40.0 -39.9 -40.0 -4Q0 -39.9 -399 -40.0 -40.0 Total in System -0.5 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -5.0 -0.6 3.8 -0.6 -0.6 Total to Long Meadow Lal~ -0.5 -6.2 -2.7 -2.3 -2.2 -4.9 -2.3 -4.8 -4.0 -4.1 High Precip~ation Westof 77 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pond C Inflow -0.6 -0.8 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.8 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 Hogback Pond Inflow -3.2 -5.8 -5.2 -5.0 -50 -5.6 -5.0 -5;6 -5.8 -5.8 New Ponds hflow NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA D'rectlnfbw -36.7 -39.9 -39.9 -39.9 -39.8 -399 -39.8 -399 -39.9 -39.9 Total in Sys~m -0.5 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 Total to Long Meadow Lal~ -0.5 -5.9 -2.4 -2.1 -2.1 -4.5 -2.1 -4.5 -3.7 -3.8 Grey areas denote significant differences 3.1.2 Treatment Device Efficiency P-8 modeled treatment device efficiencies for the Build scenario are listed in Table 8 and estimated loads are listed in Table 9. Pond C removal efficiencies do not meet expectations for any parameters modeled except Normal Year TKN, however, there is no significant difference in performance compared to Baseline (Table 10). Hogback Pond removals meet pollutant removal expectations for Normal Year conditions except for Cu, and High Precipitation conditions, except for Cu, TP, and Pb. Although there is a slight improvement in performance compared to Baseline, this improvement is not significant (Table 10). The new ponds associated with redevelopment of the Olnick property were assessed. as one .unit (New Ponds) for efficiency and - 11 - Prepared by Montgomery Watson 08/30700 impact analysis. If New Ponds function according to basic design consideration, efficiencies will generally meet guidelines for most conditions and pollutants except for Cu and TP and Type 2 Storm events. New Ponds performance cannot be compared to Baseline since they are an addition of the Build scenario. Both Hogback Pond and New Ponds met City of Bloomington target reductions for TSS (80%) [for Normal and High Precipitation] and for TP (60%) [for Normal Year events]. • • Table 8. Build Scenario Treatment Device Efficiency ~~~~~ ~ _~~~~ ~~~ TSS (80-96%) TP (47-68%) TKN (~-40%) Cu (60-80%) Pb (80-95%) Zn (40-80%) HC (N/~ COD (450%) BOD (46-90%) Build Type 2 Storm Pond C 47.5 12.8 9.9 9.8 35.8 9.9 32.5 25.4 26.5 Hogback Prnd 65.9 31.1 25.9 26.0 55.7 26.1 55.8 51.7 528 New Pmds 68.0 23.0 14.7 15.8 54.5 15.9 .57.4 53.2 54.7 Normal Year Pond C 62.8 29.8 25.2 25.2 55.2 25.2 55.2 42.0 43.3 Hogback Pond 86.3 64.7 58.9 58.9 80.9 58.9 80.9 80.0 805 New Pmds 90.3 60.9 52.3 52.0 82.Z 52.2 82.3 82.3 83A High Precipitation Pond C 60.9 28.2 23.0 23.0 52.9 23.0 52.9 39.7 41.0 Hogback Prnd 83.5 58.5 52.2 52.2 77.1 52.2 77.1 75.9 76fL New Prnds 88.7 56.3 47.4 47.2 79.8 47.4 79.8 65.6 625 Values in parenthesis are M PCA wet pond long-term expected removal efficiencies for NU RP pond City of Bloomington target reductions are 80% TSS and 60% TP. Bold values are within expectation. ;. Table 9. Build Scenario Estimated Amount of Pollutant Removed by Each Treatment Device - 12 - Prepared by Montgomery Watson 08/30100 • J • TSS TP TKN Cu Pb Zn HC COD BOD BUild Ibs /bs Ibs Ibs lbs lbs /bas lbs !bs T e 2 Sto rm Pond C 9662 23.48 90.7 0.94 6.39 5.21 187.4 7039 1073 Hogback Pond 1919 5.93 23.7 0.25 1.28 1.37 43.73 1768 265.9 New Ponds 377 0.88 2.7 0.03 0.24 0.17 8.73 346.8 52.65 Normal Year Pond C 322685 923.3 3588 37.60 213.4 205.7 7269 274545 41446 H back Pond 55140 202.7 810.0 8.49 36.96 46.44 1258 59234 8780 New Ponds 13385 44.99 170.8 1.78 8.75 9.78 298.7 14135 2100 High Precipitation Pond C 358339 1037 3915 41.07 237.0 224.8 8072 299868 45326 Hogback Pond 66637 238.2 946.8 9.93 44.56 54.30 1518 70240 10429 New Ponds 15013 48.81 183.1 1.91 9.79 10.49 333.5 12868 1807 - 13 - Prepared by Montgomery Watson 08/30100 Table 10. Build Scenario Impact on Treatment Device Efficiency Significance. TSS TP TKN Cu PB ZN HC COD BOD Build Difference from Baseline Type 2 Storm Pond C -0.2 -0.1 -0.2 -1.3 -0.2 -0.2 -9.5 -0.2 -0.2 Hogback Pond 2.1 3.6 3.8 3.1 1.8 4.6 2.2 2.4 2.4 Normal Year Pond C 0.0 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1 -0.3 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Ho back Pond 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.5 1.5 Hi h Preci itation Pond C 0.0 2.8 -0.2 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.0 Ho bads Pond 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.3 1.2 Generally, removal efficiencies were only slightly lower (<7%) for High Precipitation conditions compared with Normal Year conditions for all ponds and pollutants. However, Type 2 Storm event removal efficiencies were more than 10% less than Normal Year conditions for Pond C and greater than 20% less for Hogback and New Ponds. Although Type 2 Storms do not represent long term impacts, they do provide an indication of severe storm situation effects on stormwater treatment device efficiency. Total removals are based on how much of each pollutant in the entire system, which could possibly discharge into Long Meadow Lake (including area west of Highway 77), is removed by the treatment device. This provides an indication of relative importance of each treatment device in reducing total loads. Overall, Pond C is responsible for removing approximate one-third of all TSS, 15-20% of all nutrients, 25% of oxygen demand, and 30% of the lead in stormwater flowing towards .Long Meadow Lake during Normal Year and High Precipitation conditions. For single 2" Type 2 Storm events these removals are reduced by 5 to 10%. Although Hogback Pond and New Ponds have higher individual removal efficiencies than Pond C (Table 8), because they treat smaller volumes of stormwater than Pond C, their effect on total load reduction is less; a less than 6% and 2% reduction in all pollutant loads, respectively. Table 9 lists the estimated amount of each pollutant removed for an indication of relative effects. • Pond C did not meet removal expectations for all parameters except TKN Normal Year and High Precipitation under the Build scenario. • No significant impacts on Pond C efficiency can be attributed to the Build scenario. • - 14 - Prepared by Montgomery Watson 08/30/00 • Hogback Pond Build scenario removals: - do not meet expectations for Type 2 Storm except for TKN, COD, and BOD - meet expectations for Normal Year except for Cu - meet expectations for High Precipitation except for Cu, Pb, and TP - meet City of Bloomington targets for TSS (80%) [for Normal and High Precipitation] and for TP (60%) [for Normal. Year events]. • New Ponds Build scenario removals: - do not meet expectations for Type 2 Storm except for COD and BOD - meet expectations for Normal Year except for Cu - meet expectations for High Precipitation except for Cu and TP - meet City of Bloomington targets for. TSS (80%) [for Normal and High Precipitation] and for TP (60%) [for Normal Year events]. • Overall there were generally no impacts to current device efficiency as a result of the Build scenario • Addition of new treatment ponds, however, contributes additional load reductions and improves the overall system's removal efficiency. 3.2 EIS No-Build Alternative 3.2.1 Loads to Long Meadow Lake Table 11 summarizes the EIS No-Build scenario's effect on water quality entering Long Meadow Lake. Negative values indicate load reductions compared to Baseline, while positive values indicate increased loads. For all storm events and pollutants, the No-Build scenario reduced total load in the system and loads reaching Long Meadow Lake. Addition of new ponds and reduced total impervious area contributes to the load reductions. Detailed load information is included in Table A-3 (Appendix A). The significance of these load reductions are shown in Table 12. For all storm event situations, No-Build scenario load reductions to Long Meadow Lake were not significant (> 5% difference) except for Normal Year and High Precipitation TSS. Reduction in load and flow are attributable to a net decrease in amount of impervious surface area and addition of new treatment ponds in subwatershed Direct Middle that reduced direct inflow loads 37-40%. No-Build conditions significantly reduced Hogback Pond inflows for all situations, but also reduced the amount of pollutant removed for Normal Year and High Precipitation situations. In summary: • No-Build scenario reduced all loads to Long Meadow Lake; • Load .reductions were not significant except for TSS Normal Year and High Precipitation conditions. - 15 - Prepared by Montgomery Watson 08/30/00 Table 11. No-Build Scenario Effect on Pollutant Transport to Long Meadow Lake Scenario Flow TSS TP TKN Cu PB ZN HC COD BOD acre-ft Ibs Ibs Ibs Ibs Ibs Ibs Ibs Ibs Ibs T e 2 Storm Total Load in S stem -0.70 -161 -1.10 -5.5 -0.06 -0.13 -0.32 -4.40 -189 -28 Load to Lo Meadow Lake -1.40 -463 -2.40 -10.7 -0.11 -0.34 -0.62 -11.50 -505 -75 Normal Year Total Load in System -14 -6829 -32 -137 -1.50 -4.80 -8.0 -163 -7885 -1163 Load to Long Meadow Lake -14 -14037 -63 -260 -2.70 -9.70 -15.0 -330 -16268 -2402 Hi h Preci nation Total Load in S stem -20 -8008 -39 -167 -1.8 -5.7 -9.0 -194 -9257 -1364 Load to Long Meadow Lake -19 -16037 -72 -303 -3.2 -11.1 -17.3 -378 -18531 -2737 • • - 17 - Prepared by Montgomery Watson 08/30/00 Table 12. Significance of No-Build Scenario Effect on Pollutant Loads. • Scenario Flow TSS TP TKN Cu PB ZN HC COD BOD Difference from Baseline No Build Type 2 Storm West of 77 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pond C Inflow -0.3 -0.5 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.5 -0.4 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 Amt. Removed by Pond C -0.6 -0.7 -0.5 -1.0 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 Ho bade Pond Inflow -6.7 -5.9 -6.4 -6.4 -7.1 -6.4 -6.3 -6.2 -6.1 -6.1 Amt. Removed by Hogback -3.7 -1.7 -1.0 -4.0 -3.9 -0.7 -3.9 -3.1 -3.1 New Pondslnflow NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Amt. Removed b NewPonds NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Direct Inflow -37.7 -37.7 -37.6 -37.7 -37.5 =37.0 =37.7 -37. T -37.7 -37.7 Total in System -0.3 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 Total to Long Meadow Lake -0.6 -3.6 -1.3 -1.1 -1.1 -2.5 -1.2 -2.5 -2.1 -2.2 Normal Year West of 77 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pond CInflow -0.3 -0.4 -0.3 -0.5 -0.3 -0.4 -0.3 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 Amt. Removed by Pond C -0.4 -0.5 -1.2 -0.5 -0.5 -0.7 -0.5 -0.4 -0.4 Ho bade Pond Inflow -8.7 -10.0 -9.7 -9.6 -9:6 -9.9 -9.6 -9.9 -10.0 -10.0- Amt. Removed by Hogback -9.4 -8.5 -8.2 -8.1 -9.2 -83 -9.2 -9.0 -9.0 New Pondslnflow NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Amt. Removed b NewPonds NA NA NA NA NA NA NA . NA NA NA Direct Inflow -39.9 -40.0 -40.0 -39.9 -40.0 -40.0 -39.9 -39.9 -40.0 -40.0 Total in System -0.5 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 Total to Long Meadow Lake -0.5 -6.0 -2.5 -2.2 -2.1 -4.7 -2.2 -4.7 -3.7 -3.8 High Precipitation West of 77 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pond CInflow -0.3 0.2 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 Amt. Removed b Pond C 0.4 -0.5 -0.6 -0.3 -0.4 -0.6 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 Ho bade Pond Inflow -7.8 -9.6 -9.2 -9.0 -9.0 -9.5 -9.0 -9.5 -9.6 -9.6 Amt. Removed by Hogback -8.9 -8.2 -7.9 -8.0 -8.8 -8.0 -8.8 -8: 6 -8.6 New Pondslnflow NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Amt. Removed b NewPonds NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Direct Inflow -36.7 -39.9. -39.9 -39.9 -39.8 -39.9 -39.8 -39.9 -39.9 -39.9 Total in System -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 Total to Long Meadow Lake -0.6 -5.7 -2.3 -2.0 -2.0 -4.4 -2.0 -4.4 -3.5 -3.6 Grev areas denote sienificant differences - 18 - Prepared by Montgomery Watson 08/30/00 • 3.2.2 Treatment Device Efficiency P-8 modeled treatment device efficiencies for the No-Build scenario are listed in Table 13 and estimated loads are listed in Table 14. Pond C removal efficiencies do not meet expectations for any parameters modeled except Normal Year and High Precipitation TKN, however, there is no significant difference in performance compared to Baseline (Table 15). Hogback Pond removals meet pollutant removal expectations for Normal Year conditions except for Cu, and High Precipitation conditions, except for Cu and Pb. There is a slight improvement in performance compared to Baseline that is significant for TP, TKN, and Zn removal under Type 2 Storm conditions (Table 15). The new ponds associated with redevelopment of the Olnick property were assessed as one unit (New Ponds) for efficiency and impact analysis. If New Ponds function according to basic design consideration, efficiencies will generally meet guidelines for all Normal Year and High Precipitation conditions and all pollutants except for Cu and TP. New Ponds performance cannot be compared to Baseline since they are an addition of the No-Build scenario. Both Hogback Pond and New Ponds met City of Bloomington target reductions for TSS (80%) [for Normal and High Precipitation] and for TP (60%) [for Normal Year events]. Table 13. No-Build Scenario Treatment Device Efficiency TSS (80-95%) TP (47-68%) TKN (2D-40%) Cu (60$0%) Pb (80-95%) Zn (40-80%) HC (Nl~ COD (450%) BOD (46-90'/0) No-Bold Type 2 Starm Pond C 47.6 12.8 9.9 9.9 35.8 9.9 35.8 25.4 26.5 Hogback Pmd 66.0 31.5 26.4 26.1 56.1 -26.4 56.0 52.2 532 New Prnds 68.0 23.0 14.7 15.8 54.5 15.9 57.4 53.2 54.7 Normal Year Pond C 62.8 29.8 25.1 25.2 55.2 25.2 55.2 42.0 43.3 Hogback Prnd 86.0 64.8 59.1 59.1 80.7 59.1 80.7 79.8 802 New Prnds 90.3 60.9 52.3 52.0 82.2 52.2 82.3 82.3 83A High Precipitation Pond C 61.1 27.3 23.0 23.0 52.9 23.0 52.9 39.7 41.0 Hogback Pmd 83.3 58.6 52.4 52.4 77.0 52.4 77.0 75.8 763 New Pmds 88.7 56.3 47.4 47.2 79.8 47.4 79.8 65.6 625 Values in parenthesis are MPCA wet pond long-term expected removal efficiencies for NURP ponds. City of Bloomington target reductions are 80% TSS and 60% TP. Bold values are within expectation. ~J - 19 - Prepared by Montgomery Watson 08/30100 C7 • Table 14. No-Build Scenario Estimated Amount of Pollutant Removed by Each Treatment Device TSS TP TKN Cu Pb Zn HC COD BOD NO-Build Ibs Ibs Ibs Ibs Ibs Ibs Ibs Ibs Ibs Type 2 Storm Pond C 9715 23.51 91.09 0.95 6.4 5.23 218.6 7072 1077 Hogback Pond 1844 5.76 23.13 0.24 1.2 1.33 42.07 1711 257. New Ponds 377.1 0.88 2.73 0.03 0.2 0.17 8.73 346.8 52.6 Normal Year Pond C 324027 927.1 3580 37.76 21 206.3 7300 275521 41595 Hogback Pond 52518 193.5 773.8 8.12 35.2 44.36 1200 56434 8363 New Ponds 13385 44.99 170.8 1.78 8.7 9.78 298.7 14135 2100 All Devlces• 720831 2264 8862 92.90 478. 507.7 16290 670903 100642 High Precipitation Pond C 362860 1011 3928 41.22 238. 225.5 8105 .300920 45486 Hogback Pond 63792 228 909.5 9.54 42.6 52.13 1454 67313 9991 New Ponds 15013 48.81 183.1 1.91 9.7 'f0.49 333.5 12868 1807 Table 15. No-Build Scenario Impact on Treatment Device Efficiency Significance. TSS TP TKN Cu PB ZN HC COD BOD No-Build Difference from Baseline, Type 2 Storm Pond C -0.1 -0.3 -0.1 -0.6 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 Hogback Pond 2.3 5.0 5.7 3.3 2.6 6.0 2.5 3.3 3.2 Normal Year Pond C 0.0 -0.1 -0.7 -0.2 -0.1 -0.3 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Hogback Pond 0.7 1.4 1.5 1.6 0.8 1.5 0.8 1.2 1.1 High Precipitation Pond C 0.3 -0.2 -0.3 0.0 -0.1 -0.3 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Hogback Pond 0.7 1.1 .1.2 1.1 0.7 1.1 0.7 1.1 1.1 - 2~ - Prepared by Montgomery Watson 08/30100 Generally, removal efficiencies were only slightly lower (<7%) for High Precipitation conditions compared with Normal Year conditions for all ponds and pollutants. However, Type 2 Storm event removal efficiencies were more than 15% less than Normal Year conditions for Pond C and greater than 25% less for Hogback and New Ponds. Although Type 2 Storms do not represent long term impacts, they do provide an indication of severe storm situation effects on stormwater treatment device efficiency. Total removals are based on how much of each pollutant in the entire system, which could possibly discharge into Long Meadow Lake (including area west of Highway 77), is removed by the treatment device. This provides an indication of relative importance of each treatment device in reducing total loads. Overall, Pond C is responsible for removing approximate one-third of all TSS, 15-20% of all nutrients, 25% of oxygen demand, and 30% of the lead in stormwater flowing towards Long Meadow Lake during Normal Year and High Precipitation conditions. For single 2" Type 2 Storm events these removals are reduced by 5 to 10%. Although Hogback Pond and New Ponds have higher individual removal efficiencies than Pond C (Table 13), because they treat smaller volumes of stormwater than Pond C, their effect on total load reduction is less; a less than 6% and 2% reduction in all pollutant loads, respectively. Table 141ists the estimated amount of each pollutant removed for an indication of relative effects. • Pond C did not meet removal expectations for all parameters except TKN Normal Year and High Precipitation under the No-Build scenario. • No significant impacts on Pond C efficiency can be attributed to the No-Build scenario. • Hogback Pond No-Build scenario removals: - do not meet expectations for Type 2 Storm except for TKN, COD, and BOD - meet expectations for Normal Year except for Cu - meet expectations for High Precipitation except for Cu and TP - meet City of Bloomington targets for TSS (80%) [for Normal and High Precipitation] and for TP (60%) [for Normal Year events]. • New Ponds No-Build scenario removals: - do not meet expectations for Type 2 Storm except for COD and BOD - meet expectations for Normal Year except for Cu - meet expectations for High Precipitation except for Cu and TP - meet City of Bloomington targets for TSS (80%) [for Normal and High Precipitation] and for TP (60%) [for Normal Year events]. • Overall there were generally no impacts to current device efficiency as a result of the No- Build scenario except for significant improvement of Hogback Pond Type 2 Storm TP, TKN, and Zn removals. - 21 - Prepared by Montgomery Watson 08/30/00 • Addition of new treatment ponds, however, contributes additional load reductions and improves the overall system's removal efficiency. 3.2.3 No-Build Comparison to Build Alternative Differences between the No-Build Alternative and the Build Alternative are slight due to only small changes in overall impervious surface fraction for the two alternatives. The main difference between the Build and No-Build alternatives is the development of Met Center and Adjoining Lands for the Build Alternative. Currently, these sites are parking lots with a high impervious fraction that will not be changed greatly under Build Alternatives conditions. The significance of these differences is shown in Table 16. Positive values indicate higher inflows or removals under the Build scenario compared to No-Build. Changes greater than or equal to 5% are considered significant. There are no significant differences between the Build and No-Build scenario on Total System load or load to Long Meadow Lake. For the Normal Year situation, loads to Hogback Pond are significantly higher for. the Build Alternative due to the slight increases in impervious surface of subwatersheds flowing to Hogback Pond. Higher removals by Hogback Pond negates this increase and, therefore, the total load to Long Meadow Lake is not affected. • No significant difference between Build and No-Build pollutant transport. • - 22 - Prepared by Montgomery Watson 08/30700 • • Table 16. Significance of Build Compared to No-Build Loads. Scenario Flow TSS TP TKN Cu PB ZN HC COD BOD Difference from No-Build Build T pe 2 Storm West of 77 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pond C Inflow -0.3 -0.5 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4 -0.4 -0.3 -5.3 -0. -0. Amt. Removed b Pond C -0.5 -0.1 -0.4 -1.1 -0.5 -0.4 -14.3 -0.5 -0.4 Ho back Pond Inflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. Amt. Removed b Ho back 4.1 3.0 2.4 4.2 3.2 3.0 3.9 3.4 3.5 New Ponds Inflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Amt. Removed b NewPonds 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Direct Inflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. Totalin S stem -0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total to Lon Meadow Lake 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0. 0. Normal Year West of 77 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 0.0 Pond C Inflow -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 - .2 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 - -0. Amt. Removed b Pond C -0.4 -0.4 0.2 -0.4 -0.4 -0.3 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 Ho back Pond Inflow 5.9 4.6 5.0 5.1 'b.0 4.7 `5.1 4.7 4. 4. Amt. Removed b Ho back 5.0 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.9 4.7 4.9 - 5.0 5.0 New Ponds Inflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Direct Inflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. T - Total to Lon Meadow Lake 0.0 -0.3 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1 -0.2 -0. -0. West of 77 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pond C Inflow -0.3 -0.9 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0. -0. Amt. Removed b Pond C -1.2 2.6 -0.3 -0.4 -0.4 -0.3 -0.4 -0.3 -0.4 Ho back Pond Inflow 4.9 4.2 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.5 4.3 4. 4. Amt. Rem ved b NewPon s 0.0 .0 .0 0.0 Direct Inflow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. Totalin S stem 0.1 .1 0.1 0.1 0.1 .1 0.0 0.1 .1 0.1 Total to Lon Meadow Lake 0.1 -0.2 - .1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0. - 4.0 Summa P-8 modeling of Baseline, Build (Proposed Action), and EIS No-Build Alternative- scenarios indicate that no significant effects on pollutant transport to Long Meadow Lake will occur under any of the Alternatives, except for a reduction in TSS load during Normal Year and High Precipitation conditions. There are no significant differences between Build and No-Build scenarios with respect to Long Meadow Lake water quality impacts. - 23 - Prepared by Montgomery Watson 08/30/00 Currently, the Pond C treatment device is not operating at NURP pond expected removal efficiencies. Pond C was constructed prior to establishment of NURP standards and therefore cannot be realistically expected to operate at NURP removal rates. C~ • Hogback Pond is currently operating within expected removal efficiencies for most situations when assessed annually. TP removals for High Precipitation events, however, still remain below City of Bloomington target reductions. In general, despite treatment device inefficiencies, estimated pollutant concentrations indicate likely compliance with current water quality standards (MN Rule 7050). Although these rules are not directly applicable to this situation, they provide a benchmark for assessing impacts. Table 17 provides a summary of currently water quality criteria and P-8 model estimated annual concentrations. Because this model has not been calibrated, concentrations cannot be considered valid but are useful for indicating potential impacted areas. It should be noted that Aquatic Life Support criteria are for concentrations within the water body and for chronic (lowest value) exposure situations. NPDES standards apply to NPDES permitted point source dischargers only. Table 17. Estimate Flow Weighted Mean Concentration and Water Quality Standards. Scenario TSS TP TKN Cu Pb Zn HC COD BOD PPm PPn- PPrr- PPm PPn'- PPrr- PPn'- PPrr- ppm Aquatic Lifr StppQt (class 2B}chroric receiving water NC NC NC 0.007- 0.015* 0.0013- 0:0077* 0.059- 0.191* NC NC NC NPDe.S 30 1.0 NC NC NC NC NC NC 25.0 Baseline -- Type 2 Storm 19 0.3 1.37 0.014 0.020 0.079 0.675 35.0 5.1 Normal Year 32 0.3 1.62 0.017 0.028 0.083 0.957 58.9 8.5 Hid Year 30 0.3 1.6 0.017 0.027 0.092 0.~4 56.2 8.1 Build Type 2 $tQm 18 0.3 1.37 0.014 0.019 0.018 0.662 34.4 5.0 Normal Year 30 0.3 1.60 0.017 0.027 0.092 0.915 56.9 8.2 Hilt Year 29 0.3 1.57 0.017 0.026 0.090 0.867 54.4 7.8 No Btld Type 2 Storm 50 0.3 1.37 0.014 0.019 0.078 0.662 34.5 5.0 Normal Year 30 0.3 1.60 0.017 0.027 0.092 0.917 57.0 8.2 Hid Year 29 0.3 1.58 0.017 0.026 0.090 0.868 54.5 7.8 NC = No crter~a f ._ . _ __ _._.._ A ~ ~ . ~ ~ _ . r _ ._._ _ ~...~..__. ,~ Actu~ valJedepends on Hardness ~~ .~ £.__~~e_.~ - 24 - Prepared by Montgomery Watson 08/30/00 5.0 Recommendations To reduce current and future transport to Long Meadow Lake, additional stormwater treatment strategies may be necessary. It is suggested that the following options be considered: 1. Enhancement of Pond C to more closely meet current NURP pond design standards. 2. Construction of planned improvements (included in the City's Wetland Protection and Management Plan and the CIP) to the sub-watersheds west of Highway 77, to enhance treatment of those storm water flows to Pond C. 3. Construction of .small ponds or pervious. surfaces in subwatersheds such as Direct N, which currently have no treatment prior to outfall. 4. Construction of additional regional ponding. 5. Evaluation and installation of innovative storm water treatment systems (e.g., V3, stormceptor, underground infiltration basins, etc.) in conjunction with planned new development in the watershed. • - 2S - Prepared by Montgomery Watson 08/30100 • Appendix A P-8 Model Results • AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT BLOOMINGTON CITY HALL • L' AGENDA SECTION: Admin. Reports AGENDA ITEM # 13 REPORT # 4 g ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2001 • REPORT PREPARED BY: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATU REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Discussion of the final layout of the I-494 F~econstruction Project I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion item only. No action by Council is necessary. III. BACKGROUND I Council commented on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Reconstruction of I-494 in June 1992. The project was stalled due to high costs associated with the preferred alternative and insufficient funds. In 1999 Richfield initiated a study to redesign the 1-35W/I-494 interchange to reduce the cost of the project and hasten its construction. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is now in the .process of preparing the final layout that will be contained in the Final Environmental Impact Statement that will be issued this spring 2001. A public information meeting is set for February 20,2001 at the Richfield Middle School on the final layout for I-494. Similar meetings will be scheduled for other cities along I-494 from the Minnesota River to I-394. • 0212-4941ayout III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION • A. POLICY • The proposed layout is consistent with the City's policies to improve capacity and safety, and to .promote transit on I-494 B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The proposed I-494 design adds one additional lane in both directions and room in the median for a future additional lane in each direction consistent with Richfield's position taken in 1992. • The proposed 76th Street northbound entrance ramp to I-35W will . impact homes along Humboldt Avenue from 76th Street to 74th Street. • The proposed I-35W/I-494 interchange impacts the parking area of the Shops at Lyndale Shopping Center. • The design of the I-35W/I-494 interchange is based on the design proposed by the Richfield study. • Due to limited MnDOT funding, work on I-494 through Richfield may not begin until 2011-2016 at the earliest, although City staff is encouraging MnDOT to start the work much sooner than that. C. FINANCIAL • There is no financial impact on the City as a result of this proposed . layout. D. LEGAL • No legal review of this proposal is necessary. It is for discussion purposes only.. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Council may want to comment on the proposed layout, although MnDOT is providing. the layouf at this time for public information only. V. ATTACHMENTS • I-494 layout drawings. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Chris Roy, I-494 Project Manager of the MnDOT, will attend to answer any questions. • • X D z m m H m --~ I ~ ~ r ~ O ( ~ ~r1/ ~l ~ / ' I W Z D C m z C f~l ~, ~~i ~ C] x D fTl z m m H m -~ ~ ~ N ~ O ( ~ ti.~ 1J -T'1 ~ W ^ Z D m z C m X D z C m fTl m w 0 m C.~•I -(~ D C z C H ,~ r'1 -Q r C] X D I~1 z _ ~ H m m I ~ ~ o ~ m (.JJ -Q -~ ----~ D C z C fTl • x m D m z m m H m ~ --~ cn o ~ m (.~.! -~ -~ D m z C m i_r_ ~~ __ ~~ ~_ ~~ • X D f~ z m C H f m ~ --p ~ o ~ m (~J -.~ -lam ----~ D m z C (Tl .7 '-...I -~ H m m I ~ ~ w o o ~ ~ W ~ ~ o m m a e ~---_ )o o ~~e e~~ .~• o~ P ~- °o~ ,~o e ~~~ ~ S AS =~~ ;L~ ?~ -.1" ~f ~_ ~~ ~° ~~i • _ -~ H m m --~ -~ V~+ N O O 'T1 W ' n O fi6=' fl N m m -1 W 0 ,, w • ITl ---~ H ~ W 0 ~o ~ 0 m m -r AGENDA SECTION: public Hearing AGENDA ITEM # 12 REPORT # 4 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2001 U REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:. BRUCE SYLVESTER, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading of a transitory ordinance to change the name of 73-1/2 Street to Pillsbury Lane. ___ I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Conduct and close the public hearing and .approve a transitory ordinance to change the name of 73-1 /2 Street to Pillsbury Lane. • II. BACKGROUND Six households located on 73-1/2 Street, between Pleasant and Pillsbury Avenues, have submitted a petition requesting that the name of the street be changed to Pillsbury Lane. The street is one block long and the residents have experienced difficulty with mail and other deliveries. There is a 72-1/2 Street one block to the north that was changed to Pleasant Lane several years ago, so the proposed name change is consistent with that name. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY 02-12pillsburylane.doc NAME, TITLE • It is generally appropriate to maintain a street. name consistent with the City's current grid system; however, this particular street is one block long and renaming it would not have a major impact on the overall system. The name is also consistent with 72-1/2 Street which was changed to Pleasant Lane several years ago. • Public Works and Public Safety staff have reviewed the proposed name change and have no objections. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Staff has contacted Hennepin County regarding the change. The County has no objections and only asks to be notified once the change has been made. • City maps and 911 records would be updated once City Council approval is given. The post office would also be notified. • All residents located on the street have requested the name change. C. FINANCIAL • There are no provisions in City ordinance that provide for a fee to be charged to change the name of a street. Costs (e.g. staff time, legal notices, street signs) for changing the name will be borne by the general fund. Approximate costs for these expenses are estimated at $600. D. LEGAL • First reading of the transitory ordinance was held on January 8, 2001. • Notice of the public hearing was published in the January 31, 2001 Sun-Current. IV. .ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Deny the requested name change. V. ATTACHMENTS • Transitory Ordinance • Attachment A: Map of 73-1/2 Street • Attachment B: Petition from Residents VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Residents of 73-1/2 Street have been notified of the meeting and may attend. • BILL NO. TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RENAMING A PUBLIC STREET (73-1/2 Street) THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1: Public right-of--way, located between 73rd and .74th Streets West and Pillsbury and Pleasant Avenues South, as dedicated in the plat of NICOLLET TERRACE ADDITION, is named 73-1/2 Street ("Street"): Sec. 2: The property owners adjacent to the Street have requested that the name of the Street be changed from 73-1/2 Street to "Pillsbury Lane". Sec. 3: The City has reviewed the proposed name change and determined that the proposed name change will not adversely affect the ability of the City or other public entity to provide public services to the area. Sec. 4: The Council finds that, given the request of the adjacent property owners and the absence of any negative .impacts, it is appropriate to change the name of the Street to Pillsbury Lane. i Sec. 5: The name of the Street described in Section 1 of this Ordinance is hereby changed from 73-1/2 Street to Pillsbury Lane. Sec. 6: The name change will be effective 30 days following publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of February, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City. Clerk Attachment A Proposed Street Name Change -~, r ~ ~ o ~~ 72nd ST V I Q 0 D ~ > a 0 Z Q W !, .Proposed Change: Pillsbury Lan ~ ° Q c Q o Z ~ C~o ~1 ^ W N January, 2001. I G ° ~ ^ ~~ PLEASANT LA cn Q C~ ^ ~ ° ~ ° o ^ o ~° c~ 73rd 1/2 Street Q W J a p ~ p 0 ~ ~ 0 o ~ ~ ^ o~ ^o ^ ^ Q m J J a I ~ ~~ I ~~~ W u W ~ a o a o~ 0 o a ~ a 0o a ^~ ~Q 0 ^ ~^ ^ 74TH ST W 73rd ST Attachment B1 • Change Street Name: Page 1 of 2 Attn: Rick Regnier -CITY OF RICHFIELD 6700 Portland Av S Richfield, Mn 55423 Sub: Change Street Name All Six Home-owners that Homestead on WEST 73 112 STREET between Pleasant Ave So and Pillsbury Ave So are requesting to have the existing 73 1/2 Street name CHANGED TO PILLSBURY LANE. All too ofte il t b d li d t 73 1/2 S ~ n, ma o e e vere o treet is ending up on 73rd Street. Mail or package deliveries are often lost or delayed because of the "112" street designation All home-owners on 731/2 Street are in agreement and we expect this matter to be acted on as soon as possible.. A response is requested. Thank you. William Grampre 208 Gram re ~; ;~~ p wi ~ 200 Mahan ~J~-~I` 214 Johnson 209 Kiessling ~.,~ ~ 215 Towler ~.~ _ 201 Brekke~ ~ r ~; i Attachment B2 Change Street Name: Page 2 of 2 208 West 73 1/2 Street William 8~ Joyce Grampre ~ ~ ~ 869-1712 200 West 73 112 Street - f Elaine Mahan ~ /' r 861-2941 214 West 73 1/2 Street Douglas W. Johnson 861-7581 209 West 73 1J2 Street ~r~~~~~__ Herbert 6. Kiessling '=fK: _ 869-1023 Z. " _ 215 West 73 112 Street `_._ /~ Steve and Kathy Towler / ~ ~ ~,~J~.--_ 798-5939 ~~, tv+i { ` . ,.~ ~ i-~ + i ~.~. ~, 201 West 73 112 Street 1 ` ~ rF Je~erq-8 Debbborah Brekken -/~.~ `.~ r: r ~~ 866-0845 ~ ,~ , AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT PUBLIC HEARING 46 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2001 • REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: STEVE DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading of a cable television ordinance for WideOpenWest, LLC. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve second reading of the proposed cable television ordinance for WideOpenWest. IIL BACKGROUND In April 2000, WideOpenWest, LLC (WOW) and Everest Connections Corporation (Everest) approached the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission (SWSC) regarding the process to be undertaken to obtain a cable television franchise in the five-city SWSCC franchise area. In compliance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 238, the SWSCC assisted its member municipalities in conducting the process for the granting of a cable television franchise in each respective member city. The process consisted of the preparation of a Notice of Intent to Franchise and !; Official Application. Form. These documents were published by the City and two proposals were received; one form WOW and one from Everest. The SWSCC, through its legal counsel Moss & Barnett, conducted a review of the legal, technical 0212WOW STEVE DEVICH, ADMII~TISTRATIVE SERVICES and financial qualifications of both applicants and submitted a report to the City Council regarding these matters. The City then conducted a public hearing in compliance with Minnesota statutes to receive input from all interested parties. Following completion of the public hearing, the City adopted resolutions finding both WOW and Everest possessed the requisite qualifications to own and operate a cable television system within the City. The SWSCC was then instructed by the member cities to negotiate with WOW and Everest to prepare a Cable Television Franchise Ordinance that would be consistent with all applicable local, state and federal laws. In particular, the SWSCC was guided by the level playing field language contained within Time Warner's existing franchise and state law. That language requires that any franchise granted to a competitor of Time Warner must not be any less burdensome or more favorable than the terms and conditions applied to Time Warner. With those issues in mind, the SWSCC negotiated the attached ordinance with WOW. Generally, the franchise ordinance negotiated with the two providers contains substantially the same language that is imposed on Time Warner, with a few exceptions. Time- Warner's existing franchise, which was renewed about four years ago, was granted for a term of 15 years and contains a requirement for system upgrading but no institutional network provisions. WOW s Ordinance includes a requirement to build an institutional network that will serve all schools and public. buildings within the City. This network will consist of two fibers that will be completely paid for by WOW. WOW s ordinance also contains a 48-month construction schedule and franchise term that will expire on the same date as Time Warner's franchise. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Richfield has followed the legal and procedural recommendations of the SWSCC legal counsel in completing the franchising process. • Providing an additional wired cable provider for residents of the City of Richfield will ensure competition among the providers and likely result in better service for resident customers. • City ,residents often have voiced a concern to staff about the lack of competitive cable services in Richfield. • The SWSCC has considered the terms of the franchise agreement, feels they are in the best interests of the member communities and has approved them. • The proposed franchise agreements comply with the "level playing field" language contained within the Time Warner agreement. Further, Time Warner does not have a dispute with the SWSCC regarding the terms of the proposed new franchise language. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The cable providers are seeking to complete this franchising process as soon as possible. To that end, the first reading of this ordinance took place at the January 8, 2001 City Council meeting. • The other four member cities of the SWSCC are. all on a schedule, which will result in Council consideration of their respective franchise ordinances on, or before the schedule set for Richfield. • Timing of these franchise approvals is a critical factor in WOW's build- out schedule for the SWSCC. • The required legal notice for the public hearing and second reading of the ordinance was published in the Richfield Sun Current on January 31, 2001. C. FINANCIAL • The City of Richfield will receive franchise fees identical to those paid by Time Warner. • The City will receive benefits of public and government access equal to those provided by Time Warner. L~. LEGAL • Brian Grogan, the attorney for the SWSCC, has drafted and carefully reviewed both the process and the franchise agreement in the cable franchising process. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Defer action on this item to a different City Council meeting date. • Request different terms to the franchise ordinance agreement. V. ATTACHMENTS • Cable franchise agreement with WideOpenWest, LLC. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Brian Grogan of Moss & Barnett, attorney for the SWSCC. I~ • City of Richfield, Minnesota and ,f, WideOpenWest Minnesota, LLC Cable Television Franchise Agreement Ordinance No. Prepared by: Brian T. Grogan, Esq. MOSS & BARNETT A Professional Association 4800 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-4129 Telephoner (612) 347-0340 Facsimile: (612) 339-6686 With the assistance of: The Southwest Suburban Cable Commission ,~ 38441 I/1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1. .GRANT OF FRANCHISE ........................................................................1 SECTION 2. SHORT TITLE ..........................................................................................1 SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS ...........................................................................................1 SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM OF RENEWAL ................................2 SECTION 5. WRITTEN NOTICE .................................................................................2 SECTION 6. DESIGN PROVISIONS ............................................................................2 6.1 System Design .........................................................................................................2 6.2 Cable Nodes System Connect ................................................................................2 6.3 Service to the. Schools and Government Buildings .............................................3 6.4 Parental Control Lock ...........................................................................................3 6.5 Standby Power .......................................................................................................3 6.6 Periodic Review Provisions ...................................................................................3 6.7 Shared Use of Facilities .........................................................................................4 6.8 Verification of System Construction ....................................................................5 6.9 Franchising Cost Reimbursement ........................................................................5 SECTION 7. PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS PROGRAMMING .....................................................................................5 7.1 Access Channels .....................................................................................................5 7.2 Studio/Facilities ......................................................................................................6 7.3 Funding for PEG Access .......................................................................................7 7.4 .Regional Channel Six .............................................................................................7 7.5 Override of the Government Access Channel .....................................................7 SECTION 8. INSTITUTIONAL NETWORK ...............................................................8 8.1. General ....................................................................................................................8 8.2 Design ......................................................................................................................8 8.3 Usage Fee ................................................................................................................8 8.4 Use of I-Net Capacity .............................................................................................9 8.5 Equipment Responsibility .....................................................................................9 8.6 I-Net Agreement .....................................................................................................9 SECTION 9. PERIODIC CUSTOMER SURVEYS ....................................................10 SECTION 10. LINE EXTENSION POLICY .................................................................10 SECTION 11. GENERAL FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE PROVISIONS............11 11.1 Payment to City ....................................................................................................11 11.2 Bonds .....................................................................................................................11 11.3 Security Fund .......................................................................................................12 ~, 38441 t/t t SECTION 12. PUBLIC COMMITMENT ......................................................................15 SECTION 13. COMPETITION ADJITSTMENT ..........................................................15 SECTION 14. ACCEPTANCE ........................................................................................19 14.1 Other Franchises ..................................................................................................19 14.2 Time of Acceptance; Incorporation of Offering; Exhibits ...............................19 EXHIBITS ,,;. Exhibit A -Franchise Fee Payment Worksheet ......................................................................... A-1 Exhibit B -List of Public Schools and Buildings .......................................................................B-1 Exhibit C - WideOpenWest Minnesota; LLC Initial Programming ............................................C-1 384411/1 11 FRANCIISE AGREEMENT ORDINANCE This Agreement, made and entered into this day of , 2000, by and between the City of Richfield, Minnesota, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota, and WideOpenWest Minnesota, LLC. WHEREAS, WideOpenWest Minnesota, LLC has requested that the City of Richfield, Minnesota, grant it a cable television Franchise; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized to grant one or more nonexclusive revocable Franchises to operate, construct, maintain and reconstruct a Cable Television System within the City; and WHEREAS, the City reviewed the legal, technical and financial qualifications of WideOpenWest Minnesota, LLC and, after a properly noticed public hearing, has determined that it is in the best interest of the City and its residents to grant a Franchise to WideOpenWest Minnesota, LLC. NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Richfield, Minnesota (hereinafter also known as the "City" or "Grantor") hereby grants to WideOpenWest Minnesota, LLC (hereinafter the "Grantee") a cable television Franchise in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. _ and this Agreement. SECTION 1. GRANT OF FRANCHISE WideOpenWest Minnesota, LLC is hereby granted a cable television Franchise. This Franchise shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Franchise Agreement Ordinance and shall be subordinate to the Cable Television Franchise Ordinance and all applicable federal, state and local law. SECTION 2. SHORT TITLE This Agreement shall be known and cited as the "City of Richfield, Minnesota Cable Television Franchise Agreement Ordinance." Within this document it ,shall also be referred to as "this Franchise" or "the Franchise." SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS The definitions contained in Ordinance Number of the City of Richfield, Minnesota are incorporated herein by reference and adopted as fully as if set out verbatim. 384411/1 SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM OF RENEWAL This Franchise shall commence on the effective date described in Section 13 and shall expire on January 1, 2012. SECTION 5. WRITTEN NOTICE All notices; reports or demands required to be given in writing under this Franchise shall be deemed to be given when delivered personally to any officer of Grantee or City's Manager of this Franchise or 48 hours after it is deposited in the United States mail in a sealed envelope, ., with registered or certified mail postage prepaid thereon, addressed to the party to which notice is being given, as follows: If to City: City of Richfield, Minnesota 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 If to Grantee: WideOpenWest Minnesota, LLC Two Carlson Parkway, Suite 350 Plymouth, MN 55447 Such addresses maybe changed by either party upon notice to the other party given as provided in this section. SECTION 6. DESIGN PROVISIONS 6.1 System Design Grantee shall construct a Hybrid Fiber Coax (HFC) system to a capacity of 860 MHz. Grantee's system will be designed to support a forward bandwidth of SOMHz - 860 MHz and a return bandwidth of SMHz - 40 MHZ. As designed, the system will have a capacity of at least 300 channels. The system shall serve an average of 150 homes per node. System construction shall be completed and in use within forty-eight (48) months from the Effective Date of this Franchise. 6.2 Ca61e Nodes System Connect Grantee will locate its "nodes" near schools where possible, without (in Grantee's opinion) compromising the engineering design of the System. The City will provide maps showing the location of the schools. 384411/1 2 6.3 Service to the Schools and Government Buildings A. Service to Public Schools and Public Buildings The Grantee shall provide one outlet of Basic Service, the Cable Programming Service Tier and one Converter, if needed, to those facilities provided in Exhibit B. Service to public schools and municipally owned buildings constructed or occupied after the effective date of this Franchise shall be similarly provided subject to the building being located within 200 feet of the Grantee's then existing System. ~' 2. If facility is over 200 feet from Grantee's then existing System, .the school or municipality shall be responsible for all equipment, construction costs and additional wiring beyond the first 200 feet .that are the Grantee's responsibility. 3. All internal wiring cost beyond the one outlet that Grantee agrees to provide shall be the responsibility of the school or municipality. 4. The financial responsibility for any additional Converters desired by the school or municipality shall be their responsibility. B. Service to Private Schools Grantee shall provide Installation to private schools within 200 feet of plant. A private school is defined as any private secondary school that receives funding pursuant to Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Installation and Cable Service (Basic Service and Cable Programming Service Tier) shall be provided for free to such private schools through the year 2011. 6.4 Parental Control Lock Grantee shall provide, for sale or lease, to Subscribers, upon request, a parental control locking device. , 6.5 Standby Power Grantee shall provide standby power throughout the System capable of providing at least three hours of emergency supply. 6.6 Periodic Review Provisions The City may request aState-of--the-Art review at any time between the sixth year anniversary and the twelfth year anniversary of the granting of this Franchise. In 3aaat iii 3 conducting aState-of--the-Art review, the City shall undertake the following process: A. The City and the Grantee shall undertake a review of the then existing Cable System. This review shall, at a minimum, take into account the following: 1. Characteristics of the existing System; 2. The State-of--the-Art; 3. Additional benefits provided to customers by the State-of--the-Art; 4. The market place demand for the State-of--the-Art; and 5. The financial feasibility of the State-of--the-Art taking into account associated rate increases, and the premature retirement of assets. B. The City shall hold at least two public hearings to enable the general public and Grantee to comment and to present evidence. C. For the purposes of this Section the term "State-of--the-Art" shall mean equipment or facilities that: 1. Are readily available with reasonable delivery schedules from two or more sources of supply; < 2. Have the capability to perform the intended functions demonstrated within communities with similar characteristic (including, but not necessarily limited to, population, density, Subscriber penetration, etc.) under actual operating conditions for purposes other than tests or experimentation; and 3. Are technically and economically feasible to implement. The term "State-of--the-Art" shall not include equipment or facilities associated with or dedicated to the general public, educational or governmental access or telecommunication services. D. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the City may not undertake a State-of--the-Art review at any time the Grantee is deemed subject to effective competition pursuant to then applicable state or federal law. E. As a result of any review based on this Section, City and Grantee may enter into good faith negotiations to amend this Franchise as agreed upon. 6.7 Shared Use of Facilities The Grantee must make space available on its poles and towers, or upon timely request by the City, underground lines and conduit, for City wires, fixtures, or City utilities, whenever such use will not interfere with the use of those facilities by the Grantee or any other communication company. The City must pay for any ` - added expense incurred by the Grantee because of such City use. ssaai iii 4 6.8 Verification of System Construction The City may, in its sole discretion, retain a technical consultant to conduct an on- site review of Grantee's System to verify that construction has been completed in compliance with all requirements of this Franchise and Applicable Laws. All costs associated with a technical consultant for purposes described within this Section 6.8, up to a cap not to exceed $15,000, shall be borne by Grantee and shall not be deducted nor offset from any franchise fee payments which Grantee is required to remit to City under this Franchise. 6.9 Franchising Cost Reimbursement. Upon acceptance of this Franchise, Grantee shall provide City full reimbursement for all reasonable and necessary franchising costs not already covered by Grantee's application fee. Grantee's reimbursement of franchising costs shall not be deducted or offset from any franchise fees which Grantee is required to remit pursuant to this Franchise. SECTION 7. PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS PROGRAMMING 7.1 Access Channels A. Grantee shall provide four public, educational and government (PEG) Access Channels (the "Access Channels"). One channel shall be dedicated to public access, one channel shall be dedicated to governmental access, and two channels shall be dedicated to educational access. B. Grantee shall provide to each of its Subscribers who receive all or any part of the total services offered on the System, reception of each public, educational and governmental Access Channel. C. Grantee shall provide at least one specially designated access channel available for lease on a first come, nondiscriminatory basis by commercial and noncommercial users. This Section is not applicable to Subscribers receiving only alarm system services or only data transmission services for computer. operated functions. The VHF spectrum shall be used for at least one of the specially designated noncommercial public Access Channels required. D. Whenever any of the Access Channels are in use during 80 percent of the weekdays (Monday-Friday), for 80 percent of the time during any consecutive three hour period for six weeks running, and there is demand for use of an additional channel for the same purpose, Grantee shall then 384411/1 $ have. six months in which to provide a new specially designated access channel for the same purpose at no additional cost to Subscribers. E. Grantee must establish rules and regulations for the public, educational and leased Access Channels. The rules and regulations established by the Grantee are subject to approval by the City. F. Subscribers receiving programs on one or more special service channels without also receiving the regular Subscriber services may receive only one specially designated composite Access Channel composed of the programming on Access Channels. Subscribers receiving only alarm ' system services or only data transmission services for computer operated functions shall not be included in this requirement. 7.2 Studio/Facilities A. Prior to the provision of Cable Service within the City, Grantee will provide one large facility containing one studio .with square footage of not less than 1440 square feet for use by the cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield ("Member Cities") at a location within the Member Cities mutually agreeable to Grantee and the Member Cities for public, educational and governmental access production. The studio will have the capacity for audience participation. The facility will include two separate editing suites, storage space and the entire studio facility will be wheelchair accessible. The facility shall be open during the hours of Monday through Friday 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and regular weekend hours and some regular week night. hours. B. Grantee shall make readily available for public use at least minimal equipment necessary for the production of programming and playback of prerecorded programs for the specially designated noncommercial public Access Channel. The Grantee shall also make readily available upon need being shown, the minimum equipment necessary to make it possible to record programs at remote locations with battery operated portable equipment. C. No charges shall be made for channel time or playback of prerecorded programming on :the specially designated noncommercial public Access Channel. Grantee can include any costs associated with production and playback for the noncommercial public Access Channel in the total sum allocated for public, educational and governmental access programming as stated in Section 7.3. Additionally, at the City's request, Grantee will work with the City to institute a nominal membership fee for users of the PEG access facility. 384411/1 () D. Need within the meaning of this section shall be determined in the sole ~ discretion of City or by Subscriber petition. Said petition must contain the signatures of at least 10 percent of the Subscribers of System, but in no case more than 500 nor fewer than 100 signatures. 7.3 Funding for PEG Access Prior to the provision of Cable Service within the City, Grantee shall provide no less than $200,128. annually for PEG access operating expenses collectively for the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Richfield. After the ~. first year of the Franchise, Grantee shall provide sufficient financial and in-kind support to maintain a substantially equivalent level of services, facilities and equipment in the remaining years of the Franchise Agreement Ordinance comparable to the services, facilities and equipment provided in the first year of the Franchise. These expenses will be itemized on customers' bills. This amount will provide the following services: (a) labor costs; (b) educational consultant; (c) facilities and utilities; (d) access expenses; (e) educational expenses; (f) equipment maintenance; (g) technical support; and (h) replay expenses. This funding shall not be deducted from the Franchise Fee within the meaning of this Agreement. Grantee shall not calculate a Franchise Fee upon funds itemized on the customers' bills for public, educational or governmental access production and programming. 7.4 Regional Channel Six Under Minnesota Cable Communications Act, standard VHF Channel six has been designated for usage as the regional channel. Also known as Metro Cable Network, this independent, noncommercial, nonprofit channel shall be made available without charge. This provision shall remain in effect as long as a regional channel is required by the State of Minnesota. 7.5 Override of the Government Access Channel Grantee agrees to provide the capability such that the City, from its City Hall, can switch its government Access Channel in the following ways: A. Insert live Council meetings from City Hall; B. Replay government access programming from City Hall; C. Transmit character generated programming; D. Schedule for Grantee to replay City-provided tapes inpre-arranged time slot on the government Access Channel; and E. Switch to C-SPAN 2 or other comparable programming provided by 384411/1 ~] ~' Grantee at any time when not carrying live or taped government access programming. SECTION 8. INSTITUTIONAL NETWORK 8.1. General. A. Grantee shall provide Grantor an Institutional Network ("I-Net") in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Section 8 and an agreement ("I-Net Agreement") entered into between Grantor and Grantee. B. Grantee shall build and maintain an I-Net consisting of one pair (two (2) dark fibers) of single-mode fiber optic cable. The I-Net will be of a Star or point-to-point configuration serving the I-Net user sites listed in Exhibit B of the Franchise. The I-Net user sites (as designated in Exhibit B), and any new public facilities constructed during the term of the Franchise Agreement, will be connected to the Grantee's hub site and an umbilical fiber cable which will be connected to the central hub site serving the Franchise Area. The I-Net fibers will be part of the Grantee's subscriber network maintained at the same level as the Grantee's active subscriber network. C. The I-Net will be connected, in the I-Net user sites, at apre-determined demarcation point chosen by the Grantor, with a rack or equivalent device installed to mount to Grantee's fiber optics connectors and patch panel. Fiber will be run to each designated building in conduit with locator tape as part of the standard installation. D. Grantee will provide professional engineering and consulting. for the design and use of the I-Net. 8.2 Design. Within no more than three (3) months after the effective date of the Franchise Agreement, Grantee and its network consultants will provide a Design of the I- Net capacity requested by Grantor. The Design shall include the following: (i) a walkout of the I-Net user sites to which I-Net capacity will be provided; (ii) a detailed network design; (iii) a breakdown of all material, equipment, labor and Facilities required to provide I-Net capacity and (iv) any material, equipment, labor and Facilities required to provide inter-City Connections as set forth in Section 8.7 hereof. Upon receipt of the Design, Grantor shall have one (1) month to enter into an I-Net Agreement. 8.3 Usage Fee. Throughout the term of the Franchise, commencing upon activation of the I-Net capacity, neither the City nor any I-Net user site shall pay Grantee a Usage Fee. 384411/1 $ Any costs associated with usage of the I-Net capacity, maintenance of outside plant and maintenance, replacement and diagnosis of electronic equipment necessary to provide I-Net capacity shall be borne by Grantee. 8.4 Use of I-Net Capacity. A. Grantor Use. Grantor may use the I-Net capacity set forth in the I-Net Agreement for those services which Grantee may legally provide under federal, State and local law. Grantee's provision of telecommunication services will be according to prevailing law. Grantor shall only use the I- Net capacity for noncommercial, governmental communication uses in accordance with this Franchise and the I-Net Agreement. B. Grantee Use. Grantee shall own all equipment and Facilities, outside the demarcation point used to provide the I-Net capacity to Grantor. Grantee shall have the right to use any bandwidth or I-Net capacity not specifically guazanteed to Grantor under the I-Net Agreement. The I-Net Agreement shall provide that in the event Grantee shall cease operation of the cable system during the term of the Franchise Agreement for any reason, without a transfer of the Franchise Agreement being approved by Grantor, the ownership of all. equipment and Facilities comprising the I-Net (specifically including any I-Net equipment designated as owned by Grantee pursuant to this Franchise) shall transfer to the Grantor. 8.5 Equipment Responsibility. A. Grantor and Grantee will mutually determine a physical demarcation point. The fiber, coaxial cable, equipment and electronics outside the. demazcation point will be owned and maintained by Grantee and will not be the responsibility of Grantor. This demazcation point will normally be located inside Grantor's public buildings, similar to the telephone company. Grantor will guarantee that Grantee will have unrestricted access to the demazcation point within such municipal buildings to provide adequate maintenance and technical support. B. All equipment related to the provision of I-Net capacity will be identified in writing with applicable technical descriptions .and ownership designation. Grantor's equipment inside the demarcation point shall be purchased by Grantee, but selected in conjunction with Grantor. The Grantor shall make reimbursement for the purchase of the equipment inside the demarcation point to the Grantee. Ongoing maintenance of all equipment inside the physical demazcafion point that interfaces with Grantee's equipment will be the responsibility of the Grantor. 8.6 I-Net Agreement. A. The I-Net Agreement between Grantor and Grantee shall be coterminous with the term of the Franchise Agreement, as set forth in Section 4 hereof. 384411/1 9 B. If at any time Grantor desires additional capacity or services, the I-Net i Agreement will be amended. Payment of costs for any additional equipment necessary to increase capacity in the future shall be the responsibility of Grantor. C. At the termination of the Franchise Agreement, Grantor shall maintain the right to continued use of the I-Net under mutually negotiated terms. 8.7 Grantee shall provide at no chazge, upon request and at the time necessary for use, modulators and associated fiber optic signal transmission and reception equipment for single channel return purposes for each public and private accredited educational institution, each city hall, as approved by the City. SECTION 9. PERIODIC CUSTOMER SURVEYS 9.1 The Grantee shall, upon request of the City and at times mutually agreed upon by the parties, but no more frequently than once every three years, conduct a random survey of a representative sample of Subscribers.. Each questionnaire shall be prepared and conducted in good faith so as to provide reasonably reliable measure of customer satisfaction with: (1) audio and signal quality; (2) response to customer complaints; (3) billing practices; (4) programming; and (5) Installation practices; 9.2 The survey shall be conducted in conformity with standard research procedures, including the use of telephone survey conducted by an independent person in the business of regulazly conducting such surveys. The survey shall consist of a sample size of 300 customers or such other sample size as to yield a margin of error of plus or minus six percent or less of the total customer base. 9.3 The Grantee shall report the results of the survey and any steps the Grantee may be taking in response to the survey within 60 days of the completion of the survey. 9.4 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the Grantee shall be under no obligation to conduct a survey at any time the Grantee is deemed subject to effective. competition under then applicable state or federal law, SECTION 10. LINE EXTENSION POLICY 10.1 The Grantee shall, within 12 months of receiving a request, extend the System to any residences within the City served by City water and sewer facilities. 10.2 The City recognizes that in some instances the Grantee needs the permission of private property owners to extend service to others who maybe interested in service and agrees that should the Grantee be unable to obtain these. needed ~ permissions under terms reasonable to the Grantee and the property owners from 384411/1 10 whom permission is required that the Grantee shall be under no obligation to extend service. SECTION 11. GENERAL FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE PROVISIONS 11.1 Payment to City A. Grantee shall pay to the City a Franchise Fee in an amount equal to five percent (5%) of its annual Gross Revenues. B. The foregoing payment shall be compensation for use of Streets. C. Payments due the City under this provisionshall be computed at the end of each calendar quarter. Payments shall be due and payable for each quarter not later than 60 days from the last day of the quarter. Each payment shall be accompanied by a brief report showing the basis for the computation. At the end of each calendar year, Grantee shall complete a Franchise Fee Payment Worksheet attached hereto as Exhibit A. Grantee shall file a completed Franchise Fee Payment Worksheet no later than 60 days after the last day of the calendar year. D. No acceptance of any payment shall be construed as an accord that the amount paid is in fact the correct amount, nor shall such acceptance of payment be construed as a release of any claim the City may have for further or additional sums payable under the provisions of this Franchise. All amounts paid shall be subject to audit and recomputation by the City. E. In the event any payment is not made on the due date, interest on the amount due shall accrue from such date at the annual rate of 12%. 11.2 Bonds A. Prior to the commencement of System construction, and at all times thereafter until Grantee has completed the construction of the System in Section 6.1 of this Franchise, Grantee shall maintain with City a bond in the sum of $300,000.00 in such form and with such sureties as shall be acceptable to City, conditioned upon the faithful performance by Grantee of this Franchise and the acceptance hereof given by City and upon the further condition that in the event Grantee shall fail to comply with any law, ordinance or regulation, there shall be recoverable jointly and severally from the principal and surety of the bond, any damages or losses suffered by City as a result, including the full amount of any compensation, indemnification or cost of removal of any property of Grantee, including a reasonable allowance for attorneys'. fees and costs (with interest at two percent in excess of the then prime rate), up to the full '~ amount of the bond, and which bond shall further guarantee payment by 3saaitii 11 Grantee of all claims and liens against City or any, public property, and taxes due to City, which arise by reason of the construction, operation, maintenance or use. of the System. Upon completion of the System as described in Section 6.1 of this Franchise, the City may reduce the bond to the sum of $100,000. B. The rights reserved by City with respect to the bond are in addition to all other rights the City may have under this Franchise or any other law. C. City may, in its sole discretion, reduce the amount of the bond. 11.3 Security Fund A. In the event the Grantee is given notice of a noncompliance pursuant to Section 34 of the Ordinance, the Grantee shall within ten (10) days thereof deposit into a bank account, established by the City, and maintain on deposit the sum of Twenty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($20,000.00) or deliver to the City a letter of credit in the same amount as a common Security Fund for the faithful performance by it of all the provisions of this Franchise and compliance with all orders, permits and directions of the City and the payment by Grantee of any claim, liens, costs, expenses and taxes due the City which arise by reason of the construction, operation or maintenance of the System. Interest on this deposit shall be paid to Grantee by the bank on an annual basis. The security may be terminated by the Grantee upon the Resolution of the alleged noncompliance. The obligation to establish the security fund required by this paragraph is unconditional. The fund must be established whenever Grantee is given the notice required, even if Grantee disputes the allegation that it is not in compliance. If Grantee fails to establish the security fund as required, the City may take whatever action is appropriate to require the establishment of that fund and may recover its costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, and an additional penalty of $2000 in that action. B. Provision shall be made to permit the City to withdraw funds from the Security Fund. Grantee shall not use the Security Fund for other purposes and shall not assign, pledge or otherwise use this Security Fund as security for any purpose. C. Within ten (10) days after notice to it that any amount has been withdrawn by the City from the Security Fund pursuant to (A) of this section, Grantee shall deposit a sum of money sufficient to restore such Security Fund to the required amount. D. In addition to recovery of any monies owed by Grantee to City or damages to City as a result of any acts or omissions by Grantee pursuant to the 384411/1 12 Franchise, in particular Section l 1(G) herein, City in its sole discretion `: may charge to and collect from the Security Fund the following penalties: For failure to complete System construction in accordance with Section 6.1 hereof, .unless City approves the delay, the penalty shall be $200.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 2. For failure to provide data, documents, reports or information or to cooperate with City during an Application process or System review, the penalty shall be $50.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 3. For failure to comply with any of the provisions of this Franchise for which a penalty is not otherwise specifically provided pursuant to this Paragraph C, the penalty shall be $50.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 4. For failure to test, analyze and report on the performance of the System following a request by City, the penalty shall be $50.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 5. .For failure by Grantee to provide. additional services as negotiated between City and Grantee at a periodic review session within 45 days after a request by City the penalty shall be $200.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 6. Forty-five days following notice from City of a failure of Grantee to comply with construction, operation or maintenance standards, the penalty shall- be $200.00 per day for each .day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 7. For failure to provide the services Grantee has proposed, including, but not limited to, the. implementation and the utilization of the Access Channels and the making available for use of the equipment and other facilities to City, the penalty shall be $100.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 8. Each violation of any provision of this Franchise shall be considered a separate violation for which a separate penalty can be imposed. E. .Exclusive of the contractual penalties set out above in this section, a violation of any provision of this Franchise is a misdemeanor. 38aai iii 13 F. If Grantee fails to pay to the City any taxes due and unpaid; or fails to repay to the City, any damages, costs or expenses which the City shall be compelled to pay by reason of any act or default of the Grantee in connection with this Franchise; or fails, after thirty (30) days' notice of such failure by the City to comply with any provision of the Franchise which the City reasonably determines can be remedied by an expenditure of the security, the City may then withdraw such funds from the Security Fund. Payments are not Franchise Fees as defined in Section 29 of the Ordinance. ::~ G. Whenever the City finds that Grantee has allegedly violated one or more terms, conditions or provisions of this Franchise, a written notice shall be given to Grantee. The written notice shall describe in reasonable detail the alleged violation so as to afford Grantee an opportunity to remedy the violation. Grantee shall have 30 days subsequent to receipt of the notice in which to correct the violation before the City may require Grantee to make payment of penalties, and further to enforce payment of penalties through the Security Fund. Grantee may, within 10 days of receipt of notice, notify the City that there is a dispute as to whether a violation or failure has, in fact, occurred. Such notice by Grantee shall specify with particularity the matters disputed by Grantee and shall stay the running of the above-described time. 1. City shall hear Grantee's dispute at the next regularly scheduled or specially scheduled Council meeting. Grantee shall have the right to subpoena and cross-examine witnesses. The City shall determine if Grantee has committed a violation and shall make. written findings of fact relative to its determination. If a violation is found, Grantee may petition for reconsideration. 2. If, after hearing the dispute, the claim is upheld by the City, then Grantee shall have 30 days within which to remedy the violation before the City may require payment of all penalties due it. 3. The time for Grantee to correct any alleged violation maybe extended by the City if the necessary action to correct the alleged violation is of such a nature or character as to require more than 30 days within which to perform, provided Grantee commences corrective action within 15 days and thereafter uses reasonable diligence,. as determined by the City, to correct the violation. H. If City draws upon the Security Fund delivered pursuant hereto, in whole or in part, Grantee shall replace the same within three days and shall deliver to City a like replacement Security Fund for the full amount stated in Paragraph A of this section as a substitution of the previous Security Fund. ssaaiiii 14 I. If any Security Fund is not so replaced, City may draw on said Security Fund for the whole amount thereof and hold the proceeds, without interest, and use the proceeds to pay costs incurred by City in performing and paying for any or all of the obligations, duties and responsibilities of Grantee under this Franchise that aze not performed or paid for by Grantee pursuant hereto, including attorneys' fees incurred by the City in so performing and paying. The failure to so replace any Security Fund may also, at the option of City, be deemed a default by Grantee under this Franchise. The drawing on the Security Fund by City, and use of the money so obtained for payment or performance of the obligations, duties and responsibilities of Grantee which aze in default, shall not be a waiver or release of such default. J. The collection by City of any damages, monies or penalties from the Security Fund shall not affect any other right or remedy available to City, nor shall any act, or failure. to act, by City pursuant to the Security Fund, be deemed a waiver of any right of Citypursuant to this Franchise or otherwise. SECTION 12. PUBLIC COMMITMENT Grantee shall provide free service connections, free on-line (i.e. high-speed cable modem services) services and any required modem to all institutions identified in Exhibit B. SECTION 13. COMPETITION ADJUSTMENT 13.1 In consideration of Grantee's substantial investment to build its System for the Cities of Eden Prairie,. Edina, Minnetonka, Hopkins and Richfield, Minnesota, the City agrees to include the following provisions. 13.2 Any additional or subsequent cable Franchise granted to cable or non-cable companies who may compete with Grantee within the Franchise azea will be granted only on substantially similaz terms and conditions as this Franchise and shall not contain less burdensome nor more favorable terms than those imposed on Grantee. by this Franchise. , • 13.3 The City and Grantee agree that all Franchise provisions that Grantee is subject to are effective against the Grantee only if such requirements are applied as well to any and all wired competitors of the Grantee within the Franchise azea. For purposes of this subsection, a wired competitor is any video provider using Streets and offering at least 12 channels of video programming at least one of which is a broadcast signal, which uses wires, coaxial cables, optical fiber or other similar technology and places or attaches such wires, cables or fibers on Streets or public utility facilities. This definition of wired competitor does not include a Satellite 384411/1 15 Master Antenna Television system located wholly on private property within a ' building. 13.4 Any Franchise provision or other regulation enforced by the City upon Grantee which is not also imposed upon Grantee(s) wired competitors within the Franchise area of the City, shall be void as to Grantee, subject to the following requirements: A. The existence of a wired competitor in the Franchise area of the City shall not relieve Grantee of an obligation to provide an annual minimum Franchise Fee of two percent of Gross Revenues.. If the wired competitor obtains a cable Franchise which requires it to pay a Franchise Fee or substantially similar fee of an equivalent amount to the City, the State of Minnesota or any other governmental entity which is less than five percent of Gross Revenues, the City shall reduce Grantee's Franchise Fee to the same level, but in no event less than two percent of Gross Revenues. If the wired competitor does not obtain a cable Franchise, but it is required to pay a Franchise Fee or substantially similar fee to the City, State of Minnesota or any other governmental entity, then Grantee shall pay the same fee, but in no event less than two percent of Gross Revenues. If the wired competitor is not required to pay a Franchise Fee or similar fee to the City or the State of Minnesota, then the two percent minimum Franchise Fee shall apply to Grantee for all homes and customers who are passed by the wired competitor's system. If at any time a wired competitor with a cable Franchise pays a Franchise Fee of more than two percent, or if a wired competitor without a Franchise Fee pays a Franchise Fee or similar fee of more than two percent, Grantee- shall pay the same Franchise Fee. In no event shall Grantee be required to pay more than a five percent Franchise Fee. If the wired competitor discontinues providing multichannel video services, the Grantee's Franchise Fee shall immediately return to its original level. B. The existence of a wired competitor shall not relieve Grantee of an obligation to provide at least one channel for public, educational and governmental access programming. If the wired competitor obtains a cable Franchise which requires it to provide less; than four public, educational and governmental Access Channels, the City shall, upon the effective date of the subsequent Franchise, reduce Grantee's requirement to the same number of channels, but in no event shall Grantee provide less than one public, educational and governmental access channel. If the wired competitor does not obtain a cable Franchise, but it is required to provide less than four public, educational and governmental Access Channels, or if the wired competitor is not required to provide any public, educational or governmental Access Channels, then the City shall reduce S the number of Access Channels required of Grantee as follows: .~ swat tit 16 (i) If the wired competitor. passes less than 25% of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall provide at least four public, educational and governmental Access Channels. (ii) If the wired competitor passes 25% or more but less than 50% of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall provide at least three public, educational and governmental Access Channels. (iii) If the wired competitor passes 50% or more of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall provide at least one public, educational and governmental Access Channel. If at any. time, a wired. competitor provides channels for public, educational and governmental access which exceed the channels provided by Grantee, Grantee shall provide the same number of channels as the wired competitor. In no event shall Grantee be required to provide more public, educational or governmental Access Channels than it has agreed to in this Franchise. Agreement Ordinance. If the wired competitor discontinues providing multichannel video ~ _ services, the Grantee's requirement for the provision of public, educational and governmental Access Channels shall immediately return to its original level. C. If a wired competitor obtains a cable Franchise which requires it to provide less funding for equipment or facilities for public, educational and governmental access or less facilities and equipment than Grantee, the City shall reduce the Grantee's requirement for funding for public, educational and governmental access and facilities and equipment to the level of the wired competitor. If the wired competitor does not obtain a cable Franchise, including open video providers in accordance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and FCC rules, but it is required to provide less funding for public, educational and governmental access or less equipment or facilities than Grantee, or if the wired competitor is not required to provide any funding for public, educational or governmental access or equipment or facilities, then the City shall reduce the Grantee's required funding as follows: (i) If the wired competitor passes less than 25% of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins,. Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall continue to provide the same level of funding for public, educational and governmental access facilities and equipment as indicated in this Ordinance. 384411/1 17 ii If the wired competitor passes 25% or more but less than 50% of () the homes. and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, the City shall reduce the funding, and equipment and facilities requirements of the Grantee by 30%. (iii) If the wired competitor passes 50% or more of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, the City shall eliminate the funding, and equipment and facilities requirements for public, educational and governmental access funding. It is not the intent of this section to reduce Grantee's funds, equipment and facilities requirements regarding public, educational and governmental access programming to an amount less than the amount provided by its wired competitors. If at any time a wired competitor provides funds,. + equipment or facilities for public, educational and governmental access that exceed the funds, equipment or facilities provided by Grantee under this paragraph, Grantee shall provide the same amount of funds, equipment and facilities. In no event shall Grantee be required to provide more funds, equipment or facilities than it has agreed to provide in Section 7 of this Franchise Agreement Ordinance. If the wired competitor discontinues providing multichannel video services, the Grantee's requirement for the provision of funding and, equipment and facilities for public, educational and governmental access and, facilities and equipment shall immediately return to its original level. D. For all other Franchise provisions imposed upon Grantee in this Ordinance, if a wired competitor obtains a cable Franchise which does not require it to meet the same Franchise provision, the City shall not require Grantee to meet that Franchise provision. If the wired competitor does not obtain a cable Franchise and it is not required to meet the same Franchise provision, then the City shall relieve the Grantee from that Franchise provision as follows: , (i) If.the wired competitor passes less than 50% of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall continue to comply with the Franchise provision. (ii) If the wired competitor passes 50% or more of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, the City shall not require Grantee to t meet the Franchise provision. 384411/1 18 If at an time a wired com etitor provides a requirement contained Y p originally in this cable Franchise, Grantee shall comply with that same requirement. If the wired competitor discontinues providing multichannel video services, the Grantee shall be required to meet the Franchise provision. 13.5 If Grantee is aware of a Franchise provision imposed by the City upon Grantee which is not also imposed by the City or the State of Minnesota upon a wired competitor, it shall identify the wired competitor, including the basis for stating that the entity is a "wired competitor" as defined above; it shall identify the Franchise provision in question; and it shall provide this information to the City. Within 90 days, the City shall: (1) pass a resolution declaring that Grantee is subject to this section for that requirement; (2) declare why the entity in question is not a wired competitor; or (3) state that the "wired competitor" is subject to a _ requirement that substantially duplicates the Franchise provision. During the above process, the Grantee shall escrow any funds at issue in the above process that the Franchise requires be remitted during the time period of the above process and Grantee shall continue to meet any and all requirements in question. If the City declares such requirement void as to Grantee, the City is not liable for Grantee's past compliance with the requirement, including any past fees remitted to the City. 13.6 If the City and Grantee are unable to agree upon the operation of this section of the Ordinance within 90 days after one party provides notice to the other party, the parties may-agree to enter mediation. SECTION 14. ACCEPTANCE 14.1 Other Franchises A. The System intended for City, may be part of a joint system that serves the cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Minnesota. B. Grantee will, in good faith, apply for and accept, if offered to it, a Franchise.(similar Franchise) from each of the other cities on all the same terms and conditions herein provided, except provisions omitted as inapplicable. 14.2 Time of Acceptance; Incorporation of Offering; Exhibits A. Grantee shall accept this Franchise in form and substance acceptable to City by .Such acceptance by Grantee shall be deemed the grant of this Franchise for all purposes. ~. ssaaiiit 19 • B. Upon acceptance of this Franchise, Grantee shall be bound by all the terms and conditions contained in Ordinance No. ,also known as the Cable Television Regulatory Ordinance, and herein. With its acceptance, Grantee also shall obtain an opinion from its legal counsel, acceptable to City, stating that this Franchise has been duly accepted by Grantee, that this Franchise is enforceable against Grantee in accordance with its terms, and which opinion shall otherwise be in form and substance acceptable to City. C. With its acceptance, Grantee also shall deliver to City true and correct copies of documents creating Grantee and evidencing the power and authority referred to in the opinion of Grantee's counsel, certified as of a then current date by public office holders to the extent possible and otherwise by an officer of Grantee. D. Ninety (90) days prior to the commencement of the operation of the System, Grantee shall provide a copy of its initial services which shall be attached hereto as Exhibit C. E. The effective date of this Franchise Agreement Ordinance shall be IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor and Grantee have executed this Franchise Agreement the date and year first above written. ATTEST: City Clerk (SEAL) WIDEOPENWEST MINNESOTA, LLC By Its: (Corporate Seal) CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA By Its: 384411/1 20 • STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on by ,the of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF ) )ss; COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on _ by ,the WideOpenWest Minnesota, LLC, on behalf of the company. of Notary Public 384411/1 21 • EXHIBIT A FRANCHISE FEE PAYMENT WORKSHEET Revenue Percentages Based on Revenue & Bad Debt arter arter arter arter Total Pa ent Basic 0 Eden Prairie 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Additional Outlets 0 Edina 0% 0 0 0 0 0 Equipment Rent 0 Hopkins 0% 0 0 0 0 0 Pay TV 0 Minnetonka 0% 0 0 0 0 0 Pay Per Event 0 Richfield 0% 0 0 0 0 0 Transaction Fee 0 Advertising 0 TOTAL 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Shopping Service 0 Other 0 TOTAL REVENUE 0 LESS: Local Access 0 LESS: Bad Debt 0 CHARGEABLE REVENUE 0 X FRANCHISE FEE % 0 ~TAL FRANCHISE FEES TO BE PAID $0 _.:,, ssaaitii A-1 EXHIBIT. B LIST OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND BUILDINGS PUBLIC SCHOOLS Centennial Elementary 7315 Bloomington Avenue Sheridan Hills Elementary 6400 Sheridan Avenue Richfield Intermediate School 7020 12th Avenue South Richfield Middle School 7461 Oliver Avenue Richfield Senior High School 7001 Harriet Avenue Elliot Education Center 7001 Elliot Avenue Lincoln Hills Center 7440 Penn Avenue South PUBLIC BUILDINGS City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue Central Garage 7700 Pillsbury Avenue Water Plant 6221 Portland Avenue Fire Station #2 6401 Penn Avenue Liquor Store 6600 Cedar Avenue Liquor Store 6444 Penn Avenue Liquor Store 6444 Lyndale Avenue Liquor Store 7700 Lyndale Avenue Ice Arena 636 East 66th St. Garage 636 East 66th St. Swimming Pool 630 East 66th St. Community Center 7000 Nicollet Avenue Nature Center 735 Lake Shore Drive Park Shelter 200 West 72nd Street Park Shelter 6435 21st Avenue Park Shelter 6710 Portland Avenue Park Shelter 6300 1st Avenue Park' Shelter 6244 Knox Avenue Park Shelter 6700 Thomas Avenue Park Shelter 428 East 77th St. Concession Building 7500 Pleasant Avenue Building 7500 Pleasant Avenue Park Shelter 6500 Upton Avenue Park Shelter 6900 Bloomington Avenue Park Shelter 7434 Humboldt Avenue Storage Building 7434 Humboldt Avenue Park Shelter 6145 Bloomington Avenue Park Shelter 1710 East 63rd St. Park Shelter 7200 Washburn Avenue Park Shelter 6710 Irving Avenue l Park Shelter 7434 Humboldt Avenue 384411/1 B-1 • Park Shelter & Warming House 6335 Portland Avenue Park Shelter 7445 Fremont Avenue Park Shelter 7644 4th Avenue Lift Station 77th St. & Knox Avenue Lift Station 63rd St. & Colfax Avenue Lift Station 69th St. & Humboldt Avenue Lift Station 74th St. & 14th Avenue Well House #1 & #2 62nd St. & Nicollet Avenue Well House #3 6225 Portland Avenue Well House #4 64th St. & Portland Avenue Well House #5 636 East 66th St. ~;~ Well House #6 66th St. & 1 lth Avenue Storm Lift A 6428 Irving Avenue Storm Lift B 6430.22nd Avenue Storm Lift C 926 West 73rd St. Storm Lift D 7313 Xerxes Avenue 384411/1 B-2 EXHIBIT C i WIDEOPENWEST MINNESOTA, LLC INITIAL PROGRAMMING To be provided ninety (90) days prior to System activation 384411/1 C-1 f~ ,. ADDRESS CITY FACILITY 1. 6700 Portland Ave. City Hall 2. 7700 Pillsbury Ave. Central Garage 3. 6221 Portland Ave. Water Plant 4. 6401 Penn Ave. Fire Station #2 5. 6600 Cedar Ave. Liquor Store 6. 6444 Penn Ave. Liquor Store 7. 6444 Lyndale Ave. Liquor Store 8. 7700 Lyndale Ave. Liquor Store 9. 636 East 66th St. Ice Arena 10. 636 East 66th St. Garage 11.630 East 66th St. ~ Swimming Pool 12. 7000 Nicollet Ave. Community Center 13. 735 Lake Shore Drive Nature Center 14. 200 West 72nd Street Park Shelter 15. 6435-21st Ave. Park Shelter 16. 6710 Portland Ave. Park. Shelter 17. 6300 1st Ave. Park Shelter 18. 6244 Knox Ave. Park Shelter 19. 6700 Thomas Ave. Park Shelter 20.428 East 77th St. Park Shelter 21.7500 Pleasant Ave. Concession Building 22. 7500 Pleasant Ave. Building 23. 6500 Upton Ave. Park Shelter 24.6900 Bloomington Ave. Park Shelter 25. 7434 Humboldt Ave. Park.Shelter 26. 7434 Humboldt Ave. Storage Building . 27. 6145 Bloomington Ave. Park Shelter 28. 1710 East 63rd St. Park Shelter 29. 7200 Washburn Ave. Park Shelter 30. 6710 Irving Ave: Park Shelter 31.7434 Humboldt Ave. Park Shelter 32. 6335 Portland Ave Park Shelter & Warming House 33. 7445 Fremont Ave. Park Shelter 34. 7644 4th Ave. Park Shelter 35. 77th St. & Knox Ave. Lift Station 36. 63rd St. & Colfax Ave. Lift Station 37. 69th St. & Humboldt Ave. Lift Station 38. 74th St.& 14th Ave: Lift Station 39. 62nd St. &Nicollet Ave. Well House #1 & #2 41.6225 Portland Ave. Well House #3 42. 64t St. & Portland Ave. Well House #4 43. 636 East 66th St. Well House #5 44. 66th St. & 11th Ave. Well House #6 45. 6428 Irving Ave. Storm Lift A 46.-6430 22nd Ave. Storm Lift 6 47. 926 West 73rd St. Storm Lift C 48. 7313 Xerxes Ave. Storm Lift D ~LA. • AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT PUBLIC HEARING 10 45 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12,.2001 L~ REPORT PREPARED BY: STEVEN L. DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR Na,~; T1TLE REPORT PRESENTER: STEVEN L. DEVICH, ADMIMSTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading of a cable television ordinance for Everest Connections Corporation. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the second reading of the cable television ordinance for Everest Connections Corporation. III. BACKGROUND ~ In April 2000, Everest Connections Corporation (Everest) and WideOpenWest, LLC (WOW) approached the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission (SWSC) regarding the process to be undertaken to obtain a cable television franchise in the five-city SWSCC franchise area. In compliance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 238, the SWSCC assisted its member municipalities in conducting the process for the granting of a cable television franchise in each respective member city. The process consisted of the preparation of a Notice of Intent to Franchise and Official Application Form. These documents were published by the City and two proposals were received; one form Everest and one from WOW. The SWSCC, through its legal counsel Moss & Barnett, conducted a review of the legal, technical 0212Everest and financial qualifications of both applicants and submitted a report to the City Council regarding these matters. The City then conducted a public hearing in compliance with Minnesota statutes to receive input from all interested parties. Following completion of the public hearing, the City adopted resolutions finding both Everest and WOW possessed the requisite qualifications to own and operate a cable television system, within the City. The SWSCC was then instructed by the member cities to negotiate with Everest and WOW to prepare a Cable Television Franchise Ordinance that would be consistent with all applicable local, state and federal laws. In particular, the SWSCC was guided by the level playing-field language contained within Time Warner's existing franchise and state law. That language requires that any franchise granted to a competitor of Time Warner must not be any less burdensome or more favorable than the terms and conditions applied to Time Warner. With those issues in mind, the SWSCC negotiated the attached ordinance with Everest Connections Corporation. Generally, the franchise ordinance negotiated with the two providers contains substantially the same language that is imposed on Time Warner, with a few exceptions. Time Warner's existing franchise, which was renewed about four years ago, was granted for a term of 15 years and contains a requirement for system upgrading but no institutional network provisions. The Everest Ordinance contains an institutional network requirement where the City will pay the incremental costs associated with the provision of additional fiber cable and the cost for any extension of the fiber beyond those locations where Everest is installing fiber as part of its subscriber network. Everest has agreed to a 36-month construction schedule and will have a 15-year franchise term. Since the first reading of this franchise ordinance with Everest, the company has notified SWSCC legal counsel, Brian Grogan, that they are in discussions with Seren Innovations regarding a possible joint venture or merger. Mr. Grogan has requested written clarification from representatives of Everest regarding the status of this matter. The letter has not been received as of the date of this Staff Report. Without that critical information at the time of the public hearing and second reading, it would be prudent to continue action on this matter until such time as staff has current facts concerning Everest's status. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Richfield has followed the legal and procedural recommendations of the SWSCC legal counsel in completing-the franchising process. • • Providing an additional wired cable provider for residents of the City of Richfield will ensure competition among the providers and likely result in better service for resident customers. • City residents often have voiced a concern to staff about the lack of competitive cable services in Richfield. • The SWSCC has considered the terms of the franchise agreement, feels they are in the best interests of the member communities and has approved them. • .The proposed franchise agreements comply with the "level playing field" language contained within the Time Warner agreement. Further, Time Warner does not have a dispute with the SWSCC regarding the terms of the proposed new franchise language. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The cable providers are seeking to complete this franchising process as soon as possible. To that end, the first reading of this ordinance took place at the January 8, 2001 City Council meeting. • The other four member cities of the SWSCC are all on a schedule, which will result in Council consideration of their respective franchise ordinances on, or before the schedule set for Richfield. • Timing of these franchise approvals is a critical factor in Everest's build-out schedule for the SWSCC. • The required legal notice for the public hearing and second reading was published in the Richfield Sun Current on January 31, 2001. • Everest must inform the. City of .its current status with respect to a potential merger or joint venture with Seren Innovations before final action on this ordinance can occur. C. FINANCIAL • The City of Richfield will receive franchise fees identical to those paid by Time Warner: • The City will receive benefits of public and government access equal to those provided by Time Warner. D. LEGAL • Brian Grogan, the attorney for the SWSCC, has drafted and carefully reviewed both the process and the franchise agreement in the cable franchising process. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Continue the public hearing and second reading of this ordinance to March 12, 2001. • Request different terms to the franchise agreement. V. ATTACHMENTS • .Cable franchise agreement with Everest Connections Corporation. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Brian Grogan of Moss & Barnett, attorney for the SWSCC. City of Richfield, Minnesota and Everest Minnesota,. LLC ,i, • Cable Television Franchise Agreement Ordinance No. Prepared by: Brian T. Grogan, Esq. MOSS & BARNETT A Professional Association 4800 Wells Fargo .Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-4129 Telephone: (612) 347-0340 Facsimile: (612) 339-6686 With the assistance of: The Southv~aest Suburban Cable Commission 384410/1 • TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1. GRANT OF FRANCHISE ........................................................................1 SECTION 2. SHORT TITLE ..........................................................................................1 SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS ...........................................................................................1 SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM OF RENEWAL ................................2 SECTION 5. WRITTEN NOTICE .................................................................................2 SECTION 6. DESIGN PROVISIONS ............................................................................2 6.1 System Design .........................................................................................................2 6.2 Cable Nodes System Connect ................................................................................2 6.3 Service to the Schools and Government Buildings ............................................. 3 6.4 Parental Control Lock ........................................................................................... 3 6.5 Standby Power ....................................................................................................... 3 6.6 Periodic Review Provisions ................................................................................... 3 6.7 Shared Use of Facilities ......................................................................................... 5 6.8 Verification of System Construction .................................................................... 5 6.9 Franchising Cost Reimbursement ........................................................................ 5 SECTION 7. PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS PROGRAMMING ..................................................................................... 5 7.1 Access Channels ..................................................................................................... 5 7.2 Studio/Facilities ...................................................................................................... 6 7.3 Funding for PEG Access ....................................................................................... 7 7.4 Regional Channel Six ............................................................................................. 7 7.5 Override of the Government Access Channel ..................................................... 7 SECTION 8. INSTITUTIONAL NETWORK ............................................................... 8 SECTION 9. PERIODIC CUSTOMER SURVEYS ....................................................15 SECTION 10. LINE EXTENSION POLICY .................................................................15 SECTION 11. GENERAL FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE PROVISIONS............16 11.1 Payment to City ....................................................................................................16 11.2 Bonds .....................................................................................................................16 11.3 SECTION 12. SECTION 13. 384410/1 Security Fund .......................................................................................................17 PUBLIC COMMITMENT ......................................................................20 COMPETITION ADJIJSTMENT ..........................................................20 .SECTION 14. ACCEPTANCE ........................................................................................24 14.1 Other Franchises ..................................................................................................24 14.2 Time of Acceptance; Incorporation of Offering; Exhibits ...............................24 EXHIBITS Exhibit A -Franchise Fee Payment Worksheet ........................:................................................. A-1 Exhibit B -List of Public Schools and Buildings ....................................:...........................:.......B-1 ..: Exhibit C -Everest Minnesota, LLC Initial Frogramming .........................................................C-1 Exhibit D -Minimum I-Net Performance Standards ................................................................. D-1 Exhibit E - I-Net User Sites ...: ....................................................................................................E-1 I-`1 384410/1 it FRANCHISE AGREEMENT ORDINANCE This Agreement, made and entered into this day of , 2000, by and between the City of Richfield, Minnesota, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota, and Everest Minnesota, LLC. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Everest Minnesota, LLC has requested that the City of Richfield, Minnesota, grant it a cable television Franchise; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized to grant one or more nonexclusive revocable Franchises to operate, construct, maintain and reconstruct a Cable Television System within the City; and WHEREAS, the City reviewed the legal, technical and financial qualifications of Everest Minnesota, LLC and, after a properly noticed public hearing, has determined that it is in the best interest of the City and its residents to grant a Franchise to Everest Minnesota, LLC. NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Richfield, Minnesota (hereinafter also known as the "City" or "Grantor") hereby grants to Everest Minnesota, LLC (hereinafter the "Grantee") a cable television Franchise in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. and this Agreement. SECTION 1. GRANT OF FRANCHISE Everest Minnesota, LLC is hereby granted a cable television Franchise. This Franchise shall be subject to the, terms and conditions of this Franchise Agreement Ordinance and shall be subordinate to the Cable Television Franchise Ordinance and all applicable federal, state and local law. SECTION 2. SHORT TITLE This Agreement shall be known and cited as the "City of Richfield, Minnesota Cable Television Franchise Agreement Ordinance." Within this document it shall also be referred to as "this Franchise" or "the Franchise." SECTION 3. .DEFINITIONS The definitions contained in Ordinance Number of the City of Richfield, Minnesota are incorporated herein by reference and adopted as fully as if set out verbatim. • 384410/1 SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM OF RENEWAL This Franchise shall commence on the effective date described in Section 13 and shall expire on December 31, 2015. SECTION 5. WRITTEN NOTICE All notices, reports or demands required to be given in writing under this Franchise shall be deemed to be given when delivered personally to any officer of Grantee or City's Manager of this Franchise or 48 hours after it is deposited in the United States mail in a sealed envelope, with registered or certified mail postage prepaid thereon, addressed to the party to which notice . is being given, as follows: If to City: City of Richfield, Minnesota 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 If to Grantee: Everest Minnesota, LLC 5555 Winghaven Boulevard O'Fallon, MO 63366 Such addresses maybe changed by either party upon notice to the other party given as provided in this section. SECTION 6. DESIGN PROVISIONS 6.1 System Design Grantee shall construct a Hybrid Fiber Coax (HFC) System to a capacity of 860 MHz. Grantee's System will be designed to support a forward bandwidth of SOMHz - 860 MHz and a return bandwidth of SMHz - 40 MHZ. As designed, the System will have a capacity of at least 300 channels. The System shall serve an average of 150 homes per node. System construction shall be completed and in use within thirty-six (36) months from the Effective Date of this Franchise. 6.2 Cable Nodes System Connect Grantee will locate its "nodes" near schools where possible, without (in Grantee's opinion) compromising the engineering design of the System. The City will provide maps showing the location of the schools. 384410/1 2 6.3 Service to the Schools and Government Buildings ~, A. Service to Public Schools and Public Buildings The Grantee shall provide one outlet of Basic Service, the Cable Programming Service Tier and one Converter, if needed, to those facilities provided in Exhibit B. Service to public schools and municipally: owned buildings constructed or occupied after the effective date of this Franchise shall be similarly provided subject to the building being located within 200 feet of the Grantee's then existing System. 2. If facility is over 200 feet from Grantee's then existing System, the school or municipality shall be responsible for all equipment, construction costs and additional wiring beyond the first 200 feet that are the Grantee's responsibility. 3. All internal wiring cost beyond the one outlet that Grantee agrees to provide shall be the responsibility of the school or municipality. 4. The financial responsibility for any additional Converters desired by the school or municipality shall be their responsibility. B. Service to Private Schools Grantee shall provide Installation to private schools within 200 feet of plant. A private school is defined as any private secondary school that receives funding pursuant to Title l of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Installation and Cable Service (Basic Service and Cable Programming Service Tier) shall be provided for free to such private schools through the year 2011. 6.4 Parental Control Lock Grantee shall provide, for sale or lease, to Subscribers, upon request, a parental control locking device. 6.5 Standby Power Grantee shall provide standby power throughout the System capable of providing at least three hours of emergency supply. 6.6 Periodic Review Provisions The City may request aState-of--the-Art review at any time between the sixth year anniversary and the twelfth year anniversary of the granting of this Franchise. In ._ 384410/1 conducting aState-of--the-Art review, the City shall undertake the following process: A. The City and the Grantee shall undertake a review of the then existing Cable System. This review shall, at a minimum, take into account the following: 1. Characteristics of the existing System; 2. The State-of--the-Art; 3. Additional benefits provided to customers by the State-of--the-Art; 4. The market place demand for the State-of-the-Art; and 5. The financial feasibility of the State-of--the-Art taking into account associated rate increases, and the premature retirement of assets. B. The City shall hold at least two public hearings to enable the general public and Grantee to comment. and to present evidence. C. For the purposes of this Section the term "State-of--the-Art" shall mean equipment or facilities that: , 1. Are readily available with reasonable delivery schedules from two or more sources of supply; 2. Have the capability to perform the intended functions demonstrated within communities with similar characteristic (including, but not necessarily limited to, population, density, Subscriber penetration, etc.) under actual operating conditions for purposes other than tests or experimentation; and 3. Are technically and economically feasible to implement. The term "State-of--the-Art" shall not include equipment or facilities associated with or dedicated to the general public, educational or governmental access or telecommunication services. D. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the City may not undertake a State-of--the-Art review at any time the Grantee is deemed subject to effective competition pursuant to then applicable state or federal law. E. As a result of any review based on this Section, City and Grantee may enter into.good faith negotiations to amend this Franchise as agreed upon. 38aaioii 4 6.7 Shared Use of Facilities The Grantee must make space available on its poles and towers, or upon timely request by the City, underground lines and conduit, for City wires, fixtures, or City utilities, whenever such use will not interfere with the use of those facilities by the Grantee or any other communication .company. The City must pay for any added expense incurred by the Grantee because of such City use. 6.8 Verification of System Construction The City may, in its sole discretion, retain a technical consultant to conduct an on- site review of Grantee's System to verify that construction has been completed in compliance with all requirements of this Franchise and Applicable Laws. All costs associated with a technical consultant for purposes described within this Section 6.8, up to a cap not to exceed $15,000, shall be borne by Grantee and shall not be deducted nor offset from any franchise fee payments which Grantee is required to remit to .City under this Franchise. 6.9 Franchising Cost Reimbursement. Upon acceptance of this Franchise, Grantee shall provide City full reimbursement for all reasonable and necessary franchising costs not akeady covered by Grantee's application fee. Grantee's reimbursement of franchising costs shall not be deducted or offset from any franchise fees which Grantee is required to remit pursuant to this Franchise. SECTION 7. PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS PROGRAMMING 7.1 Access Channels A. Grantee shall provide four public, educational and government (PEG) Access Channels (the "Access Channels"). One channel shall be dedicated to public access, one channel shall be dedicated. to governmental access, and two channels shall be dedicated to educational access. B. Grantee shall provide to each of its Subscribers who receive all or any part of the total services offered on the System, reception of each public, educational and governmental Access Channel. C. Grantee shall provide at least one specially designated access channel available for lease on a first come, nondiscriminatory basis by commercial and noncommercial users. This Section is not applicable to Subscribers receiving only alarm system services or only data transmission services for computer operated functions. The VHF spectrum shall be used for at least 384410/1 one of the specially designated noncommercial public Access Channels required. . D. Whenever any of the Access Channels are in use during 80 percent of the weekdays (Monday-Friday), for 80 percent of the time during any consecutive three hour period for six weeks running, and there is demand for use of an additional channel forthe same purpose, Grantee shall then have six months in which to provide a new specially designated access channel for the same purpose at no additional cost to Subscribers. - E. Grantee must establish rules and regulations forthe public, educational and leased Access Channels. The rules and regulations established by the Grantee are subject to approval by the City. F. Subscribers receiving programs on one or more special service channels without also receiving the regular Subscriber services may receive only one specially designated composite Access Channel composed of the programming on Access. Channels. Subscribers receiving only alarm system services or only data transmission services for computer operated functions shall not be included in this requirement. 7.2 Studio/Facilities A. Prior to the provision of Cable Service within the City, Grantee will provide one large facility containing one studio with square footage of not less than 1440 square feet for use by the cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield ("Member Cities") at a location within the Member Cities mutually agreeable to Grantee and the Member Cities for public, educational and governmental access production. The studio will have the capacity for audience participation.. Thee facility will include two separate editing suites, storage space and the entire studio facility will be wheelchair accessible. The facility shall be open during the hours of Monday through Friday 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and regular weekend hours and some regular week night hours. B. Grantee shall make readily available for public use at least minimal equipment necessary for the production of programming and playback of prerecorded programs for the specially designated noncommercial public Access Channel. The Grantee shall also make readily available upon need being shown, the minimum equipment necessary to make it possible to record programs at remote locations with battery operated portable equipment. C. No charges shall be made for channel time or playback of prerecorded programming on the specially designated noncommercial public Access Channel Grantee can include any costs associated with production and 384410/1 6 playback for the noncommercial public Access Channel in the total sum allocated for public, educational and governmental access programming as stated in Section 7.3. Additionally, at the City's request, Grantee will work with the City to institute a nominal membership fee for users of the PEG access facility. D. Need within the meaning of this section shall be determined in the sole discretion of City or by Subscriber petition. Said petition must contain the signatures of at least 10 percent of the Subscribers of System, but in no case more than 500 nor fewer than 100 signatures. 7.3 Funding for PEG Access Prior to the provision of Cable Service within the City, Grantee shall provide no less than $200,128 annually for PEG access operating expenses collectively for the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Richfield. After the first year of the Franchise, Grantee shall provide sufficient financial and in-kind support to maintain a substantially equivalent level of services, facilities and.. equipment in the remaining years of the Franchise Agreement Ordinance comparable to the services, facilities and equipment provided in the first year of the Franchise. These expenses will be itemized on customers' bills. This amount will provide the following services: (a) labor costs; (b) educational consultant; (c) facilities and utilities; (d) access expenses; (e) educational expenses; (f) equipment maintenance; (g) technical support; and (h) replay expenses. This funding shall not be deducted from the Franchise Fee within the meaning of this Agreement. Grantee shall not calculate a Franchise Fee upon funds itemized on the customers' bills for public, educational or governmental access production and programming: 7.4 Regional Channel Six Under Minnesota Cable Communications Act, standard VHF Channel six has been designated for usage as the regional channel. Also known as Metro Cable Network, this independent, noncommercial, nonprofit channel shall be made available without charge. This provision shall remain in effect as long as a regional channel is required by the State of Minnesota. 7.5 Override of the Government Access Channel Grantee agrees to provide the capability. such that the City, from its City Hall, can switch its government Access Channel in the following ways: A. Insert live Council meetings from City Hall; B. Replay government access programming from City Hall; 389410/1 7 • C. Transmit character generated programming; D. Schedule for Grantee to replay City-provided tapes inpre-arranged time slot on the government Access Channel; and E. Switch to C-SPAN 2 or other comparable programming provided by Grantee at anytime when not carrying live or taped government access programming. SECTION 8. INSTITUTIONAL NETWORK 8.1 Institutional Network Facilities and Capacity; Cost Recovery by Grantee. A. The Grantee shall construct an institutional network which at the outset, consists of the following infrastructure: (i) bi-directional minimum six (6) count fiber optic lines in a ring and/or a star architecture to the locations within the franchise area as listed in Exhibit E ("I-Net User Sites") as designated as primary sites by the. City, (ii) bi-directional fiber optic lines in a star architecture from certain. primary sites to certain secondary sites, as designated by the City and in a minimum quantity consisting of a four (4) count fiber per site and (iii) a minimum of a two (2) count HFC network per node to certain other secondary sites, as designated by the City. Within the first twelve (12) months from the effective date of this franchise, Grantee shall provide the City, or its designee, with a complete, detailed design and cost estimate for the I-Net infrastructure described above. Within ninety (90) days thereafter, the City, or its designee, shall work with I-Net users. to review the design and cost estimate, and provide changes to the Grantee for incorporation into the final I-Net design. Final architecture, site designation, fiber count of (i), (ii), (iii) subject to City or designee approval. Grantee shall not begin construction of the System prior to completion of the final I-Net design. Notwithstanding the timings indicated above, Grantee shall ensure that sufficient I-Net infrastructure is included incrementally within all necessary portions of its residential subscriber cable system construction, so that the I-Net can be achieved at the lowest possible cost to I-Net Users. Once final approval is received from the City, the Grantee shall complete I-Net construction within 'twenty-one (21) months from the effective date of this franchise. Some portions of the I-Net will be activated prior to final completion. The institutional network shall have the infrastructure (and, where noted, the equipment) that provides the capability to transmit any and all signals between the sites listed in Exhibit E. B. I-Net Users may not sell or resell services or capacity to any third party. However, I-Net Users may provide services to themselves, including those which the Grantee otherwise sells to others (for example, an institution may provide Internet service to itself or to other institutions that the Grantee sells to others). The limitations of this paragraph shall not prevent the City, or its designee, from subleasing, bartering, selling, reselling or giving away capacity on the Institutional Network to any other public or nonprofit entity for noncommercial 384410/1 8 purposes that do not directly compete with any products or services offered by the Grantee. C. The City or the institutions listed on Exhibit E ("I-Net Users") shall be responsible for reimbursing Grantee for its Actual Cost of constructing and maintaining all portions of the I-Net required by this Section 8. The institutions listed in Exhibit E (the "I-Net Users") shall not be charged by the Grantee for usage of the Institutional Network. The City or other I-Net users may elect to pay the Actual Cost of the I-Net on a monthly basis, appropriately amortized over the life of the franchise. The terms and conditions of such payment option will be reflected in an I-Net service agreement to be developed prior to construction of the I-Net. Such terms and conditions must be in accordance with the other provisions of this section and associated exhibits. If future I-Net sites are identified and activated under Section 8.3 below, Grantee shall submit an invoice for those construction costs in a manner similar to submission of the initial construction costs of the I-Net. D. "Actual Cost", as used in this section, means the incremental cost to the Grantee of materials and capitalized labor necessary to install and construct fiber optic lines, coaxial cable, and/or equipment together with any permitted return on investment authorized by the FCC. E. Except as provided in this Section 8, I-Net Users connected to the I-Net via fiber or HFC shall be responsible for any end-user or interface equipment needed for transmission or reception of signals. However, Grantee shall provide at no charge, upon request and at the time necessary for use, modulators and associated fiber optic signal transmission and reception equipment for single channel return purposes for each public and private accredited educational institution and city hall, as approved by the City or its designee. With respect to non-video end-user equipment, upon request by a designated institution, Grantee must either lease the equipment requested to the requesting institution or make reasonable efforts to arrange for the. lease of such equipment.. Within 30 days of a written request, Grantee must notify the requesting institution in writing of its ability or inability to lease the requested equipment and the terms ofsuch lease. If requested by City, Grantee shall serve as purchasing agent for City allowing City the benefit of Grantee's purchasing power and Grantee shall at all times provide City with any requested assistance regarding the appropriate type of equipment. City, its designee, or the requesting institution may, however, purchase or lease the equipment from any vendor. F. All I-Net Users shall be connected via fiber optic lines or a combination of fiber optics and coaxial cable as determined by the City to a hub located within the System. The I-Net architecture shall facilitate transmission of all required signals within City boundaries, transmission of signals beyond City boundaries within the franchise area, and transmission of signals to other networks in the Twin Cities area. The Grantee shall provide and install all equipment and infrastructure 384410/1 9 necessary, which is reimbursable to Grantee under same terms and conditions set forth in Section 8.1(C), to achieve the required level of interconnection with other Twin Cities area I-Nets provided by Grantee. Specifically, this includes, but is not limited to, interconnecting the I-Net with I-Nets that have-been or may be constructed in adjacent systems. Grantee shall also work with the City to establish interconnects with the Connecting Minnesota Network. G. I-Net equipment at the hub(s) shall be connected to a gas powered generator capable of providing continuous electrical power, or equivalent, and to an uninterruptible power supply that both conditions commercial power and provides for zero transfer time between normal commercial power and hub back-up - generators. 8.2 Hybrid Fiber-Coaxial Portions of the Institutional Network. A. The hybrid fiber-coaxial ("HFC") portion of the I-Net shall provide 450 MHZ of activated capacity (5-42 MHZ for upstream channels and 54-450 MHZ for downstream channels). to the HFC I-Net Sites. The HFC I-Net shall have fiber introduced into it to limit amplifier cascades to no more than five (5). B. All I-Net distribution system power supplies shall have the standby capability of providing at least three (3) hours of backup power and shall have status monitoring installed in them. Prior to battery failure, the Grantee shall connect I- Net Node power supplies to portable generators capable of producing adequate electrical current until commercial power is restored. 8.3 Future Fiber to the Institution Requirements. A. The City, or its designee, may identify certain I-Net sites that will not be activated at the time the initial I-Net is activated. So long as such sites are located on the I- Net User Sites List, Grantee agrees to include splice points and splice point housings on those portions of the system where additional fiber will need to be deployed or additional connections will need to be made. Upon notification from the City, the Grantee will provide cost estimates within ninety (90) days of a request by the Grantor for I-Net extension to the additional sites. B. The City, or its designee, may also identify sites following completion and activation o~ the I-Net. Estimated costs for serving those sites will be provided within ninety (90j days of notification by the City. If an extension of the I-Net is required to serve the site, Grantee will make the I-Net available within one hundred twenty (120) days from the initial request. The fiber-optic lines required by Section 8 shall be passively terminated to standard connectors at the patch panel of the telephone equipment room of each site or at another designated location. 384410/1 l U 8.4 Grantee's Use of I-Net Capacity. The I-Net shall be for the exclusive use of the City and I-Net Users throughout the term of the Franchise, or any renewal or extension thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee may use capacity on the I=Net, including for lease or other commercial purposes, provided that the City and I-Net Users are not using such capacity and further provided that the Grantee's use does not interfere with use of the I-Net by the City or I-Net Users. Upon receiving oral or written notice from the City, the Grantee or a lessee shall immediately cease using the I-Net for any purpose that the City,. in its sole discretion, determines is interfering with I-Net Users' communications. The Grantee or a lessee may appeal any determination of City concerning I-Net interference to the City within ten (10) days of the date that the requisite notice is received by the Grantee. Any such appeal shall: (i) be in writing; (ii) list the reasons that the City's determination regarding interference with I-Net Users' communications is incorrect; and (iii) include any other information the Grantee or a Lessee wishes the City to consider. Within forty-five (45) calendar days of receiving a written appeal under this paragraph, the City shall: (i) determine whether the City's conclusion that the Grantee or lessee was interfering with I- Net Users' communications was justified; and (ii) inform the Grantee or lessee in writing of its findings. This provision shall not limit any other appeal rights of Grantee. Use of the I-Net by the City and I-Net Users shall, at all times, have priority over any use(s) by the Grantee or any lessee. The Grantee or a lessee shall terminate its use of any channel capacity on the I-Net within six (6) months after receiving notice from the City that the City or any I-Net User has determined to use such capacity. Any agreement entered into by the Grantee and a third party for the lease. of I-Net capacity shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Franchise. 8.5 I-Net Performance Standards. A. The Grantee shall maintain the I-Net in accordance with technical and performance standards set forth in Exhibit D (Minimum I-Net Performance Standards). The Grantee shall provide the City, or its designee, upon request, with reports of the performance of the I-Net and the Grantee's compliance with the aforementioned technical and performance standards. B. If at any time, the performance of the I-Net is not in compliance with pertinent technical and performance standards, and continues to be in non-compliance for a period of fifteen (15) days after notice and opportunity to correct is given to Grantee, then affected City or other I-Net Users may cease payment until the non- . .compliance situation is resolved. C. City or I-Net Users may ultimately terminate their use of and payment for I-Net infrastructure-based on repeated, demonstrated non-performance or non- compliance by Grantee with the terms of this Section 8-and the associated. Exhibits, after giving Grantee notice and opportunity to correct the problem causing non-performance or non-compliance. Grantee will also be liable for all - other applicable non-compliance penalties contained in the Franchise. 384410/1 11 8.6 Completion of the Institutional Network. A. Construction of the Institutional Network pursuant to this Section 8 shall be deemed completed upon satisfaction of the following: B. The Grantee shall notify the City, or its designee, in writing at least ten (10) days in advance of completion of construction of each I-Net Node, I-Net site on the ring, I-Net star connection, and HFC end-of--line. The notice shall include the date the Grantee is prepared to conduct an OTDR test at 1550 nm and 1310 nm end-to-end, RF noise, distortion and peak-to-valley tests according to FCC rules, NCTA Recommended Practices and other acceptable test methodologies and other applicable tests. The City, or its designee, shall have the option of attending any test conducted pursuant to this paragraph. All tests must be successfully completed. The fiber optic test shall be deemed successfully completed if the optical performance standards in Exhibit D are met or bettered. The coaxial tests shall also be deemed successfully completed if the specifications detailed in Exhibit D are met or exceeded. C. The City, or its designee, shall also have the option of conducting a physical inspection of the construction and connections to each I-Net site and each I-Net Node. This inspection shall be conducted no later than the date of the test in Paragraph A. ~~ D. .After completing installation to each I-Net site or each I-Net Node, the Grantee shall provide the following documentation to the City, or its designee,: splice locations, panel numbers, cable numbering schemes, location of splitters, location of all RF actives and passives, OTDR, other optical, RF and coaxial test results and documentation, and any other pertinent documentation. 8.7 Institutional Network Security. The Grantee and the City shall at all times use reasonable efforts to protect the security of the Institutional Network. For purposes of this paragraph, "to protect security" means to protect-those physical elements of the Institutional Network under the party's direct control from unauthorized intrusion, signal theft, tampering, wiretapping or other actions that might: (i) compromise the integrity of or degrade the signals carried over the Institutional Network; or (ii) result in the unauthorized interception and disclosure of information. Grantee's hub. site shall be made available, upon request, for placement and operation of end user supplied equipment. 8.8 Institutional Network Repair and Maintenance. A. The Grantee shall maintain, repair, reconstruct and, as necessary, replace the fiber optic or HFC portions of the I-Net and shall recover the Actual Cost for such activities from the City and I-Net Users, as set forth in Section 8.1. 3844t0/t 12 B. The Grantee shall maintain, repair, reconstruct, and, as necessary, replace portions of the Institutional Network plant, as described in subsection (i) and (ii) below, during the term of this Franchise or any extension thereof 1. Preventative and routine maintenance of the I-Net shall be performed in the same timeframe and in the same fashion as routine and preventative maintenance are performed for the Grantee's subscriber network. Actual or potential problems discovered during the course of preventative and routine maintenance shall be immediately reported to the City. After informing the City of an actual or potential problem, the Grantee shall, within a reasonable period of time, prepaze and transmit a report to the City describing the corrective action, if any, that was or will be taken. 2. Within sixty (60) minutes of receiving notice or otherwise learning of a maintenance or repair problem,-the Grantee's technicians shall begin actively working on the problem. The Grantee shall work on the problem continuously until it is resolved. Notwithstanding the above, the Grantee shall meet the network availability standard described in Exhibit D for each site on the I-Net. 8.9 Institutional Network Ownership. The I-Net is a dedicated transmission, path owned and maintained by the Grantee and governed by this Agreement. The obligations for provision of the I-Net will convey to all successors and assigns. If at any time, the I-Net is considered abandoned as such is defined in this Franchise, ownership shall convey to the City at the City's discretion. The City and the sites to which infrastructure is provided via the I-Net will use the I-Net in accordance with the limitations of this Franchise. 8.10 In lieu of the design options described in Sections 8.1(A) and 8.2(A), the Grantee may provide an institutional network in compliance with this Section 8.10 as follows: A. A minimum of one pair (two (2) dark fibers) of single-mode fiber optic cable to each of the buildings in Exhibit E that the City will designate for the receipt of such infrastructure, and broadband data-over-cable connections to the buildings listed in Exhibit E that the City will designate for the receipt ofdata-over-cable services. The City may designate certain sites to receive an additional or two additional pairs of fiber (for a total of 4 or 6 fibers) for which the City or pertinent I-Net User, as determined by the City, shall pay the incremental cost. Specifically, the I-Net shall be of a Star, Ring or point-to-point configuration extending along pathways from the I-Net hub(s) to the I-Net User Sites, as determined by the City, serving public buildings, including, but not limited to, the municipal buildings, K-12 public and private non-profit schools, college(s) and library(s) listed in Exhibit E. Additionally, the City may subsequently designate new facilities or locations to be connected to the I-Net. ssaaioii 13 B. Concerning the broadband data-over-cable HFC connections, Grantee shall provide such connections to the facilities in Exhibit E as determined by the City. The broadband data-over-cable HFC connections maybe enabled by a separate part of the residential subscriber cable system upstream and downstream spectrum, as determined by the City. Grantee shall provide all necessary Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) equipment, routers, switches, translators, hazdwaze, software and other network components, such that each broadband data-over-cable system connection provides an aggregate data rate of at least three (3) MBPS in a downstream direction and an aggregate data rate of at least three (3) MBPS in an upstream direction at each site connected. The broadband data- over-cable system shall also enable the City, School District and other I-Net User organization locations to develop sepazate Virtual Private Networks (VPNS) that shall connect back to the respective City, School District or other organization's data center. Each broadband data-over-cable system connection shall also enable multiple IP addresses and MAC addresses to be facilitated at each site. Grantee shall provide the number of cable modems required by the I-Net user at each HFC location. Grantee shall monitor the bandwidth usage of its data network to ensure available bandwidth for residential customers and I-Net Users. When I-Net Users cannot achieve the minimum rates specified above at least 90% of the time, or otherwise do not have sufficient bandwidth to support their data communications requirements (as determined by the I-Net User), the Grantee's engineering team will determine from where the traffic is originating, what kind of traffic is being transmitted and the best approach to add capacity. Upon approval of the approach by the City, additional capacity shall then be added to the network which may include provision of a sepazate bandwidth upstream and downstream for the I-Net users that would enable I-Net Users to achieve at least the minimum data rates specified above. A schedule will be generated to add capacity to the network; and, the additional capacity shall be completed and made available within 90 days from an I-Net User request. C. The City may identify HFC I-Net sites following completion and activation of the I-Net. Estimated cost for serving those sites will be provided within ninety (90) days of notification by the City. If an extension of the HFC system is required to serve the site, Grantee will make the I-Net available within one hundred twenty (120) days from the initial request. D. The data-over-cable system connections shall be installed complete with all necessary DOCSIS-compliant (latest version). cable modems at pre-determined demazcation points chosen by the I-Net User. As part of the standazd installation, .coaxial cable shall be run to each designated building to the demazcation points. 8.11 Design Within the first twelve (12) months from the effective date of this Franchise, Grantee shall provide the City, or its designee, with a complete detailed design and cost estimate for the I-Net infrastructure described above. Within ninety (90) days thereafter, the City, 3sgaioii 14 ;~ or its designee, shall work with I-Net Users to review the design and cost estimate, and provide changes to the Grantee for incorporation into the final I-Net design. Final azchitecture, site designation and fiber count are subject to City or designee approval. Notwithstanding the timings indicated above, Grantee shall ensure that sufficient I-Net infrastructure is included incrementally within all necessary portions of its residential subscriber cable system construction,. so that the I-Net can be achieved at the lowest possible cost to I-Net Users. Once final approval is received from the City, the Grantee shall complete I-Net construction withintwenty-one (21) months from the effective date of this Franchise. Some portions of the I-Net will be activated prior to final completion. The Institutional Network shall have the infrastructure (and, where noted, the equipment) that provides the capability to transmit any and all signals between the sites listed in Exhibit E. SECTION 9. PERIODIC CUSTOMER SURVEYS 9.1 The Grantee shall, upon request of the City and at times mutually agreed upon by the parties, but no more frequently than once every three years, conduct a random survey of a representative sample of Subscribers. Each questionnaire shall be prepazed and conducted in good faith so as to provide reasonably reliable measure of customer satisfaction with: (1) audio and signal quality; (2) response to customer complaints; (3) billing practices; (4) programming; and (5) Installation practices; 9.2 The survey shall be conducted in conformity with standard reseazch procedures, including the use of telephone survey conducted by an independent person in the business of regulazly conducting such surveys. The survey shall consist of a sample size of 300 customers or such other sample size as to yield a margin of error of plus or minus six percent or less of the total customer base. 9.3 The Grantee shall report the results of the survey and any steps the Grantee may be taking in response to the survey within 60 days of the completion of the survey. 9.4 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the Grantee shall be under no obligation to conduct a survey at any time the Grantee is deemed subject to effective competition under then applicable state or federal law. SECTION 10. LINE EXTENSION POLICY 10.1 The Grantee shall, within 12 months of receiving a request, extend the System to any residences within the City served by City water and sewer facilities. 10.2 The City recognizes that in some instances the Grantee needs the permission of private property owners to extend service to others who maybe interested in service and agrees that should the Grantee be unable to obtain these needed permissions under terms reasonable to the Grantee and the property owners from 384410/1 15 whom permission is required that the Grantee shall be under no obligation to extend service. SECTION 11. GENERAL FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE PROVISIONS 11.1 Payment to City A. Grantee shall pay to the City a Franchise Fee in an amount equal to five percent (5%) of its annual Gross Revenues. B. The foregoing payment shall be compensation for use of Streets. C. Payments due the City under this provision shall be computed at the end of each calendar quarter. Payments shall be due and payable for each quarter not later than 60 days from the last day of the quarter. Each payment shall be accompanied by a brief report showing the basis for the computation. At the end of each calendar year, Grantee shall complete a .Franchise Fee Payment Worksheet attached hereto as Exhibit A. Grantee shall file a completed Franchise Fee Payment Worksheet no later than 60 days after the last day of the calendar year. D. No acceptance of any payment shall be construed as an accord that the amount paid is in fact the correct amount, nor shall such acceptance of payment be construed as a release of any claim the City may have for further or additional sums payable under the provisions of this Franchise. All amounts paid shall be subject to audit and recomputation by the City. E. In .the event any payment is not made on the due. date, interest on the amount due shall accrue from such date at the annual rate of 12%. 11.2 Bonds A. Prior to the commencement of System construction, and at all times thereafter until Grantee has completed the construction of the System in Section 6.1 of this Franchise, Grantee shall maintain with City a bond in the sum of $300,000.00 in such form and with such sureties as shall be acceptable to City, conditioned upon the faithful performance by Grantee of this Franchise and the acceptance hereof given by City and upon the further condition that in the event Grantee shall fail to comply with any law, ordinance or regulation, there shall be recoverable jointly and severally from the principal and surety of the bond, any damages or losses suffered by City as a result, including the full amount of any compensation, indemnification or cost of removal of any property of Grantee, including a reasonable allowance for attorneys' fees and costs (with interest at two percent in excess of the then prime rate), up to the full amount of the bond, and which bond shall further guarantee payment by ssaaioii 16 Grantee of all claims and liens against City or any, public property, and taxes due to City, which arise by reason of the construction, operation, maintenance or use of the System. Upon completion of the System as described. in Section 6.1 of this Franchise, the City may reduce the bond to the sum of $100,000. B. The rights reserved by City with respect to the bond aze in addition to all other rights the City may have under this Franchise or any other law. C, City may, in its sole discretion, reduce the amount of the bond. 11.3 Security Fund A. In the event the Grantee is given notice of a noncompliance pursuant to Section 34 of the Ordinance, the Grantee shall within ten (10) days thereof deposit into a bank account, established by the City, and maintain on deposit the. sum of Twenty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($20,000..00) or deliver to the City a letter of credit in the same amount as a common Security Fund for the faithful performance by it of all the provisions of this Franchise and compliance with all orders, permits and directions of the City and the payment by Grantee of any claim, liens, costs, expenses and taxes due the City which arise by reason of the construction, operation or maintenance of the System. Interest on this deposit shall be paid to Grantee by the bank on an annual basis. The security may be terminated by the Grantee upon the Resolution of the alleged noncompliance.. The obligation to establish the security fund required by this. paragraph is unconditional. The fund must be established whenever Grantee is given the notice required, even if Grantee disputes the allegation that it is not in compliance. If Grantee fails to establish the security fund as required, the City may take whatever action is appropriate to require. the establishment of that fund and may recover its costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, and an additional penalty of $2000 in that action. B. Provision shall be made to permit the City to withdraw funds from the Security Fund. Grantee shall not use the Security Fund for other purposes and shall not assign, pledge or otherwise use this Security Fund as security -for any purpose. ' C. Within ten (10) days after notice to it that any amount has been withdrawn by the City from the Security Fund pursuant to (A) of this section, Grantee shall deposit a sum of money sufficient to restore such Security Fund to the required amount. D. In addition to recovery of any monies owed by Grantee to City or damages to City as a result of any acts or omissions by Grantee pursuant to the 384410/1 17 Franchise in particular Section 11(G) herein, City in its sole discretion may charge to-and collect from the Security Fund the following penalties: 1. For failure to complete System construction in accordance with Section 6.1 hereof, unless City approves the delay, the penalty shall be $200.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 2. For failure to provide data, documents, reports or information or to cooperate with City during an Application process or System review, the penalty shall be $50.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 3. For failure to comply with any of the provisions of this Franchise for which a penalty is not otherwise specifically provided pursuant to this Paragraph C, the penalty shall be $50.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 4. For failure to test, analyze and report on the performance of the System following a request by City, the penalty shall be $50.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 5. For failure by Grantee to provide additional services as negotiated between City and Grantee at a periodic review session within 45 days after a request by City the penalty shall be $200.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 6. Forty-five days following notice from City of a failure of Grantee to comply with construction, operation or maintenance standards, the penalty shall be $200.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 7. For failure to provide the services Grantee has proposed, including, but not limited to, the implementation and the utilization of the Access Channels and the making available for use of the equipment and other facilities to City, the penalty shall be $100.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 8. Each violation of any provision of this Franchise shall be considered a separate violation for which a separate penalty can be imposed. E. Exclusive of the contractual penalties set out above in this section, a violation of any provision of this Franchise is a misdemeanor. 384410/1 18 F. If Grantee fails to pay to the City any taxes due and unpaid; or fails to repay to the City, any .damages, costs or expenses which the City shall be compelled to pay by reason of any act or default of the Grantee in connection with this Franchise; or fails, after thirty (30) days' notice of such failure by the City to comply with any provision of the Franchise which the City reasonably determines can be remedied by an expenditure of the security, the City may then withdraw such. funds from the Security Fund. Payments are not Franchise Fees as defined in Section 29 of the Ordinance. G. Whenever the City finds that Grantee has allegedly violated one or more terms, conditions or provisions of this Franchise, a written notice shall be given to Grantee. The written notice shall describe in reasonable detail the alleged violation so as to afford Grantee an opportunity to remedy the violation. Grantee shall have 30 days subsequent to receipt of the notice in which to correct the violation before the City may require Grantee to make payment of penalties, and further to enforce payment of penalties through the Security Fund. Grantee may, within 10 days of receipt of notice, notify the City that there is a dispute as to whether a violation or failure has, in fact, occurred. Such notice by Grantee shall specify with particularity the matters disputed by Grantee and shall stay the running of the above-described time. 1. City shall hear Grantee's dispute at the next regularly scheduled or specially scheduled Council meeting. Grantee shall have the right to subpoena and cross-examine witnesses. The City shall determine if Grantee has committed a violation and shall make written findings of fact relative to its determination. If a violation is found, Grantee may petition for reconsideration. 2. If, after hearing the dispute, the claim is upheld by the City, then Grantee shall have 30 days within which to remedy the violation before the City may require payment of all penalties due it. 3. The time for Grantee to correct any alleged violation maybe extended by the City if the necessary action to correct the alleged violation is of such a nature or character as to require more than 30 days within which to perform, provided Grantee commences corrective action within 15 days and thereafter uses reasonable diligence, as determined by the City, to correct the violation. H. If City draws upon the Security Fund delivered pursuant hereto, in whole or in part, Grantee shall replace the same within three days and shall deliver to City a like replacement Security Fund for the full amount stated in Paragraph A of this section as a substitution of the previous Security Fund. ssaaioii 19 L I. If any Security Fund is not so replaced, City may draw on said Security Fund for the whole amount thereof and hold the proceeds, without interest, and use the proceeds to pay costs incurred by City in performing and paying for any or all of the obligations, duties and responsibilities of Grantee under this Franchise that are not performed or paid for by Grantee pursuant hereto, including attorneys' fees incurred by the City in so performing and paying. The failure to so replace any Security Fund may also, at the option of City, be deemed a default by Grantee under this Franchise. The drawing on the Security Fund by City, and use of the money so obtained for payment or performance of the obligations, duties and responsibilities of Grantee which are in default, shall not be a waiver or release of such default. J. The collection by City of any damages, monies or penalties from.the Security Fund shall not affect any other right or remedy available to City, nor shall any act, or failure to act, by City pursuant to the Security Fund, be deemed a waiver of any right of City pursuant to this Franchise or otherwise. SECTION 12. PUBLIC COMMITMENT Grantee shall provide free service connections, free on-line (i.e. high-speed cable modem services) services and any required modem to all institutions identified in Exhibit B. SECTION 13. COMPETITION ADJUSTMENT 13.1 In consideration of Grantee's substantial investment to build its System for the Cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Minnetonka, Hopkins and Richfield, Minnesota, the City agrees to include the following provisions. 13.2 Any additional or subsequent cable Franchise granted to cable or non-cable companies who may compete with Grantee within the Franchise area will be granted only on substantially similar terms and conditions as this Franchise and shall not contain less burdensome nor more favorable terms than those imposed on Grantee by this Franchise. 13.3 'The City and Grantee agree that all Franchise provisions that Grantee is subject to are effective against the Grantee only if such requirements are applied as well to any and all wired competitors of the Grantee within the Franchise area. For purposes of this subsection, a wired competitor is any video provider using Streets and offering at least 12 channels of video programming at least one of which is a broadcast signal, which uses wires, coaxial cables, optical fiber or other similar technology and places or attaches such wires, cables or fibers on Streets or public utility facilities. This definition of wired competitor does not include a Satellite 384410/1 2~ Master Antenna Television system located wholly on private property within a building. 13.4 Any Franchise provision or other regulation enforced by the City upon Grantee which is not also imposed upon Grantee(s) wired competitors within the Franchise area of the City, shall be void as to Grantee, subject to the following requirements: A. The existence of a wired competitor in the Franchise area of the City shall not relieve Grantee of an obligation to provide an annual minimum Franchise Fee of two percent of Gross Revenues. If the wired competitor obtains a cable Franchise which requires it to pay a Franchise Fee or substantially similar fee of an equivalent amount to the City, the State of Minnesota or any other governmental entity which is less than five percent of Gross Revenues, the City shall reduce Grantee's Franchise Fee to the same level, but in no event less than two percent of Gross Revenues. If the wired competitor does not obtain a cable Franchise, but it is required to pay a Franchise Fee or substantially similar fee to the City, State of Minnesota or any other governmental entity, then Grantee shall pay the same. fee, but in no event less than two percent of Gross Revenues. If the wired competitor is not required to pay a Franchise Fee or similar fee to the City or the. State of Minnesota, then the two percent minimum Franchise Fee shall apply to Grantee for all homes and customers who are passed by the wired competitor's system. If at any time a wired competitor with a cable Franchise pays a Franchise Fee of more than two percent, or if a wired competitor without a Franchise Fee pays a Franchise Fee or similar fee of more than two percent, Grantee shall pay the same Franchise Fee. In no event shall Grantee be required to pay more than a - five percent Franchise Fee. If the wired competitor discontinues providing multichannel video services, the Grantee's Franchise Fee shall immediately return to its original level. B. .The existence of a wired competitor shall not relieve Grantee of an obligation to provide at least one channel for public, educational and governmental access programming. If the wired competitor obtains a .cable Franchise which requires it to provide less than four public, educational and governmental Access Channels, the City shall, upon the effective date of the subsequent Franchise, reduce Grantee's requirement to the same number. of channels, but in no event shall Grantee provide less than one public, educational and governmental access channel. If the wired competitor does not obtain a cable Franchise, but it is required to provide less than four public, educational and governmental Access Channels, or if the wired competitor is not required to provide any public, educational or governmental Access Channels, then the City shall reduce the number of Access Channels required of Grantee as follows: 384410/1 21 • (i) If the wired competitor passes less than 25% of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall provide at least four public, educational and governmental Access Channels. (ii) If the wired competitor passes 25% or more but less than 50% of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall provide at least three public, educational and governmental Access Channels. (iii) If the wired competitor passes 50% or more of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall provide at least one public, educational and governmental Access Channel If at any time, a wired competitor provides channels for public, educational and governmental access which exceed the channels provided by Grantee, Grantee shall provide the same number of channels as the wired competitor. In no event shall Grantee be required to provide more public, educational or governmental Access Channels than it has agreed to in this Franchise Agreement Ordinance. If the wired competitor discontinues providing multichannel video services,. the Grantee's requirement for the provision of public, educational and governmental Access Channels shall immediately return to its original level. C, If a wired competitor obtains a cable Franchise which requires it to provide less funding for equipment or facilities for public, educational and governmental access or' less facilities and. equipment than Grantee, the City shall reduce the Grantee's requirement for funding for public, educational and governmental access and facilities and equipment to the level of the wired competitor. If the wired competitor does not obtain a cable Franchise, including open video providers in accordance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and FCC rules, but it is required to provide less funding for public, educational and governmental access or less equipment or facilities than Grantee, or if the wired competitor is not required to provide any funding for public, educational or governmental access or equipment or facilities, then the City shall reduce the Grantee's required funding as follows: (i) If the wired competitor passes less than 25% of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall continue to provide the same level of funding for public, educational and governmental access facilities and equipment as indicated in this Ordinance. 384410/1 22 (ii) If the wired competitor passes 25% or more but less than 50% of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, the City shall reduce the funding, and equipment and facilities requirements of the Grantee by 30%. (iii) If the wired competitor passes 50% or more of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, the City shall eliminate the funding, and equipment and facilities requirements for public, educational and governmental access funding. It is not the intent of this section to reduce Grantee's funds, equipment and facilities. requirements regarding public, educational and governmental access programming to an amount less than the amount provided by its wired competitors. If at any time a wired competitor provides funds, equipment or facilities for public, educational and governmental access that exceed the funds, equipment or facilities provided by Grantee under this paragraph, Grantee shall provide the same amount of funds, equipment and facilities. In no event shall Grantee be required to provide more funds, equipment or facilities than it has agreed to provide in Section 7 of this Franchise Agreement Ordinance. If the wired competitor discontinues providing multichannel video services, the Grantee's requirement for the provision of funding and, equipment and facilities for public, educational and governmental access and, facilities and equipment shall immediately return to its original. level. D. For all other Franchise provisions imposed upon Grantee in this Ordinance, if a wired competitor obtains a cable Franchise which does not require it to meet the same Franchise provision, the City shall not require Grantee to meet that Franchise provision. If the wired competitor does not obtain a cable Franchise and it is not required to meet the same Franchise provision, then the City shall relieve the Grantee from that Franchise provision as follows: (i) If the wired competitor passes less: than 50% of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall continue to comply with the Franchise provision. (ii) If the wired competitor passes 50% or more of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, the City shall not require Grantee to meet the Franchise provision. 3saaioii 23 • If at any time a wired competitor provides a requirement contained originally in this cable Franchise, Grantee shall comply with that same requirement. If the wired competitor discontinues providing. multichannel video services, the Grantee shall be required to meet the Franchise provision. 13.5 If Grantee is aware of a Franchise provision imposed by the City upon Grantee which is not also imposed by the City or the State of Minnesota upon a wired competitor, it shall identify the wired competitor, including the basis for stating that the entity is a "wired competitor" as defined above; it shall identify the Franchise provision in question; and it shall provide this information to the City. Within 90 days, the City shall: (1) pass a resolution declaring that Grantee is subject to this section for that requirement; (2) declare why the. entity in question is not a wired competitor; or (3) state that the "wired competitor" is subject to a requirement that substantially duplicates the Franchise provision. During the above process, the Grantee shall escrow any funds at issue in the above. process that the Franchise requires be remitted during the time period of the above process and Grantee shall continue to meet any and all requirements in question. If the City declares such requirement void as to Grantee, the City is-not liable for Grantee's past compliance with the requirement, including any past fees remitted to the City. 13.6 If the City and Grantee are unable to agree upon the operation of this section of the Ordinance within 90 days after one party provides notice to the other party, the parties may agree to enter mediation. SECTION 14. ACCEPTANCE 14.1 Other Franchises A. The System intended for City, maybe part of a joint system that serves the cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Minnesota. B. Grantee will, in good faith, apply for and accept; if offered to it, a Franchise (similar Franchise) from each of the other cities on all the same terms and conditions herein provided, except provisions omitted as inapplicable. 14.2 Time of Acceptance; Incorporation of Offering; Exhibits A. Grantee shall accept this Franchise in form and substance acceptable to City by .Such acceptance by Grantee shall be deemed the grant of this Franchise for all purposes. ssaaioii 24 • B. Upon acceptance of this Franchise, Grantee shall be boundiby all the terms and conditions contained in Ordinance No. , .also known as the Cable Television Regulatory Ordinance, and herein. With its acceptance, Grantee also shall obtain an opinion from its legal counsel, acceptable to City, stating that this Franchise has been duly accepted by Grantee, that this Franchise is enforceable against Grantee in accordance with its terms, and which opinion shall otherwise be in form and substance acceptable to City. C. With its acceptance, Grantee also shall deliver to City true and correct copies of documents creating Grantee and evidencing the power and authority referred to in the opinion of Grantee's counsel, certified as of a then current date by public office holders to the extent possible and otherwise by an officer of Grantee. D. Ninety (90) days prior to the commencement of the operation of the System, Grantee shall provide a copy of its initial services which shall be attached hereto as Exhibit C. E. The effective date of this Franchise Agreement Ordinance shall be IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor and Grantee have executed this Franchise Agreement the date and year first above written. ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA By Its: (SEAL). (Corporate Seal) EVEREST MINNESOTA, LLC By Its: 384410/1 2$ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) • ) ss: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on by ,the of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF COUNTY OF ss: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on ,the Minnesota, LLC, on behalf of the company. Notary Public L~ by of Everest 384410/1 26 EXHIBIT A FRANCHISE FEE PAYMENT WORKSHEET Revenue Percentages Based on Revenue & Bad Debt uarter er uarter uarter Total Pa ent Basic 0 Eden Prairie 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Additional Outlets 0 Edina 0% 0 0 0 0 0 Equipment Rent 0 Hopkins 0% 0 0 0 0 0 Pay TV 0 Minnetonka 0% 0 0 0 0 0 Pay Per Event 0 Richfield 0% 0 0 0 0 0 Transaction Fee 0 Advertising 0 TOTAL 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Shopping Service 0 Other 0 TOTAL REVENUE 0 LESS: Local Access 0 LESS: Bad Debt 0 CHARGEABLE REVENUE 0 X FRANCHISE FEE % 0 JTAL FRANCHISE FEES TO BE PAID $0 ssaaioii A-1 EXHIBIT B LIST OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND BUILDINGS PUBLIC SCHOOLS Centennial Elementary 7315 Bloomington Avenue Sheridan Hills Elementary 6400 Sheridan Avenue. Richfield Intermediate School 7020 12th Avenue South Richfield Middle School 7461 Oliver Avenue Richfield Senior High School 7001 Harriet Avenue Elliot Education Center 7001 Elliot Avenue Lincoln Hills Center 7440 Penn Avenue South PUBLIC BUILDINGS City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue Central Gazage 7700 Pillsbury Avenue Water Plant 6221 Portland Avenue Fire Station #2 6401 Penn Avenue Liquor Store 6600 Cedar Avenue Liquor Store 6444 Penn Avenue Liquor Store 6444 Lyndale Avenue • Liquor Store 7700 Lyndale Avenue Ice Arena 636 East 66th St. Gazage 636 East 66th St. Swimming Pool 630 East 66th St. Community Center 7000 Nicollet Avenue Nature Center 735 Lake Shore Drive Pazk Shelter 200 West 72nd Street Pazk Shelter 6435 21st Avenue Pazk Shelter 6710 Portland Avenue Park Shelter 63001st Avenue Pazk Shelter 6244 Knox Avenue Park Shelter 6700 Thomas Avenue Pazk Shelter 428 East 77th St. Concession Building 7500 Pleasant Avenue Building 7500 Pleasant Avenue ' Park Shelter 6500 Upton Avenue Pazk Shelter ~ 6900 Bloomington Avenue Park Shelter 7434 Humboldt Avenue Storage Building 7434 Humboldt Avenue Park Shelter 6145 Bloomington Avenue Pazk Shelter 1710 East 63rd St. Pazk Shelter 7200 Washburn Avenue . Park Shelter k 6710 Irving Avenue Par Shelter 7434 Humboldt Avenue 384410/1 B-1 • Park Shelter & Warming House Park Shelter Park Shelter Lift Station Lift Station Lift Station Lift Station Well House #1 & #2 Well House #3 Well House #4 Well House #5 Well House #6 Storm Lift A Storm Lift B .Storm Lift C Storm Lift D 6335 Portland Avenue 7445 Fremont. Avenue 7644 4th Avenue 77th St. & Knox Avenue 63rd St. & Colfax Avenue 69th St. & Humboldt Avenue 74th St. & 14th Avenue 62nd St. & Nicollet Avenue 6225 Portland Avenue 64th St. & Portland Avenue 636 East 66th St. 66th St. & 11th Avenue 6428 Irving Avenue 6430 22nd Avenue 926 West 73rd St. 7313 Xerxes Avenue 384410/1 B-2 • EXHIBIT C EVEREST MINNESOTA, LLC INITIAL PROGRAMMING To be provided ninety (90) days prior to System activation 384410/1 C-1 EXHIBIT D MINIMUM I-NET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Signal Quality The Institutional Network shall achieve the performance standards. listed below, where applicable for fiber and/or fiber/HFC-based transmissions, under worst-case conditions for communications occurring between: Any institution to any institution Any institution to hub or headend and. vice versa Any institution to-any subscriber and vice versa For Institutional Communications Incorporating HFC Infrastructure Noise and Distortion Performance -Under worst-case channel loading (including both analog and digital signals), the combined upstream and downstream performance of the system shall meet or exceed the following: - Carrierto noise ratio = 45 dB or better - Carrier to composite triple beat = 55 dB or better `~ - Carrier to second order distortion = 55 dB or better - Carrier to cross modulation = 55 dB or better Data Communications -For any data communications link on the network, the Network shall provide the capability for a Bit Error Rate. (BER) to be equal to or better than 1 x 10 to the minus 9, except where the link is 50% or more coaxial cable, the BER shall be equal to or better than 1 x 10 to the minus 8. This standard shall be met or exceeded under Normal Operating Conditions. Outage times shall not be considered for purposes of determining compliance with the BER prescribed in this paragraph. Network Availability -For each user of services on the network, network availability shall be equal to or better than 99.965% (no more than 184 minutes of network downtime per user) as measured on an annual basis. Signal Level Variation -The worst-case signal level variation (peak to valley) shall be better than or equal to N/10 + 2 (where "N" equals the number of RF amplifiers in cascade from the HFC node). For End-to-End Fiber-Based Institutional Communications • Optical System Noise Performance -Under worst-case link loss as measured for any voice, video or data service, the combined upstream and -i 3saaioii D-1 downstream performance of the system shall meet or exceed the following: - Signal to noise equals 60 dB or better for links that utilize Grantee supplied equipment. For all other links, the network shall be capable of providing a signal to noise of 60 dB or better, dependent upon end-user equipment. Optical Received Power Level at the Institution For all links that utilize Grantee-supplied equipment, the optical power level for any service delivered to the designated demarcation point. at each I-Net user location shall meet or be better than 0 dBm and shall, in all cases, enable operation within the equipment manufacturer's minimum specifications. For all other links on the network, I-Net users shall be able to satisfactorily employ non-custom network transmission and reception equipment, and the I-Net shall enable operation within the manufacturer's minimum specifications for such equipment. • Network Availability-For each user on the network, network availability on the backbone or for fully redundant, diverse path connections from hubs to user sites, shall be equal to or better than 99.99% (no more than 53 minutes of network downtime per user) as measured on an annual basis. For each user on the network, network availability for standard connections from the hub to the user site shall be equal to or better than 99.965% (no more than 184 minutes of network downtime per user) as measured on annual basis. For purposes of this Exhibit D, the network shall be defined as "unavailable" under the standards herein for any given user when such user: a. Cannot, because of a network problem, measured by SNMP software or other appropriate software and. associated hardware, or through a failure of a Grantee- provided interconnect, transmit video, voice and/or data communications to, from, and/or on the network. Such problems shall be the result of a failure of one or more of the following: 1) the fiber optic cabling, connections and transmission equipment on the network and/or the coaxial cabling, connections and RF transmission equipment on the network; 2) the transmission equipment at Grantee's headend; 3) the transmission and network equipment at the customer's premise (if such equipment is provided by Grantee); 4) network powering systems; 5) the network equipment, connections and cabling, network management, hardware and software, and related equipment provided by Grantee at Grantee's headend; and/or 6) any other Grantee-provided transmission or network component; and or, b. Experiences, due to a network problem, video, voice and data transmissions that are below the standards set forth in this Franchise and/or this Exhibit; and/or, 384410/1 D-2 c. Experiences, due to a network problem, a data communication packet loss of greater than ten percent (10%). For purposes of this availability standard, network problems shall not be defined as: infrequent scheduled preventative maintenance as long as I-Net users are notified well in advance, according to the provisions of the Franchise. Except as otherwise provided for herein, network availability is subject to the force majeure provisions of the Franchise and those conditions which are not within the control of the Grantee. Network downtime shall include, but not be limited to, network failures caused by: third party actions; commercial power outages of a typical, non-catastrophic nature; and power failures and other disturbances caused by weather occurrences typical to the Twin Cities area. Grantee shall comply with the requirements of Demand Maintenance/Service and Repair to restore service following any of these occurrences. Grantee will give the City and affected I-Net users notice in the event of any of the foregoing occurrences. • Data Communications -For any data communications link. on the network, the Bit Error Rate (BER) shall be equal to or better than 1 x 10 to the minus 9. This standard shall be met or exceeded under Normal Operating Conditions.. Outage times shall not be considered for purposes of determining compliance with the BER prescribed in this paragraph. Service Response Network Maintenance -.Grantee shall be responsible for the ongoing maintenance and performance of the I-Net from the demarcation point within a facility through the network, including the I-Net headend. Routine and preventive maintenance shall be performed continually on the network to ensure that it meets all performance criteria detailed herein. Specific Performance Oversight Responsibilities of the Grantee will include: (1) Monitoring the operation of the fiber based transport backbone in conjunction with I-Net users; (2) Performance and fault monitoring of the transport backbone and distribution system in accordance with same terms and conditions referenced in Section 8.1(C); (3) Monitoring of selected parameters and tables to allow for early identification of potential service problems; (4) Monitoring and analyzing I-Net performance; and (5) Logging and reporting, as required, of data gathered from above monitoring activities. saaaioii D-3 Preventive iyiaintenance/Service Interruptions - I-Net users will be notified at least seven days in advance of any scheduled maintenance that may interrupt service on the I-Net, unless I-Net users agree to wai~-e such time frame. Where possible, such maintenance will be scheduled at times of low usage. Demand Maintenance/Service and Repair -Response to all network problems shall occur at all hours (24 x 365). Specifically, when Grantee receives a trouble call or alarm, either by internal monitoring or by City, the Grantee's Network Operations Center will ensure that appropriate technical support shall respond within 10 minutes after receiving a call related to a network problem (under Normal Operating Conditions the initial page to the technician on call for I-Net problems will be within the 10 minute time frame). The Grantee shall then work continuously until the problem is resolved. Network Support -Grantee .shall provide an appropriate complement of administrative, headend and field personnel at all times to meet the performance criteria detailed herein. Service Call Processing and Tracking -Grantee will establish mechanisms and procedures for all I-Net users to quickly and easily report System problems. All trouble or service calls will be documented, processed, and completed in an expedient manner. Documentation will include monthly I-Net service call reports, as required, which will include a 11~ breakdown of reasons and resolutions as well as call handling efficiency. Notwithstanding the staffing, testing and equipment and response requirements set forth herein, the Grantee will provide the in-house and/or contractor staff, spare and back-up equipment, test and maintenance equipment and additional steps necessary to ensure that the network performs reliably in accordance with all standards detailed herein. Network Performance Testing Proof ofPerformance - Proof of performance testing will be conducted on the I-Net two (2) times per year at the same time residential subscriber system testing is performed during the months of January/February and July/August. Several geographically diverse I-Net test point locations for each ring and an additional test point per node will be established which are representative. ofworst-case performance for the area. Testing shall be completed at the mutually agreed .upon entry demarcation point at the institution. All active channels upstream and downstream shall be tested at each test point location. If the testing will subject such channels to service interruptions, Grantee will work with Users to schedule the testing so as to minimize its impact upon the Users. Testing shall be performed to ensure compliance with all the network performance specifications included in this Appendix and applicable Service Agreements. Tests shall be performed using standard test methodologies, as mutually agreed to by the City and Grantee. Power SupplyInspections -All network power supplies and back-up devices will be continuously status monitored and manually inspected at least twice per year, which will include the following checks and tests: 384410/1 D-4 • Full load transfer and runtime test • Battery condition and maintenance check, including replacement if required • .Status monitoring functional test I-Net User Location Performance Testing -All network performance specifications shall be met at each I-Net user location, and the network shall at all times enable I-Net user video, voice and data communications to be successfully transmitted in accordance.with the reliability and availability standards incorporated herein. Grantee shall schedule with each user such testing as required to ensure successful network performance at each I-Net user location. Physical Network Characteristics -The physical and electrical configuration of the I-Net will comply with all applicable Federal, State, and Local requirements. Inspections of all cable runs and components will be made by Grantee during the I-Net construction process to ensure the integrity of the network and Grantee shall keep records thereof. Performance Documentation -All tests and checks will be documented and, upon request, filed with the City. At the City's request, all testing processes maybe conducted under the observation of a representative from the City. All network performance standards herein relate to Grantee-supplied transmission and network, facilities, infrastructure, equipment and other components. • 384410/1 D-5 EXHIBIT E I-NET USER SITES [to include all schools and public buildings located within each member city] • ssaaion E-1 • ADDRESS CITY FACILITY 1. 6700 Portland Ave. City Hall 2. 7700 Pillsbury Ave. Central Garage 3. 6221 Portland Ave. Water Plant 4. 6401 Penn Ave. Fire Station #2 5. 6600 Cedar Ave. Liquor Store 6. 6444 Penn Ave. Liquor Store 7. 6444 Lyndale Ave. Liquor Store 8. 7700 Lyndale Ave. Liquor Store 9. 636 East 66th St. Ice Arena 10. 636 East 66th St. Garage 11.630 East 66th St. ~ ~ Swimming Pool 12. 7000 Nicollet Ave. Community Center 13. 735 Lake Shore Drive Nature Center 14. 200 West 72nd Street Park Shelter 15. 6435-21 st Ave. Park Shelter 16. 6710 Portland Ave. Park Shelter 17. 6300 1st Ave. Park Shelter 18. 6244 Knox Ave. Park Shelter 19. 6700 Thomas Ave. Park Shelter 20.428 East 77th St. Park Shelter 21.7500 Pleasant Ave. Concession Building 22. 7500 Pleasant Ave. Building 23. 6500 Upton Ave.. Park Shelter 24.6900 Bloomington Ave. Park Shelter 25. 7434 Humboldt Ave. Park Shelter 26. 7434 Humboldt Ave.. Storage Building 27. 6145 Bloomington Ave. Park Shelter 28. 1710 East 63rd St. Park Shelter 29. 7200 Washburn Ave. Park Shelter 30. 6710 Irving Ave. Park Shelter 31.7434 Humboldt Ave. Park Shelter 32. 6335 Portland Ave Park Shelter & Warming House 33. 7445 Fremont Ave. Park Shelter 34. 7644 4th Ave. Park Shelter 35. 77th St. & Knox Ave. Lift Station 36. 63rd St. & Colfax Ave. Lift Station 37. 69th St. & Humboldt Ave. Lift Station 38. 74th St.& 14th Ave. ~ Lift Station 39. 62nd St. &Nicollet Ave. Well House #1 & #2 41.6225 Portland Ave. Well House #3 42. 64t St. & Portland Ave. Well House #4 43. 636 East 66th St. Well House #5 44. 66th St. & 11th Ave. Well House #6 45. 6428 Irving Ave. Storm Lift A 46.6430 22nd Ave. Storm Lift B 47. 926 West 73rd St. Storm Lift C 48. 7313 Xerxes Ave. Storm Lift D :17 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM # 9 REPORT # _ 44 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2001 • REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: STEVEN L. DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE STEVEN L. DEVICH, ADl'(~jINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading of amendment to the City Administrative Code Chapter III, Subsection 310.33 describing vacation leave. RECOMMENDED Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: approve second reading of the ordinance amendment to the City Administrative Code Chapter III, Subsection 310.33 describing vacation leave. II. BACKGROUND Several situations have developed that warranted the evaluation of the "Vacation Accumulation" policy. The current policy stipulates that Vacation Leave may be accrued to a maximum of 240 hours unless written authorization extending this maximum is obtained from the Department Director and the City Manager. Hours in excess of 240 hours, if not approved, shall be forfeited by the employee. In more cases than not, employees have either forfeited the accumulated leave time or taken time off at the last minute -which may have interfered with the operations of the department. While the City encourages employees to regularly use vacation 0212vacation leave, demands of the job and short-staffed divisions do not always allow employees to take leave when wanted or needed. Language has been added to this ordinance amendment to prevent the sell-back of vacation during the period between November 15 and February 15, when the payroll function must also deal with changes in benefit premiums and W-2 preparation. It also limits employees to selling back leave once a year in order to keep administration of this benefit manageable. A recommendation is being made to amend Section 1, Subsection 310.33 to include the following language: Subd. 8. Sell-back of vacation. Employees may sell-back up to 24 hours of vacation time each year if they have an accumulated bank of vacation leave in excess of 64 hours. Employees eligible to sell-back vacation authorized under this subdivision, may do so only once per calendaryear between February 15 and November 15. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Subsection 310.33, Subd. 8, Sell-back of vacation, will enable employees to receive compensation for accumulated vacation time instead of forfeiting the time or scheduling leave at inopportune times. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Several collective bargaining units have had this provision within their . contracts since January 2000. • The first reading of the ordinance amendment was held on January 8, 2001. • The required notification of the public hearing and second reading was published- in the Richfield Sun Current on January 31, 2001. C. FINANCIAL • None since the leave time has either already been banked (charged) to a previous year or would have been charged to the current year if it was unused. D. LEGAL • In order to provide the requested vacation leave compensation enhancement, the City Council must approve an amendment to the City's personnel ordinance. • There is no other legal restriction prohibiting a municipality from compensating employees for accrued vacation leave time. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not amend the ordinance. • Defer discussion to another date. V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance Amendment VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None • BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 310.33 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 310.33 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Vacation Leave " is hereby amended: Subd. 8. Sell-back of vacation. Employees may sell-backup to 24 hours of vacation Bch vear if thev have an accumulated. bank of vacation leave. in excess of 64 hours. Employees eligible to sell-back vacation- authorized under this subdivision. may do so only once per calendaryear between February 15 and November 15. Subd. ~9. Terminal vacation. Accrued but unused vacation will be paid upon separation. except that employees separated prior to completing six months of continuous and active city serviceshall be ineligible for terminal vacation pay. Passed. by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12thth day of February, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch,. Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • • • AGENDA SECTION: public Hearings AGENDA ITEM # 8 REPORT # _ 43 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BRUCE SYLVESTER, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding corner visibility regulations. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve an ordinance amendment to allow a reduction in the required corner visibility area for fully controlled intersections. II. BACKGROUND Last summer, a resident asked the City Council to review the ordinance that restricts objects within a 50-foot corner visibility area. The resident was seeking to construct a fence in his front yard, and the 50-foot visibility area. severely restricts the amount of yard that he could contain within a fence. The Council referred the item to the Planning Commission for review.. The Zoning Ordinance currently prohibits objects from being placed within a 50-foot triangular area at all street corners. Objects cannot be located within 30 inches and 10 feet in height within this area. 02-12cornervisibil ity.doc Fifty feet was established as the visibility area because it relates to the speed vehicles travel and the distance necessary for a vehicle to be able to see another vehicle coming on the cross street and stop in time to avoid a collision. Upon review of the current ordinance by City staff and the Planning Commission, the Commission determined that at fully controlled intersections, it may be appropriate to allow a reduction in the visibility area. Specifically, the ordinance would allow the Public Works Director to grant a reduction in the visibility. requirement at fully controlled intersections, provided that the reduction would .not create a safety hazard. There is an existing Traffic Committee made up of Publics Works and Public Safety staff that could review requests for a reduction. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • There are existing corner visibility problems that led to the passage of this ordinance several years ago. Public Safety and Public Works staff are strongly in support of the corner visibility ordinance for safety reasons, however, they agree that some reduction in the visibility area may be allowable at fully controlled intersections. • The Planning Commission is in support of some flexibility at fully controlled intersections but does not recommend any further reduction in the requirement because of safety concerns. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • In the case of the resident seeking the change, the corner visibility area appears to fall completely within the City boulevard area. The Public Works Department sometimes grants boulevard permits. to allow construction of items such as fences within the boulevard area if there are no safety concerns and sufficient snow storage can be maintained. The Department would consider the corner visibility ordinance to assist in determining whether or not a permit should be granted for corner properties. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment. • First reading of the ordinance amendment was held on January 8, 2001. • Notice of the public hearing was published in the January 31, 2001 Sun-Current. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the ordinance amendment at second reading. V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance • Attachment A: Illustration of corner. visibility area VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • The resident requesting the change was notified of the meeting and may be present. • • BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 511 OF APPENDIX B OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1: Subsection 511,15 of Appendix B to the City of Richfield is amended to read as follows: 511.15. Traffic visibility. On corner lots in all districts, nothing shall be erected, placed, planted, or allowed to grow in such a manner as to obstruct vision. between the height of 30 inches and ten feet above the abutting curb line of the intersecting streets within a triangular area defined as follows: "beginning at the intersection of the projected curb lines of two intersecting streets, thence 50 feet along one curb line, thence diagonally to a point 50 feet from the point of beginning on the other curb line, thence to the point of beginning". Where an intersection is controlled in all directions with-the use of stop signs or traffic signals, the Public Works Director may approve a reduction in the visibility area with a finding that the ; reduction. will not create a safety hazard. (Figure 9) Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of February, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST:. Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Attachment A: Illustration of corner visibility area • o~o~ ``yes ~ti~ ,ta ',~tie~~ tieaG~ `~- - - ~ ~ /!~ ~ - c~c 0 .~ 50' ~~ .~ 0 Roadway Curb I Right-of-way _ (Boulevard) .. Lot Line O~- ~~ ~~ O G r • • AGENDA SECTION: ADMIN. REPORTS AGENDA ITEM # 7 REPORT # 42 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER REVIEWED BI' CITY MANAGER: ITEMS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of actions relating to the following petitions for referendum and initiative:' • Petition for referendum on Transitory Ordinance No. 2000-19 approving the City's Comprehensive. Plan as amended concerning the Interchange West area (referred to herein as the Comp. Plan Ord.); and • Petition for referendum of Transitory Ordinance No. 2000-20 approving amendment to Section Appendix 1 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield (referred to herein as the Zoning Ordinance); and • Petition for initiative proposing. an ordinance to establish traffic and parking regulations to protect the public health, safety and general welfare (referred to herein as the Traffic Ordinance); and • Petition for, initiative proposing an ordinance to preserve the housing stock of the City of Richfield (referred to herein as the Housing Ordinance). I. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff has presented action options. Any decision of the City Council must be made by .motion. II. BACKGROUND On December 11, 2000 the City Council unanimously approved Transitory Ordinance No 2000-19 (the Comp. Plan Ord.), approving the City's Comprehensive Plan as amended concerning the Interchange West Area and Transitory Ordinance No. 2000-20 (the Zoning Ord.), an amendment to Section Appendix 1 of the 0212petitionaction Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield. Ordinance No. 2000-20 involved the rezoning of property in the Interchange West-area. n rin Committee resented to the Cit .referendum On January 19, 2001 a Spo so g p y, petitions to repeal Ordinance Nos. 2000-19 and 2000-20. In addition to the petitions for referendum, the Sponsoring Committee, composed of Dewayne Sietsema, Deb Nordmarken, Peggy Handt, Myrle Richter and Joseph Krzyzaniak, presented two petitions for initiative. The first petition proposed an ordinance to preserve the housing stock of the City of Richfield .and the second petition proposed an ordinance to establish traffic and parking regulations to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. The petitions for referendum and initiative have been certified to the Council by the City Clerk in action prior to your consideration of the issues and actions contained herein. Upon receipt of the petitions both. for referendum and initiative, the City retained the services of Attorney Clifford Greene of the law firm of Greene and Espel with the request that he conduct an independent and comprehensive legal analysis of the subjects of the two referendum and two initiative petitions to determine the following: Question No. One: Are the petitions seeking initiative and referendum elections on zoning or land use ordinances, invalid because preempted by, or in conflict with, Minnesota zoning and land use statutes? Question No. Two: Are the proposed ordinances authorized or prohibited by the Richfield City Charter? Specifically, do the petitions seek to enact "an ordinance appropriating money or authorizing the levy of taxes", which is prohibited by the Charter? Question No. Three: Are the ordinances proposed by the initiative petitions unconstitutional as currently drafted? • If the proposed ordinances are unlawful as currently worded, may the City correct or revise language in the proposed ordinance in order to eliminate grounds for potential legal challenge? The issue of concern for the City is: Are the subjects of the petitions legal subjects for referendum and initiative? Mr. Greene's opinion is included herein and Mr. Greene will be present at the Council meeting of February 12, 2001 to present his legal opinion. It is staff's recommendation that the Council hear Mr. Greene prior to consideration of the action options available to the .Council. III. ACTION OPTIONS OPTION NO. 1 - REFEREDUM PETITIONS In doing so the Council must proceed pursuant to the provisions of the City Charter, Section 5.11. The Council must then take the following action regarding the two referendum petitions: 1 a. Affirm Ordinance No. 2000-19 (Comp. Plan Ord.) and Ordinance No. 2000-20 (Zoning Ordinance. if the Council affirms the ordinances, the Council must then, by motion: • Suspend the ordinances from taking effect • Call for a Special Election, the date of which can be set at the February 26 meeting • Submit the ordinance at the next regular municipal election (2002), recognizing that the ordinances are prohibited from taking effect until November 2002. 1 b. Simultaneously with 1 a, the Council could bring a declaratory judgement action to have the court rule on the issues raised in the legal opinion. Bringing a declaratory judgement action would require the City to bring a legal action. against the five members of the petition sponsoring committee. 1c. Repeal Ordinance Nos. 2000-19 and 2000-20. If the Council repeals both ordinances, there need be no further action as the ordinances will be deemed nullified. INITIATIVE PETITIONS If the Council rejects Mr. Greene's legal opinion in regards to the two initiative petitions, the Council must then take the following action: 1 d. Take up the subjects of the two initiatives. The Council may choose to refer the subjects to the Planning Commission or the Council may choose to provide a date for a Council public hearing to consider the subject matters. A public hearing can also be held by the Planning Commission. Regardless, of which entity conducts the public hearing, the subject matters must be finally acted upon by the City Council not later than sixty-five (65) days from February 12, 2001, the date upon which the initiative ordinances were subjected to the Council by the City Clerk. Attached is Section 5.07 of the City Charter for reference as to the actions available to the Council .regarding the form of the ordinance. 1 e. If the Council fails to pass. the ordinances (subsequent to a public hearing) within the prescribed timeframe, the proposed ordinances shall be submitted by the Council for a vote of the citizens at the next regular municipal election (November 2002). The number of signatures ~' on both initiative petitions did not meet the required 15% of the total registered voters at the November 2000 election, so a Special Election is not required. OPTION NO. 2 -AFFIRM MR. GREEN'S LEGAL OPINION This action confirms the Council's belief that State law preempts the use of initiative and referendum in these circumstances. 2a. By motion, accept Mr. Green's legal opinion and declare that the petitions are therefore null and void. IV. LEGAL • Corrine Thomson and Clifford Greene will be present at Monday night's meeting to respond to questions and advise the Council on the legal .ramifications of actions under consideration by the City Council. V. ATTACHMENTS • City Charter Chapter 5, Initiative, Referendum and Recall • Legal Opinion Re: Initiative and Referendum in Land Use Matters CHAPTER 5 INITIATIVE. REFERENDUM AND RECALL b the Peo le. The eo le of Richfield reserve to Section 5.01. Powers Reserved y p p p themselves the powers, in accordance with the provisions of this Charter, to initiate and adopt any ordinance, except an ordinance appropriating the money or authorizing the levy of taxes, to request such an ordinance when passed by the Council to be referred to the registered voters for approval or disapproval and to recall elected public officials. These powers shall be called the initiative, referendum and recall, respectively. (Amended Bill 1982-20) Section 5.02. Expenditures by Petitioners. No member of any initiative, referendum, or recall committee, no circulator of a signature paper, and no signer of any such paper, or any other person, shall accept or offer any reward, pecuniary or otherwise, for service- rendered in connection with the circulation thereof, but this shall .not prevent the committee from paying for legal advice and from incurring any expense not to exceed $400.00 for stationery, copying, printing, and notarial fees. Any violation of the provisions of this section is a misdemeanor. (Amended Bill 1992-10) Section 5.03. Further Regulations. The Council may provide by ordinance such .further regulations for the initiative, referendum or recall, not consistent with this Charter, as it deems necessary. (Amended Bill 1982-20) Section 5.04. Initiation of Measures. Any five. registered voters may form themselves into a sponsoring committee for the initiation of any ordinances except any ordinance appropriating money or authorizing the levy of taxes. Before circulating any petition they shall file a verified copy of their proposed ordinance with the City Clerk, together with their names and addresses as members of such committee. They shall also attach a verified copy of the proposed ordinance to each of the signature papers herein described, together with their names and addresses. as sponsors thereof.. Section 5.05. Form of Petition and of Signature Papers. The petition for the adoption of any ordinance shall consist of the ordinance, together with all the signature papers and affidavits thereto attached. Such petition shall not be complete unless signed by a number of registered voters equal to at least five percent of the total number of registered voters at the time of the last regular election. All the signatures need not be on one signature paper, but the circulator of every such paper -shall make an affidavit that each signature appended to the paper is the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be. Each signature paper shall be in substantially the following form: INITIATIVE PETITION Proposing an ordinance to Purpose of the Ordinance) a copy of which ordinance is hereto attached. .This ordinance is sponsored by the following committee of registered voters: (Stating the RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER A. 10 7/15/96 Name Address 1 2. 3. 4. 5. The undersigned registered voters, understanding the terms and nature of the ordinance attached, petition the Council for its adoption, or, in lieu thereof, for its submission to the voters for their approval Name Address 1. 2. 3. (At the end of the list of signatures shall be appended the Affidavit of the circulator mentioned above.) Section 5.06. Filing of Petition and Action Thereon. All the signature papers shall be filed in the office of the City Clerk as one instrument. Within five (5) days after the filing of that petition,. the City Clerk shall ascertain by examination, the number of registered voters whose signatures are appended thereto and whether this number is at least five percent (5%) of the total number of registered voters at the time of the last regular election. If the petition is found to be insufficient or irregular, the City Clerk shall at once notify one or more of the sponsoring committee of that fact, certifying the reasons for the finding. The committee shall then be given thirty (30) days in which to file additional. signature papers and to correct the petition in all other particulars. If at the end of that period the petition is found to be still insufficient or irregular, it shall be filed by the City Clerk in the City Clerk's office and each member of the committee shall be notified of that fact by the City Clerk. The final finding of the insufficiency or irregularity of a petition shall not prejudice the filing of a new petition for the same purpose, nor shall it prevent the Council from referring the ordinance to the voters at the next regular or special election. (Amended Bill 1990-13) Section 5.07. Action of Council on Petition. When the petition is found to be sufficient, the City Clerk shall so certify to the Council at its next meeting, stating the number of petitioners and the percentage of the total number of registered voters which they constitute, and the Council shall at once read the ordinance and may refer it to an appropriate committee. The committee or Council shall thereupon provide for public hearings upon the ordinance, after the holding of which the ordinance shall be finally acted upon by the Council not later than sixty-five (65) days after the RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER A. I1 7/15/96 date upon which it was submitted to the Council by the City Clerk. If the Council fails to pass the proposed ordinance, or passes it in a form different from that set forth in the petition and • unsatisfactory to the sponsors, the proposed ordinance shall be submitted by the Council to a vote at the next regular municipal election, but if the numbers of the signers of the petition is equal to at least fifteen percent (15%) of the total number of registered voters at the time of the last regular municipal election, the Council shall call a special election upon the measure. Such special election shall be held not less than thirty (30) nor more than forty-five (45) days from date of final action on the ordinance by the Council or after the expiration of sixty-five (65) days from the date of submission to the Council when there has been no final action; but if a regular election is to occur within three months, the Council may submit the ordinance at that election. If the Council passes the proposed ordinance with amendments and at least four-fifths (4/5) of the sponsoring committee do not express their dissatisfaction with such amended form by a statement filed with the City Clerk, within ten (10) days of the passage thereof by the Council, the ordinance need not be submitted to the voters. Section 5.08. Initiative Ballots. The ballots used when voting upon any such proposed ordinance shall state the substance of the ordinance and shall give the voters the opportunity to vote either "yes" or "no" on .the question of adoption. If a majority of the votes on any such ordinance are in favor of it, it shall thereupon become an ordinance of the City. Any number of proposed ordinances may be voted upon at the same election, but the voter shall be allowed to vote for or against each separately. In case of inconsistency between two initiated ordinances approved at one election, the one approved by the higher percentage of voters voting. on the question shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency. Section 5.09. Amendment or Repeal. Any ordinance adopted by the vote of the people cannot be repealed or amended except by the vote of the people or by the unanimous vote of all members of the Council. Section 5.10. Initiation of Charter Amendments. Nothing in this Charter shall be construed as in any way affecting the right of the registered voters under the constitution and statutes of Minnesota to propose amendments to this Charter. Section 5.11. The Referendum. If prior to the date when an ordinance takes effect a petition signed by qualified registered voters of the City equal in number to ten percent (10%) of the total number of registered voters at the time of the last regular election is filed with the City Clerk requesting that any such ordinance be repealed or submitted to a vote of the registered voters, the ordinance shall thereby be prevented from going into operation. The Council shall thereupon reconsider the ordinance at its next regular meeting, and by majority vote either repeal or afFirm the ordinance as passed. If the ordinance is affirmed, the Council shall immediately order a special election to be held thereon, or submit the ordinance at the next regular municipal election pending which the ordinance shall remain suspended. If a majority of the voters voting on the ordinance is opposed to the ordinance, it shall not become effective; but if a majority of the voters favor the ordinance, it shall go into effect immediately or on the date therein specified. Section 5.12. Referendum Petition. The requirements laid down in Sections 5.04 and 5.05 above as to the formation of committees, the form of petitions and signature papers, for the initiation of ordinances shall apply to the referendum but with such changes as may be necessary. RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER A. 12 7/15/96 A referendum petition shall read substantially as follows: 'REFERENDUM PETITION Proposing the repeal of an ordinance to (stating the purpose of the ordinance) a copy of which ordinance is hereto attached. The proposed repeal is sponsored by the following committee of registered voters: Name Address 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The undersigned qualified registered voters, understanding the nature of the ordinance hereto attached and believing it to be detrimental to the welfare of the City, petition the Council for its submission to a vote of the voters for their approval or disapproval. Name Address 1. 2. 3. (At the end of the list of signatures shall be appended the Affidavit of the circulator mentioned above) Section 5.13. Referendum Ballots. The ballots used in any referendum election shall conform to the rules laid down in Section 5.08 of this Charter for initiative ballots. Section 5.14. The Recall. No less than 25 registered voters may form themselves in a committee for the purpose of bringing about the recall of any Council Member including the Mayor. If the committee seeks the recall of a district Council Member, the registered voters constituting the committee shall be from the Council Member's district. The committee shall certify to the City Clerk the name of the. Council Member whose removal is sought, a statement of the grounds for removal in not more than 250 words, and their intention to bring about his or her recall. A copy of this certificate shall be attached to each signature paper and no signature paper shall be put into circulation previous to such certification. The grounds as set forth in the recall petition must be predicated on one or more charges of malfeasance, nonfeasance or both. For this purpose the word "malfeasance" -means .the performance of an act by a Council Member in his or her official capacity that. is wholly illegal and wrongful and the word "nonfeasance" means the neglect or refusal, without sufficient excuse, to do that which it is the Council Member's legal duty to do so. • RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER A. 13 7/15/96 Section 5.15. Recall Petitions. The petition for the recall of any Council Member shall consist of a certificate identical to that filed with the City Clerk together with all the signature papers and affidavits thereto attached. All the signatures need not be on one signature paper, but the circulator of every paper shall make an affidavit that each signature appended to the paper is the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be. Each signature paper shall be in substantially the following form: RECALL PETITION Proposing the recall of office as which recall is sought for the reasons set forth in the attached certificate. This movement is sponsored by the following committee of registered voters eligible to vote on candidates for that office. Name Address 1. 2. 3. The undersigned registered voters, all being eligible to vote on candidates for that office, understanding the nature. of the charges against the Council Member herein sought to be recalled, desire the holding of a recall election for that purpose. Name ~ Address 1. 2. 3' (Amended Bill 1982-20) At the end of the list of signatures shall be appended the affidavit of the circulator. Section 5.16. Filing of Petition. Within thirty (30) days after the filing of the original certificate, the. committee shall file the. completed petition in the office of the City Clerk. The City Clerk shall examine the petition within the nextfive (5) days and if the clerk finds it irregular in-any way, or finds that the number of signers is less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total number of registered voters eligible to vote on candidates for that office at the last preceding regular municipal election, the City Clerk shall so notify one or more members of the committee. The committee shall then be given ten (10) days in which to file additional signature papers and to correct the petition in all other respects, but they may not change the statement of the grounds upon which the recall is sought. If at the end of that time the City Clerk finds the petition still insufficient or irregular, the clerk shall notify all the members of the committee to that effect and shall file the petition in the City Clerk's office. No further action shall be taken thereon. Section 5.17. Recall Election. If the position or amended petition is found sufficient, the City Clerk shall transmit it to the Council without delay, and shall also officially notify the person sought to be recalled of. the sufficiency of the petition and of the pending action. If the Council. .Member sought to be recalled does 'not resign within ten (10) days after having been given such notice, the Council shall, at its next meeting occurring more than ten (10) days after the receipt by RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER A. 14 7/15/96 the Council of the recall petition, by resolution, provide for the holding of a special recall election not less than 30 nor more than 45 days after such meeting, but if any other election is to occur within sixty (60) days after such meeting, the Council may in its discretion provide for the holding of the recall election at that time. If the special recall election involves a district Council Member, the recall election shall be conducted only within the district of such Council Member. If it involves several district Council Members, the election shall be conducted only within the districts of such Council Members. If it involves a Council Member who is elected at large, the election shall be a City-wide election. Section 5.18. Procedure at Recall Election. The City Clerk shall include with the published notice of the election the statement of the grounds for recall and also, in not more than 500 words, the answer of the Council Member concerned in justification of his or her course in office. The election shall be conducted as far as possible, in accordance with the usual procedure in municipal elections. Section 5.19. Form of Recall Ballot. The form of the ballot at such election shall be: "Shall be recalled?" The name of the Council Member whose recall is sought and his or her office shall be in blank.. The electors shall be_permitted to vote separately "Yes" or "No" upon this question. If a majority of those voting on the question of recall vote in favor of recall, the official shall, be thereby removed from office. (Amended Bill 1992-10) Section 5.20. Procedure to Fill Vacancy. In the event that a Council. Member is recalled by the electors or resigns after a petition has been filed for his or her recall, the vacancy shall be filled in the following manner: • If less than six months remain in the Council Member's term of office at the time of the recall election or at the time of resignation in response to a recall petition, as the case may be, the vacancy shall be filled by the remaining members of the City Council for the unexpired term pursuant to Section 2.05. If six months or more remain in the Council Member's term at the time of such recall or resignation, the Council shall call a special election to fill the vacancy for the balance of the Council Member's term. Such election shall be called within ten (10) days after such recall or resignation, and the special election shall be held not less than thirty (30) nor .more than sixty (60) days after the meeting at which the election is called. Candidates to fill the unexpired term shall be nominated in the usual way and the election shall be conducted as far as possible in accordance with procedures in municipal elections except that there shall be no primary election and the candidate receiving the highest number of votes for the office shall be elected to fill the unexpired term. (Amended Bill 1992-10) Section 5.21. The term of the candidate selected by the voters at the regular or special election to fill the unexpired term shall start as soon as the declaration of the results has been filed with the City Clerk, and the person has qualified for office. (Amended Bill 1992-10) RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER A. 15 7/15/96 • GREENS E5PEL MEMORANDUM PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABII.ITX PARTNERSHIP 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 373-0830. Fax (612) 373-0929 To: The Honorable Martin Kirsch, Mayor. City Council Members cc: Corrine H. Thomson, City Attorney Samanth Orduno, City Manager From: Clifford M. Greene Date: February 7, 2001 Re: Legal Opinion Re: Initiative and Referendum in Land Use Matters 2449-001 INTRODUCTION The City of Richfield has received two referendum petitions and two initiative petitions • addressing land use issues. The City has requested a legal opinion from independent counsel concerning fundamental legal issues associated with those petitions. Specifically, the following questions have been raised and will be addressed in this Legal Opinion: QUESTIONS PRESENTED First Question Presented. Are petitions seeking initiative and referendum elections on zoning or land use ordinances, invalid because preempted by, or in conflict with, Minnesota zoning and land use statutes? Second Question Presented. Are the proposed ordinances authorized or prohibited by the Richfield City Charter? Specifically, do the petitions seek to enact "an ordinance appropriating money or authorizing the levy of taxes," which is prohibited by the Charter? Third Question Presented. Are the ordinances proposed by the initiative petitions unconstitutional as currently drafted? . If the proposed ordinances are unlawful as currently worded, may the City correct or revise language in the proposed ordinance in order to eliminate grounds for potential legal challenge? • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF OPINIONS A. Initiatives and Referenda on Land Use Subjects Conflict With, and Are Preempted by Minnesota Land Use Statutes Mandating "Uniform Procedures, " "Comprehensive Planning, "and Regional Planning Reflecting Municipal "Interdependence. " The use of initiative and referendum would circumvent the uniformity of statewide procedures which the land use statutes were designed to achieve. 2. The legislature intended to enact "comprehensive" statutes governing local land use authority. The term "comprehensive" describes two distinct concepts, each of which supports the preemption conclusion set forth in this Opinion. a. First, state land use legislation is comprehensive in scope; it is sufficiently detailed and sweeping in its coverage to reflect a legislative intent to "occupy the field." b. Second, the term comprehensive describes a specific process for achieving rational planning which would be frustrated, not advanced, by the local option of initiative and referendum in this area. • 3. Minnesota land use planning statutes reflect a legislative recognition of the "interdependence" of local jurisdictions, and the value of coordinated regional planning efforts.. These legislative goals would also be frustrated by the prospect of direct elections on land use initiatives and referenda. B. The Proposed Initiatives May Also Be Barred by Exclusions in the Richfield City Charter. An Enigmatic Decision by a Court of Appeals Panel Prevents a More Definite Answer to this Issue. Of the Two Initiatives, the Housing Initiative Is Most Vulnerable to Challenge Based Upon Charter Exclusions. C., The Proposed Initiatives Present Ambiguities Which May Also Render Them Vulnerable to Constitutional "Vagueness" Challenges. A city need not place proposed initiative propositions on the ballot where the proposed laws, if passed, would be subject to successful legal challenge. The initiative propositions maybe worded so ambiguously that- there is uncertainty regarding circumstances presenting violations or establishing compliance. Accordingly, the city staff, city attorney, and city council should address whether the vague benchmarks included in these ordinances (such as housing of "equal or better" quality or "excessive-traffic") can be defined in accordance with readily ascertainable standards. • -2- • FIRST QUESTION PRESENTED Are petitions seeking initiative and referendum elections on zoning or land use ordinances, invalid because preempted by, or in conflict with, Minnesota zoning and land use statutes? I. Introduction: "Preemption" and "Conflict"Principles Applied to Land Use Initiatives and Referenda. A. Home Rule Prerogatives and Their Limitations by State Law. Minnesota statutes permit Home Rule cities to provide for local initiative and referendum elections by charter.l The Richfield City Charter expressly authorizes initiative and referendum, subject to specific restrictions? Initiatives enable the electorate to originate and enact local laws via. general election; referenda permit popular electoral repudiation of actions already taken by elected • representatives. Neither the Minnesota State Constitution nor state statutes confer the right to participate in initiative and referendum election directly to citizens. In fact, constitutional amendments purporting to incorporate initiative and referendum rights into the state Constitution. were proposed as early as 1915 and as recently as 1980, but have never been ratified by the voters.3 Accordingly, any right to conduct initiative and referendum derives from Home Rule charters, as authorized by state law. This is an important circumstance, since many of the courts that reject preemption challenges to initiative and referendum in zoning matters base their rulings on the fundamental and personal rights of citizens to participate in such direct elections. This is not the case in Minnesota. Instead, the 'Minn. Stat. § 410.20. ZRichfield Charter Section 5.01 et. seq. s See Citizens' League Report, "Initiative and Referendum ... `No' for Minnesota" (Feb. 28, 1978), as cited and quoted in Fisher, L., "Zoning and Planning by Initiative and Referendum: Legal and Policy Issues," in ShopQing Center Development and Operation (MII.E, Apr. 6, 1990). -3- • legislature has provided Home Rule cities with a local option to authorize initiative and referendum within their jurisdictions. While not a fundamental right of citizenship conferred by constitution or statute, the right to petition for local initiative and referendum nevertheless has statutory and charter roots that cannot be disregarded in a preemption analysis.. "Home Rule" has been described as "an affirmative grant of power to a city or county government to manage its own affairs: '~ In matters of 'internal governance, courts pay great deference to procedures for a city's internal governance prescribed by charter, even where such procedures may differ from those set forth in general statutes s Deference to local prerogatives under charter will be highest in matters of purely "local concern."~ "When a charter provision conflicts with state law, the ultimate issue often becomes whether a subject matter is a local concern in which the state has no interest "' • Nevertheless, charter rovisions may still be preempted by conflicting state statutes s The P Minnesota Supreme Court mandates preemption of a charter provision by statute- "Timmons, et al., "County Home Rule Comes to Minnesota," 19 W1vt. MrrCx. L.R. 811, 816 (1.993). See also, Sandalow, "The Limits of Municipal Power Under Home Rule: A Role for the Courts," 48 Mnviv. L. REV. 654, 644-45 (1964). SA.C.E. Equipment Company v. Erickson, 152 N.W.2d 739, 741 (Minn. 1967). 6See Timmons, supra n. 3, and authorities collected at 847 notes 225-28. 'Timmons, supra n. 3, at 855. $See Op. Atty. Gen. 36-A, 1978 WL 34133, *2 (1978) (despite Home Rule authority and authorization by charter, city may not require a referendum with respect to the issuance of bonds, because such activities are subject only to the conditions imposed by statute); See generally, Timmons, supra n. 3 at pp. 839 ff (collecting examples of cases where charter provisions have been • restricted or invalidated due to conflicting state legislation). -4- . "... in those instances where the Legislature expressly .declares that a general law shall prevail, or a purpose that it shall prevail appears by fair implication, taking into consideration the subject and the general nature of the charter and general statutory provisions: '9 Subsequent decisions leave no doubt that charter provisions are subject to preemption analysis.10 In sum, the Richfield Charter provision authorizing initiative and referendum regarding land use matters is subject to preemption analysis. The preemption analysis must address whether the subjects of the proposed ordinances are matters of purely local concern, when considered in reference to relevant Minnesota statutes. And most fundamentally, Minnesota state .law must be examined to determine whether local initiative and referendum elections to enact land use ordinances would violate state policy as expressed by state laws. B. Preemption Criteria. • The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently summarized the law of preemption and conflict as follows: Minnesota recognizes two separate doctrines that determine preemption questions. The first, referred to specifically as "preemption," is based on "occupation of the field." Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 356,. 143 N.W.2d 813, 819 (1966). A state law may so fully occupy a particular field of legislation that there is no room for local regulation. Id. Under the doctrine of preemption, it does not matter whether the local legislation complements or 9State v. City of Crookston, 91 N.W.2d 81, 83-84 (Minn. 1958) (quoting American Electric Co. v. Ciry of Waseca, 102 Minn. 329, 333, 113 N.W. 899, 901 (1907). The prevailing rule in Minnesota has been summarized by the Attorney General as follows: The general rule is that a city charter will control on a matter of city government over general statutory law except where the legislature has expressly or impliedly superseded inconsistent charter provisions or where the charter provision is contrary to state policy expressed in general law. Op. Atty.. Gen. 882 A-2, 1980 WL 119589, *1 (1980). loSee Independent School Dist. No. 700 v. City of Duluth,170 N.W.2d 116,123 (Minn. 1969) ("Clearly, any law passed by the legislature within constitutional limitations must be followed by the • cities affected, and if their charters conflict, the law is paramount.") (Emphasis added.) -5- contradicts the state law. Id. The doctrine of conflict provides that a local ordinance is invalid if its terms are irreconcilable with those of a state law. Id." In addition to conflict based on "irreconcilable terms," the Minnesota Supreme Court recognizes that an ordinance will be invalidated due to "conflict" with a statute "where the ordinance forbids what the statute permits."12 Minnesota has enacted comprehensive state laws governing zoning and land use planning.13 These state land use laws prescribe specific procedures and standards (as more fully construed by the courts) which must be adhered to by governing bodies considering local land use legislation. However, there are no provisions in state land use statutes specifically authorizing initiative and referendum elections on proposed zoning and land use legislation. Instead, municipal authority to adopt charter provisions authorizing local initiative and referendum elections is set forth generally • in Minn. Stat. § 410.20.. As previously noted, case law also restricts the subjects of initiatives and referenda by requiring that such proposed ordinances be compatible with the state Constitution and state laws. Over the past forty years, many courts throughout the United States have addressed whether to invalidate local initiative and referendum procedures purporting to enact or repeal zoning and land use ordinances.14 Surprisingly, no appellate court in Minnesota has ever addressed whether 11Altenburg v. Bd. ofSupervisors ofPleasantMoundTownship, 615 N.W.2d 874, 880 (Minn. App. Nov. 21, 2000). 12St. Paul Citizens v. City Council, 289 N.W.2d 402, 406 (Minn. 1979). 13See e.g. Municipal Planning Act, Minn. Stats. §§ 462.351 et. seq. and Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act, Minn. Stats. §§ 473.851 et. seq., discussed in detail, infra. • iaSee Ziegler, 3 Rathkopf s The Law of Zoning and Planning, Ch 29 c. (Release #3, 3/90) and cases cited therein. -6- • principles of state statutory preemption and/or statutory conflict require the invalidation of initiatives and referenda as applied to zoning and land use issues. A 1973 Minnesota Supreme Court decision, Denney v. City of Duluth, refused to address preemption arguments because the issue had not been properly preserved for appeal.'S While the preemption issue has been widely litigated throughout the United States in the twenty-seven years since Denney .was decided, the issue has never been addressed in Minnesota. Accordingly, this Legal Opinion must predict how the Minnesota Supreme Court would rule when addressing the question in the future, as influenced by general principles of Minnesota law, persuasive authority from other jurisdictions, Minnesota legal authority construing local initiative and referendum rights, and the interpretation of applicable Minnesota land use statutes implicated by local use of initiative and referendum procedures. II. Initiative and Referendum in Minnesota: Sources of Authority and Interpretation. A. Minnesota Statutes § 410.21. The Minnesota Legislature bypassed an explicit opportunity to insulate initiative and referendum election from preemption challenges. Minnesota Statutes § 410.21 expressly declares that city charter provisions regarding specific types of elections supercede any conflicting state "general election laws."16 The statute conveying paramount election authority to local charters does so with respect to elections involving nominations, primary elections, and municipal offices. Significantly, this statute does not mention elections involving initiative and referendum. The 'sDenney v. City of Duluth, 202 N.W.2d 892 (Minn. 1972). 16Minn. Stat. § 410.21 reads: "The provisions of any charter of any such city adopted pursuant to this chapter shall be valid and shall control as to nominations, primary elections and elections for municipal offices, notwithstanding that such charter provisions may be inconsistent with any general law relating thereto, and such general laws shall apply only in so far as consistent with such charter." -7- • existence of a specific state statute declaring that certain types of municipal elections are not preempted by inconsistent state laws, strongly suggests that charter provisions affecting elections not listed in Minn. Stat. 410.21 are vulnerable to preemption challenges if they aze inconsistent with -state laws. B. Judicial Observations and "Dicta. " Preemption decisions from other states reach differing conclusions regazding the validity of initiative and referendum in land use cases. A significant factor influencing these differing outcomes appears to be whether initiative and referendum rights are guazanteed to citizens by the state constitutions, or whether such rights derive merely from statutory enabling legislation. Where the authority for local initiative and referendum is founded in the state constitution, courts more readily opt for the broad construction of such rights.17 In jurisdictions- where the source of authority for local initiatives and referenda is statuto rather than constitutional (as in Minnesota), courts aze more ry willing to restrict such rights if they conflict with, or appear preempted by, other state statutes.18 Absent a constitutional or statutory delegation of such rights to citizens, should the municipal authority to conduct initiative and referendum elections be construed broadly or narrowly in Minnesota? The Minnesota Supreme Court has not expressed itself definitively on this point. To "Courts in California and Ohio, for example, have rejected preemption arguments based in large measure on the constitutional origins of citizens' rights to govern through initiative and referendum. See, e.g. State ez. ~ Rel. Rose et. al. v. Lorain County Board of Elections, 736 N.E.2d 886, 887 (Ohio, Oct. 5, 2000)(citing the state Constitution as the reason that initiative and referendum rights should be "liberally construed...so as to permit rather than preclude the exercise of such power...."). See also Associated Home Builders v. City of Livermore, 557 P.2d 473 (Cal. 1976). Those courts hold that state statutes may not compromise "constitutional" rights, and are typically reluctant to find such rights preempted by statute. • `$ See State ex rel. Foster v. City of Morgantown, 432 S.E.2d 195, 197 n. 4 (W.Va. 1993) -8- the contrary, judicial characterizations of initiatives and referenda appear occasionally in dicta and dissents, and do not suggest unanimity among judges who have commented.19 In the absence of initiative and referendum rights conferred by state constitutions or statutes directly to citizens, there is a trend of judicial rulings invalidating initiative and referendum elections in land use matters 20 However, a prediction of the likely ruling by the Minnesota Supreme Court on preemption and conflict issues cannot rely exclusively on the tally of decisions pro and con from other jurisdictions. And while the absence of constitutional underpinnings for these rights in Minnesota aligns Minnesota with jurisdictions favoring preemption, this fact is not diapositive. Rather, it is necessary to examine whether the Minnesota statutes at issue are so inconsistent with the rights of initiative and referendum conferred by city charter that such local rights are invalid under doctrines of preemption and conflict. 19Compare: Bogen v. Sheedy, 229. N.W.2d 19, 24 (Minn. 1975) ("Moreover, public officials rule with the consent of the governed. What possible harm could result in requiring a referendum...? If the voters vote down the ordinances, it will be the majority of the people themselves and not merely their elected representatives making that decision....") and St. Paul Citizens forHuman Rights v. City Council of the City of St. Paul, 289 N.W.2d 402,407 (Minn. 1979) (Wahl, J., and two others dissenting) ("Because of these grave problems, I believe that statutory and charter provisions providing for initiative and referendum must be narrowly construed. I am confirmed in this belief by the fact that neither the framers of the state constitution nor the legislature has seen fit to provide for initiative and referendum on a statewide level.") See also AAD Temple Building v. City of Duluth, 160 N.W.2d 682, 684 (1916) ("The right to suspend, and possibly to revoke, as given by referendum...is anextraordinary power which ought not unreasonably to be restricted or enlarged by construction.") 20"Except for a few cases in which the initiative provisions contained in the state constitution were so broad and all-inclusive as to compel the view that they were intended to apply to all forms of local legislation, the courts have generally taken the position that since most legislatures provide considerable detail for the procedures to be followed in adopting zoning measures, such as state statutes, same should be deemed controlling over more general constitutional, statutory or charter provisions reserving or granting the power of initiative to the electors of municipalities." Taub and Thorn, "Update on Initiative and Referenda", SE11 ALI-ABA 505, (ALI-ABA, Aug.26, 1999). -9- III. The Legislative History of the Minnesota Municipal Planning Act Supports the Conclusion That the Legislature Did Not Intend to Permit Initiatives and Referenda for Zoning and Land Use Legislation The conspicuous absence of any provision in Minnesota land use statutes authorizing initiatives and referenda as alternative means of land use decisionmalting does not appear to be coincidental. To the contrary, an examination of the legislative history of Minnesota land use statutes leads to the conclusion that the legislature intended to designate "the governing body" (e.g. city council). as the exclusive decisionmaker in zoning matters, and to preempt legislation by initiative and referendum in this arena. The predecessor statute to the current Minnesota Municipal Planning Act explicitly authorized referenda-but only for a very limited circumstance: the ratification by popular vote of a proposed "comprehensive zoning" ordinance permitting the governing body to subject .the municipality to zoning. As with the current Act, the original statute made clear that municipal actions exercising the authority to zone must be passed "only by atwo-thirds vote of all the members of the governing body of such city or village."21 As noted above, the two-thirds voting requirement remains part of the current version of the Municipal Planning Act. Almost fifty years ago, the Minnesota Supreme Court observed that a "two-thirds majority vote of all members of the governing body" requirement is inconsistent with the prospect that cities may also enact land use laws via initiative and referendum. In Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. v. Nadasny, the Court stated: 21Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. v. Nadasny, 76 N.W.2d 670, 675 (Minn. 1956) (emphasis in original), construing Minn. Stat. 462.01 from the time of its original enactment in 1929 unti11956. -10- The Legislature obviously recognized the inherent dangers in an unrestricted zoning power and accordingly provided -not merely for a simple majority but rather for a two-thirds vote of all of the members of the governing body before the municipality's comprehensive zoning plan could be altered or amended.n In fact, in its Nadasny opinion, the Supreme Court identified an even stronger factor in concluding that the state statute reflected a legislative intent to prohibit the passage of local zoning ordinances by initiative or referendum. However, the strongest factor indicating that the. referendum provision was meant to apply only to the comprehensive type of zoning ordinance is the very language of the statute itself as used in the sentence providing for the referendum petition and election. * * * It is to be noted that the sole and only question which the electors aze permitted to vote upon is the question of the approval or disapproval of the proposition of permitting the governing body to zone the municipality. Nowhere in the sentence containing the referendum provision is reference made to an alteration or amendment to a zoning ordinance. It is not unreasonable to assume that, if the legislature had intended to include alterations or amendments to zoning ordinances within the scope of the referendum provision, it would have clearly so provided. * * * It is undoubtedly chazacteristic of much legislation that it operates, to a greater or lesser degree, more directly upon one group or section of the community than another and yet, is not subject to the general approval of the voters through a referendum election. Id. 76 N.W.2d at 676-77 (emphasis added). The 1Vadasny decision has never been overruled, nor has its discussion of the legislative history and intent underlying the Municipal Planning Act been modified by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. . In Denney v. City of Duluth,23 the Minnesota Supreme Court refused to treat Nadasny as persuasive to the issue before it: "whether the city council of Duluth acted in its legislative or its 221d. . 23202 N.W.2d 892 (Minn. 1993). -11- administrative capacity" when it amended a city zoning ordinance ~` By deciding that zoning ordinances were, in fact, legislative acts, the Supreme Court resolved a legal issue which the parties in that case had framed as determinative of whether zoning ordinances could be enacted by initiative and referendum. The Denney Court distinguished Nadasny by observing that " ...this court was not confronted-there with the issue presented here, namely, whether amendments to comprehensive zoning plans are legislative or administrative in nature."'~ Most significantly, the Denney decision explicitly refused to consider whether zoning referenda were preempted by state statutes (due to the failure of the City to raise preemption arguments in a timely fashion).26 Accordingly, the Denney opinion did not address the issues for which Nadasny provided relevant authority or commentary. Nadasny continues. to provide both instructive authority and rationales for considering .zoning referenda reem ted b the Munici al Plannin Act.27 P P Y P g IV. The Legislative Intent to Preempt Local Rights of Initiative and Referendum in Land Use Matters Is Apparent by the Language of the Municipal Planning Act Itself. As stated previously, there are no provisions in state land use statutes specifically authorizing initiative and referendum on an amendment to a zoning ordinance. To the contrary, the current ~`Id. 202 N.W.2d at 893. '~Id. at 895. 261d. at 894 n. 8. 'The fact that Nadasny construed an earlier version of the Municipal Planning Act replaced by a newer version of the Act does not render its discussion of legislative history or intent irrelevant to the analysis of preemption.. The consideration of how statutes have evolved is appropriate when evaluating the legislative intent underlying current laws. Moreover, while a newer version of the Act was passed in 1965, the key components of the law relevant to our preemption analysis did not change, preserving the relevance and authority of the Supreme Court's analysis in Nadasny. -12- Municipal Planning Act expressly delegates the authority to zone to the "governing body" of the municipality, rather than to the municipality generally.28 The absence of a statutory reference to zoning by initiative and referendum, coupled with the precise delegation of zoning authority to the "governing body" of the municipality, has been considered by some courts to provide convincing evidence that the Legislature did not intend to allow zoning by initiative and referendum.29 The further requirement of atwo-thirds majority vote of the council to pass zoning amendments would reinforce this argument. V. Initiatives and Referenda on Land Use Subjects Conflict With, and Are Preempted by Minnesota Land Use Statutes Mandating "Uniform Procedures," "Comprehensive Planning," and Regional Planning Reflecting Municipal "Interdependence." A. Uniformity. 1. Minnesota statutes prescribe "uniform procedures" governing the land. use authority of all local units of government. The Legislature's intent to impose a uniform procedure on all municipalities provides a strong indication that land use procedures not prescribed or authorized in the statute are deemed preempted. The "statement of policy" at the outset of the Minnesota Municipal Planning Act declares: "It is the purpose of sections 462.351 to 462.364 to provide municipalities, in a single body of law, with the necessary powers and a uniform procedure for adequately conducting and implementing municipal planning." 28Minn. Stat. § 462.357 subd. 2 delegates authority to enact zoning ordinances to "the governing body." The statute explicitly defines "governing body": "`Governing body' in the case of cities means the council by whatever name known." The Municipal Planning Act uses the term "governing body" distinctly and not synonymously with the term "municipality" which appears frequently in other provisions of the Act. 29Lince v. City of Bremerton, 607 P.2d 329 (Wash. App. 1980); see generally Ziegler, 3 Rathkopf s The Law of Zoning and Planning 29 C.02 (3/90); 5 McQuillan, Municipal Corporations § 16.53 (3d rev. ed. 1981). -13- Minn. Stat. 462.351 (emphasis added). The Municipal Planning Act requires that cities follow specific procedures. when evaluating proposed land use legislation. Even more important to the preemption analysis, the Municipal Planning Act specifies that "the ovg erning body may adopt and amend a zoning ordinance by a two-thirds vote of all its members." Minn. Stat. § 462.357 Subd. 2 (Emphasis added). This provision is relevant to preemption inquiry in two ways. First, the statute designates a specific decisionmaker in zoning matters: the "governing body" (e.g. the Richfield City Council in our case). Second, this statutory provision requires that only an extraordinary majority (two-thirds) of "all members" of a governing body may adopt or amend zoning ordinances. This provision has been construed strictly by the courts 30 The specific description of uniform procedures which cities must follow inland use matters does not leave room for local variation. Indeed, not all cities authorize initiatives and referenda. Indeed not all Minnesota cities are authorized by statute to conduct initiative and referendum elections. See Minn. Stat. 410.01, et. seq. In addition, cities authorized by statute to adopt charter provisions providing elections are not obligated to do so. And finally, the cities which exercise their statutory authorization to enact laws providing for initiative and referendum elections are free to adopt unique and different procedures relating to those elections. To allow a "local option" for land use legislation by referendum would destroy the fundamental "policy" of the Aet-"to provide a uniform procedure for adequately conducting and 30Ram Development v. Shaw, 244 N.W.2d 110 (Minn. 1976) (councilmembers who abstain remain "members" and should be figured in the total membership for the purpose of calculating the two-thirds vote requirement.) -14- implementing municipal planning.s31 The Supreme Court of Rhode Island came to this conclusion in 1992 when construing analogous land use legislation, declaring: "A consideration of our subdivision and zoning statutes in their entirety would make such inconsistencies and incompatibility apparent. These statutory provisions are of statewide application and cannot be superceded by the authority of a home rule charter." 3a 2. The City Charter provisions for initiative and referendum present a direct conflict with state land use law, because the charter forbids what the statute permits. The procedures for initiative and referendum in Richfield cannot be construed as complementary to or consistent with the procedures mandated by state statute; there is direct and irreconcilable conflict. For example, consider Section 5.09 of the Richfield City Charter, which states: "An ordinance passed by the voters cannot be repealed or amended except by the vote of the people or by the unanimous vote of all members of the Council: '33 This Charter provision purports to insulate certain laws from amendment by the City Council by requiring a unanimous vote. This is a logical component of an initiative or referendum procedure, since the very purpose of such direct elections is to enact legislation despite the support of the elected representatives. If the elected representatives could repeal or otherwise frustrate laws enacted by direct election, initiative and referendum elections would frequently prove to be an idle exercise. 31Minn. Stat. § 462.351. 32L.A. Ray Realty v. Town Council of the Town of Cumberland, 603 A.2d 311, 315 (R.I. 1992). 33Richfield Charter, Section 5.09. 34Accordingly, where citizens exercise valid rights to enact legislation by initiative and referenda, the city council is prohibited or constrained from taking actions which would undo. or -15- However, if applied to land use ordinances, this charter provision would conflict with the state statute's authorization that ~ zoning ordinance maybe amended by atwo-thirds majority of "the governing body." Here, the charter presents an irreconcilable conflict with statute, because the charter forbids what the statute permits. 3. The initiative and referendum process cannot satis the requisites for "rational" land use decisionmaking mandated by state statutes and legally required by the courts. The initiative and referendum procedures available under city charter are irreconcilable with state land use statutes because direct election on land use propositions cannot generate the administrative- record necessary to demonstrate the lawfulness of land use action. Requiring compliance with statutory land use procedures serves more than the objective of promoting statewide uniformity. The land use statutes mandate deliberative procedures that produce a record providing legal justifications for such actions. Our courts require that land use decisionmakers follow this procedure and demonstrate support for their actions in an administrative record. The enactment of land use legislation by initiative and referendum would circumvent the judicial requirement that such laws must be supported by an administrative record. The absence of a lawful rationale, reflecting a deliberative process, and expressed in an administrative record, subjects land use actions to attack as arbitrary and capricious. The requirement .for incorporating legitimate justifications for municipal decisionmaking into an modify laws so passed. See also Op. Atty. Gen. 59A-32, 1989 WL 505818, * 3 (Minn.) ("It would be clearly inappropriate, however, for the city council to enact the same or similar ordinance with the intent of defeating or bypassing the referendum provisions of Section 5 of the Ramsey City Charter. See alsoAnderson v. City of Duluth,155 N.W.2d 281, 284-86 (1967) (considering whether city council acted in good faith to reenact housing code ordinance challenged by referendum)). -16- administrative record applies to the denial as well as the granting of zoning applications.ss Municipal land use actions-especially those which seek to deny re-zoning-"must be based on something more. concrete than neighborhood opposition and expressions of concern for public safety and welfare."~ Initiative and referendum elections on land use questions may intentionally accomplish what the state's statutory procedures and case law attempt to prevent: zoning decisions based upon "public opposition" or "emotion." Our courts have invalidated such decisions when the legislative process has not generated the requisite supporting record: The county presented no concrete evidence to the contrary. Its decision appears to have been merely in response to public opposition. This is an insufficient basis upon which to deny conditional use permit. A county must rely on facts and not mere emotion or local opinion in making such a decision.37 Government actions are subject to the same constraints and standards of lawfulness whether produced by initiative and referendum reflecting popular vote or by city council action reflecting the votes of elected officials 38 Therefore, to be considered lawful, legislation resulting from initiative and referendum must satisfy the same legal standards as does conventional legislation. In the land use arena, those standards often cannot be satisfied through the devices of initiative and referendum. Legislation via initiative and referendum does not involve a procedure ssAmcon Corp. v. City of Eagan, 348 N.W.2d 66, 74 (Minn. 1984). ("...the refusal to grant an underlying RB rezoning without stating any justification for the refusal is arbitrary and capricious action.") 36Chanhassen Estates v.~City of Chanhassen, 342 N.W.2d 335, 340 (Minn. 1984) (re-zoning). 37City of Barnum v. Cy of Carlton, 386 N.W.2d 770, 776 (Minn. App. 1986). 38"State courts generally hold that the powers of initiative and referendum are no greater with respect to the nature and attributes of ordinances than that possessed by local legislative body, and that these powers of direct democracy must be exercised within the scope of local legislative authority." Ziegler, Rathkopf's The Law of Zoning § 29.C.01 n. 6 (3/90). -17- which creates the supporting record mandated by statute and case law in land use matters. To the contrary, one can imagine the legislative process developing a detailed record supporting Proposition X and an equally detailed record establishing the impropriety of Proposition"Anti-X:' May the electorate nullify Proposition X and enact Proposition "Anti-X" through an initiative election, without the necessary justifications on an administrative record? There is no procedure to create such a .record, at least in situations where staff and elected officials dispute the Propositions advanced by initiative and referendum.39 B. Land Use Decisionmaking by Initiative and Referendum Is Incompatible with the Paradigm of "Comprehensive Planning" Embodied in Minnesota State Land Use Planning Statues. The legislature intended to enact "comprehensive" statutes governing local land use authority. The term "comprehensive" describes two distinct concepts, each of which supports the preemption conclusion set forth in this Opinion. First, state land use legislation is comprehensive in scope; it is sufficiently detailed and sweeping in its coverage to reflect a legislative intent to "occupy the field." This conclusion becomes apparent when evaluating all arguments favoring preemption. The following section addresses the term "comprehensive" as a term of art in the planning context. The term comprehensive describes a specific process for achieving "planned, 39'I'he initiative process in Richfield contemplates the submission of propositions to the City. Council for its consideration before the proposal is submitted directly to the electorate. Thus, the City Council is afforded an opportunity to realize the wisdom of the proposal, enact it into law, and spare the City the expense and uncertainty of putting the proposition up for general election. Richfield City Charter Section 5.07. However, one can easily imagine initiative propositions which garner no support from staff or City council, and for which there is no support incorporated in the ,administrative record. Neither the Municipal Planning Act nor case law construing it would permit the enactment of such land use legislation without a supporting record-or worse-in spite of a record supporting a contrary result. -18- orderly and staged development and redevelopment consistent with the land use plan."40 Allowing initiative and referendum in land use would frustrate this legislative objective. At the core of Minnesota's planning statutes is the theme that land use decisions should reflect careful and rational decisionmaking. These decisions should be guided by adherence to a long-range comprehensive plan. They should reflect study and input by experts. These efforts then produce a record justifying the action taken as either consistent with the comprehensive plan or as a rational and legitimate departure from it. Decisionmaking by initiative and referendum is inconsistent with the values of comprehensive planning embodied in Minnesota's land use planning statutes. Indeed, as one leading commentator has noted in 1996: "Promoting a state policy to further expertise and forethought in zoning lies at the. core of every state court decision holding that direct legislation inherently violates the comprehensive plan requirement. [Internal citations omitted.]»al The West Virginia Supreme Court has stated that "a public referendum on an isolated issue relating to municipal zoning is inconsistent with comprehensive planning.s42 The Supreme Court of Hawaii was even more emphatic: "The language of the Zoning Enabling Act clearly indicates the legislature's emphasis on comprehensive planning for reasoned and orderly land use development." 40Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 2. 41Freilich, Prof. R., "The Nature of Land Use Proceedings: Legislative, Adjudicatory, or Administrative?", SB06 ALI-ABA 695, 712 (ALI-ABA, 1996). 42State ex. rel. Foster v. City of Morgantown, 432 S.E.2d 195, 198 (W. Va. 1993). -19- x~ "Zoning by initiative is inconsistent with the goal of long range comprehensive planning, and `it seems unlikely that the legislature intended the possible frustration of comprehensive zoning through the initiative process.",a3 These themes are not new; a cogent statement of this view appeazed in the oft-quoted New Jersey decision of Township of Sparta v. Spillane;aa Zoning is intended to be accomplished in accordance with a comprehensive plan and should reflect both present and prospective needs of the community. Among other things, the social, economic and physical chazacteristics of the community should be considered. The achievement of these goals might well be jeopazdized bypiece-meal attacks on the zoning ordinances if referenda were permissible for review of any amendment. Sporadic attacks on a municipality's comprehensive plan would tend to fragment zoning without any overriding concept. That concept should not be discarded because planning boards and governing bodies may not always have acted in the best interest of the public and may not in every case, have demonstrated the expertise which they might be expected to develop. Last year, the South Cazolina Supreme Court issued an even stronger declaration that the legislative goal of comprehensive planning could not be achieved if land use ordinances could be enacted or repealed by initiative and referendum. The South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state's land use planning statutes preempted the enactment of land use ordinances by initiative and referendum. The South Cazolina Supreme Court explained its decision with a rationale that is equally compelling when analyzing preemption in Minnesota. It stated: 43Kaiser Hawaii Kai Development Co. v. City and County of Honolulu, 777 P.2d 244, 246-7 (Haw. 1989), quoting Smith v.~ Township of Livington, 256 A.2d 85, 92 (N. J. Super. 1969). aa312 A.2d 154,158 (1973). See also Atlantic City Hous. Coalition v. Deane,181 N.J. Super. 412, 437 A.2d 918 (1981) (holding that it is not within reasonable contemplation that the legislature would intend possibility of fragmentation or disruption of a comprehensive redevelopment process within the municipality by isolated and uncoordinated actions of the local electorate via the initiative process.) -20- "[The State Land Use. Statute] reveals our Legislature's intent that zoning decisions should be made by across-section of unbiased officials after careful deliberation. Whether the zoning decisions involve the development of an overall zoning system or master plan, or the application of established rules in a particulaz case, Title 6 [state land use statute] is designed to allow ample planning and ensure due process for all interested parties. The Legislature has recognized by its enactment of detailed procedures in Title 6 that haphazard or thoughtless decisions are the antithesis of meaningful zoning,. We agree with Developer that the Legislature has not condoned-and we should not approve-a process by which voters could circumvent this deliberative process by deciding zoning matters in an initiative and referendum process. Such a system ultimately could nullify a carefully established zoning system or master plan developed after debate among many interested persons and entities, resulting in azbitrary decisions and patchwork zoning with little rhyme or reason»as Also in the 1990s, the Supreme Courts of Rhode Island and West Virginia issued opinions invalidating land use enactments by initiative and referendum a6 Scholazs and commentators reinforce the conclusion that comprehensive planning statutes must preempt zoning by initiative and referendum if the objectives of such state legislation are to be achieved.a' asI'ON, L.L.C. v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, 526 S.E.2d 716, 721(S.C. 2000) (emphasis added). 46L.A. Realty v. Town Council of the Town of Cumberland, 603 A.2d 311, 315 (R.I. 1992) ("The safeguards and procedural requirements incident to the adoption or amendment of subdivision regulations or zoning ordinances contained in the general enabling acts aze inconsistent and incompatible with the exercise of direct legislation by the voters through the initiative and referendum process."); State ex. Rel. Foster v. City of Morgantown, 432 S.E.2d 195,198 (W.Va. 1993) ("[A] public referendum on an isolated issue related to municipal zoning is inconsistent with comprehensive planning.") a'See e.g., Reber and Mika, "Democratic Excess in the Use of Zoning Referenda" 29 U1ts. LAw 277, 291 (Spring 1997) (concluding that comprehensive planning statutes require planning decisions should follow long-range plans for national land development, reflecting input from land planning experts,. and that the use of referendum would hinder the development of, and compliance with, a comprehensive plan). -21- The initiative process in Richfield contemplates presentation of the proposed ordinance to the City Council for study, hearings (if appropriate), deliberation by elected officials, and ultimately a City Council vote. If the City Council does not enact the proposed ordinance advanced by citizen petition, it is submitted to the electorate at large in a city-wide election. Although the submission of a proposed land use ordinance to the City staff and Council in advance of a general election may reduce some of the constitutional and policy objections to land use legislation-by-initiative, this preliminary step does not prevent such initiatives from being in conflict with and preempted by state statute. The Rhode Island Supreme Court explained why the preliminary submission of a proposed land use initiative to the city council does not save them from invalidation: " ... it would be an idle proceeding .for the board of trustees, after an initiative petition is presented to it, to enter upon an investigation of a proper zoning plan, to give notice of and conduct hearings for the benefit of interested property owners and the public in general, and at the conclusion of its deliberations to have no power to change the terms of the proposed ordinance.i48 A case decided last month by the Court of Appeals illustrates how zoning via initiative and referendum frustrates rational and lawful land use planning, as envisioned by Minnesota Statutes and as construed by the courts.49 In Reilly, the Court of Appeals held that a developer whose application for rezoning was repeatedly denied or delayed by the city was entitled to pursue an injunction to compel rezoning. The developer asserted that the city had previously designated the property at issue as suitable for the zoning status sought. However, voters, by initiative and special election, 48L.A. Ray Realty v. Town Council of the Town of Cumberland, 603 A.2d 311, 3.15 (R.I. 1992). 49Reilly Estates v. City of Ramsey, 2000 WL 1887785 (Minn. App. Dec. 26, 2000) (Unpublished decision). -22- subsequently passed charter amendments in an attempt to limit residential growth. Thereafter, the developer's applications were either delayed or denied. The Court of Appeals cited the charter amendments as evidence that the city would not grant the requested zoning, and ordered a trial on the lawfulness of such action. In the context of our analysis, Reilly illustrates the problems posed by voter initiatives that purport to alter previously established land use directions and_ policies, based upon comprehensive and rational planning by staff and elected officials. Such voter actions would create inconsistencies, uncertainties, and perhaps even arbitrary government action exposing the municipality to liability. C. .The Statutory Premise That Municipalities Are "Interdependent" and That Rational Planning Requires Regional Coordination, Provides Further Support for Statutory Preemption of Initiative and Referendum. Preemption and conflict challenges to the legality of land use initiatives and referenda i become even stronger when considering the legislative mandate requiring re Tonal planning, especially in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The Municipal Planning Act recognizes its uniform set of planning procedures "enables other public agencies to plan their activities in harmony with the municipality's plans. X50 Even more importantly, the Municipal Planning Act expressly incorporates by reference the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act ("MLPA"), leaving absolutely no doubt that the Minnesota legislature views municipalities as interdependent for planning purposes si The premise of the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act is that local government units are interdependent. In that Act, the Legislature declared: "Since problems of urbanization and 50Minn. Stat. § 462.351 (emphasis added). s'See Minn. Stat. § 462.355, incorporating by reference Minn. Stat. §473.121. -23- development transcend local governmental boundaries, there is a need for the adoption of coordinated plans, programs and controls by all local governmental units and school districts in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the metropolitan area and to insure coordinated, orderly and economic development."52 The MLPA established the Metropolitan Council, which "is chazged by the legislature with responsibility for the orderly development of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan region."S3 An important feature of the MLPA is the establishment of "requirements for comprehensive, coordinated land use planning.sS4 Cities such as Richfield are required by the MLPA to prepare and submit "comprehensive plans" for review by the Metropolitan Council. The plans aze aptly termed "comprehensive"; they cover a wide scope of municipal planning issues. "Comprehensive plans prepazed under the MLPA already included, land use, housing, historic preservation, solar access, transportation, wastewater treatment, and parks and • „ss open space. By enacting the MLPA (and other land use. laws passed in the 1970s), "the Legislature reallocated land planning authority from local government to the Metropolitan Council to create an szMinn. Stat. § 473.851. S3City of New Brighton v. Metropolitan Council, 237 N.W.2d 620, 623 (Minrr.1975), citing Minn. Stat. § 473 B.06, subd. 5. saNote, "Recent Developments: Land Use Planning-The Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act," 3 W1~1. MrrCH. L.R: 305 (1977) ("In response to steady, rapid urbanization of the Twin Cities area, the Minnesota Legislature in 1976 declared all metropolitan governmental units to be interdependent and established requirements and procedures for comprehensive, coordinated land use planning.") ssOhm, "Reforming Land Planning Legislation at the Dawn of the 21st Century: The Emergence of Smart Growth and Livable Communities," 32 Urb. Law 181, 205 (2000) (emphasis added) citing Minn. Stat. § 473.859. See also -Ohm, "Growth Management in Minnesota: The Metropolitan Land Planning Act," 16 HAMLINE L: REV. 359 (1993) and Ohm, "Reviving Comprehensive Planning in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area: the 1995 Amendments to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, 8 Minn. R.E.L.J. 81 (1995). -24- integrated regional planning model"S6 More significant to our preemption analysis, the MLPA reflected a legislative intent to "reallocate land use planning responsibility from the local government to the state government. "57 The MLPA confirms the legislative view that land use planning is more than simply "a matter of local concern." The MLPA emphasizes inter-jurisdictional cooperation, regional oversight, and adherence to long-range comprehensive plans in order to realize metropolitan land use planning objectives. These goals may only be realized if all cities adhere to planning and decisionmaking procedures which promote these state policies. The enactment of land use legislation by direct popular election disregards such procedures and would frustrate the state policies the MLPA was enacted to achieve. When the MPA and the MLPA are considered in tandem, there is little doubt that the Legislature has prescribed land use planning procedures which are intended to "occupy the field." Moreover, the enactment of the MLPA in 1976 is the necessary starting point for preemption analysis. Authorities predating the MLPA are of little value in resolving the critical legislative intent questions at the core of preemption. D. The Proposed Initiatives Are Vulnerable to Preemption and Conflict Challenges, Even Though the Initiatives Address Housing, Parking, and Traffic Issues. The proposed Housing, Parking and Traffic Ordinances constitute zoning and land use provisions preempted by state law. The very language of the proposed ordinances confirms that they seOhm, "Growth Management in Minnesota: The Metropolitan Land Planning Act," 16 HAMI.INE L. REV. 359, 372 (1993). Professor Ohm, now at the University of Wisconsin, was formerly Assistant General Counsel of the Metropolitan Council in St. Paul. 57Id. at 369 (emphasis added). Professor Ohm's concluding pazagraph begins: "The Metropolitan Land Planning Act reflects the national trend toward greater state involvement in local land use planning." Id. at 386. -25- are intended as criteria governing a full range of city land use approvals. For example, the proposed Traffic Ordinance states in the fourth preamble that "...City residents want ... to prohibit the City Council from providing City approvals to any projects .that will create unacceptable. traffic conditions." The Proposed Traffic Ordinance defines City approval as follows: City approval:. Any approval or permit required from the City for development, construction and use of occupancy of an office building or office complex, including without limitation zoning amendments, subdivision approvals, conditional. use permits, variances, building permits and occupancy permits, and any license required for the operation of such office building or office complex. Proposed Traffic Ordinance, "Definitions," 9[ (a). The Proposed Housing Ordinance contains a very similar provision. See Proposed Housing Ordinance, Preamble and "Definitions," 9[ (a). Therefore, by their express terms, these proposed Ordinances fall in the category of land use and zoning provisions preempted by state statute. In addition, even if the proposed ordinances are not deemed zoning laws ep r se, they are preempted by statestatutes. The Municipal Planning Act ("MPA") does more than authorize cities to create zoning districts within their jurisdictions. "[T]he Municipal Planning Act of 1965 is specifically designed to give municipalities ... a uniform procedure for adequately conducting and implementing municipal tannin ."S$ The statute makes clear that the-tools of "planning" include, but are by no means limited to, the creation of zoning districts. The Municipal Planning Act confers authority to regulate the "use" as well as the locations of buildings, and activities, and further permits cities to "establish standards and procedures regulating such uses.''S9 Zoning regulations are included SBNaegle Outdoor Advertising Co. v Minn. v. Village of Minnetonka, 162 N.W.2d 206, 215 (Minn. 1968), quoting Minn. Stat. § 462.351 (emphasis added). 59Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1. -26- as an authorized planning device, among others. Similazly, the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act (MI.PA) defines the scope of statutory, statewide planning concerns broadly, specifically including housing and traffic planning.60 Accordingly, the subjects of the proposed initiatives-pazking and traffic regulation and housing policy-fall squarely within the. purview of both the MPA and the MLPA. As such, these proposals are as vulnerable to preemption challenges as aze the referenda challenging zoning actions. This conclusion is compelled by logic as well as by the expansive terms of the Municipal Planning Act and the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act. The MPA and the MLPA preempt local elections seeking to nullify or reverse the decisions of city council members who have followed the uniform, deliberative procedures prescribed by statute. It would be incongruous to prohibit referendum elections regazding zoning actions while simultaneously permitting initiative election on housing or traffic issues which will have the same practical effect on municipal development and planning. So analyzed, the Minnesota Supreme Court would likely declare that the proposed initiatives, as well as the proposed referenda, are preempted by Minnesota Statutes. E. Arguments Against Preemption. In concluding that the Minnesota Supreme Court would likely rule that the proposed initiatives and referenda were preempted by state statute, this Legal Opinon must acknowledge and address the arguments and authorities which could be advanced by proponents of these measures. 1. There are states that permit initiative and referendum on land use matters, despite the existence of state. statutes mandating comprehensive planning. In fact, several recent 60See n. 55, supra. -27- decisions from other jurisdictions reject preemption arguments 61 This argument is unlikely to prevail in Minnesota for the same reason it failed in Hawaii: Many of the state courts rejecting preemption agguments did so, in part, because the right to initiative and referendum was conveyed directly to the citizens by state constitutions or state statutes. As the Hawaii Supreme Court observed: "This Court is mindful that there aze jurisdictions which have upheld zoning by initiative despite the existence of laws calling for comprehensive plans for land use developments, but in each of those jurisdictions there exist constitutional or statutory provisions reserving to the electorate the power of initiative and/or referendum."62 In any event, last year's decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court63 invalidating the use of initiative and referendum in land use matters, along with decisions reaching identical results by the Supreme Court of Hawaii, Rhode Island, 6s and West Virginia over the past 12 years, present compelling justifications for preemption entirely consistent with Minnesota's statutory scheme for land use planning. 2. Proponents of initiative and referendum may azgue that Denney is still good law, and that it stands for the proposition that land use ordinances are subject to initiative and 61See e.g., Fritz v. City of Kingman, 957 P.2d 337 (Ariz. 1998) (proposed rezoning ordinance represents a legislative act subject to referendum; Citizen's Awareness Now v. Marakis, 873 P.2d 1117 (Utah 1994) (whether zoning ordinance subject to referendum turns on its classification as administrative or legislative act). 62Kaiser Hawaii tai Development Co. v. City and County of Honolulu, 777 P.2d 244, 248 (Haw 1989). 63I'ON, L.L.C. v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, 526 S.E.2d 716, 721 (S.C. 2000) (emphasis added) `See note 62, supra. 65L.A. Realty v. Town Council of the Town of Cumberland, 603 A.2d 311, 315 (R.I. 1992). State ex. rel. Foster v. City of Morgantown, 432 S.E.2d 195, 198 (W. Va. 1993). -28- referendum. They might further argue that since Denney, there have been several judicial opinions assuming, in dicta, the availability of initiative and referendum in zoning and planning contexts 67 The Supreme Court of Hawaii: addressed almost identical issues when invalidating zoning by initiative. The Hawaii Supreme Court acknowledged that an earlier opinion might be viewed as implicitly endorsing such direct elections. However, the Hawaii Supreme Court emphasized that following its prior decision was "inappropriate" because the Court "was not faced with the issue of whether zoning by referendum is permissible in light of [Hawaii's Zoning Statutes]: '~ Likewise, the Minnesota Supreme Court was not faced with preemption issues in Denney, and it is likely that our Court would not preclude the analysis of preemption arguments by finding Denney dispositive. Would the Minnesota Supreme Court adopt Denney's legislative/administrative approach to evaluate the validity of initiative and referendum today, even if preemption and conflict challenges were advanced? After all, some jurisdictions still rely on the classification of proposed ordinances as "legislative" or "administrative" when determining the validity of initiative and referendum on land use subjects, even where preemption or conflict arguments have been raised and considered. The Hawaii Supreme Court decision is useful, because that Court had also classified zoning as a "legislative" action previously, but such labeling did not foreclose the ruling that zoning by initiative 67See Hanson v. City of Granite Falls, 529 N.W.2d 485, 488 (Minn. App. 1995) ("....A zoning ordinance will need to be passed in order to establish the new airport. The: voters of Granite Falls may have an opportunity to repeal that ordinance by referendum." [The opinion cites Denney for the proposition that "zoning ordinances are legislative acts subject to referendum."]) 68Kaiser Hawaii Kai Development Co. v. City and County of Honolulu, 777 P.2d 244, 248 (Haw. 1989). -29- was preemptedby state law 69 Moreover, decisions based on classifying litigation as legislative or administrative lead to unpredictable and inconsistent results. A leading treatise exposes the flaws of such an approach as follows: "The legislation/administration distinction, discussed above, is difficult to apply in many contexts, but is especially so in regard to zoning amendments which involve innumerable factual variations .... It is not surprising that court decisions in the various states have produced differing results.s70 Therefore, it is unlikely that the Minnesota Supreme Court. would treat Denney or the le 'dative/administrative test as controlling. 3. Proponents of initiative and referendum might advance authorities discouraging courts from finding preemption in the absence of explicit language.71 However, the doctrine of "implied preemption" appears well-recognized in Minnesota; preemption may be found absent an expression of clear legislative intent to "occupy the field."'Z 69Kaiser Hawaii Kai Development Co. v. City and County of Honolulu, 777 P.2d 244, 251 (Haw. 1989) (dissent). 70Ziegler, Rathkopf s The Law of Zoning, § 29 C.03 (Release #33, 3/90). ~1State v. Dailey, 169 N.W.2d 746, 748 (Minn. 1969). 'ZBoard of Supervisors of Crooks Township v. ValAdCo, 504 N.W.2d 267, 271 (Minn. 1993) (finding local pollution ordinance preempted by, and in conflict with state's "comprehensive statutory scheme" even though the Legislature did not "eliminate uncertainty and forestall litigation by explicitly stating when particular legislation preempts local regulations.") The Court of Appeals has also stated: "It is conceivable that, absent an express indication of the legislature's intent on preemption or conflict, the applicability of the doctrines could be implied." Altenburg v. Bd. of Supervisors of Pleasant Mound Township, 615 N.W.2d 874, 880 (Minn. App.,2000); See City of Birchwood Village v. Simes, 576 N.W.2d 458, 461 (Minn. App. 1998) (affirming the district court's determination "that the statute creating the [other local governing body] preempts any regulations imposed by the city"). -30- 4. Supporters of initiative and referendum may cite the 1976 decision of the United States Supreme Court in City of East Lake v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc.,73 for the twin propositions that (1) initiative and referendum elections represent fundamental expressions of popular democracy and (2) initiative and referendum elections in land use matters do not violate the federal Constitution. References to East Lake will not overcome preemption arguments likely to be persuasive in Minnesota, for the following reasons: (a) East Lake involved a jurisdiction (Ohio) where rights of initiative and referendum were founded in the Constitution and therefore possessed directly by the citizenry. The majority emphasizes the circumstance in its opinion. This is not the case in Minnesota. (b) East Lake addressed a different issue than presented here: the improper delegation of legislative authority. The opinion did not focus on state statutory preemption. Indeed, references to East Lake have been unavailing in the trend of modern cases since 1976 which find land use initiatives and referenda preempted by state law. (c) East Lake focused exclusively on whether such elections violated federal constitutional law. On the other hand, the state statutory preemption argument at issue here focuses on whether the Minnesota Legislature has so "occupied the field" with procedures governing land use decisionmaking that direct elections on these subjects must be considered preempted. In addition to the issues of state statutory law which are the focus of our inquiry here, it must be noted that issues of due process raised by the spectre of direct elections on land use matters may be resolved in accordance with state constitutional law. In sum, those courts which have found state statutory preemption have had no difficulty distinguishing and limiting East Lake to its limited factual context. 73426 U.S. 668 (1976). -31- SECOND QUESTION PRESENTED Are the proposed ordinances authorized or prohibited by the Richfield City Charter? Specifically, do the petitions seek to enact "an ordinance appropriating money or authorizing the levy of taxes," which is prohibited by the Charter? The City Charter prohibits initiatives that propose "an ordinance appropriating money or authorizing the levy of taxes: '74 The citizens committee in this case has proposed two ordinances: an ordinance"to preserve the housing stock of the City of Richfield" (the Housing Ordinance) and an ordinance "to establish traffic and parking regulations" (the Pazking Ordinance). Both would require the expenditure of money by the City, as detailed below. A. The Proposed Ordinances Require Expenditures. Pazagraph 3 of the proposed Housing Ordinance states the City may not approve any project that will displace fifty or more dwelling units "until the City secures the replacement of each dwelling unit with a dwelling unit of equal or better quality at a price that is comparable to the displaced unit within one year after the displacement of the residents for the project."75 "Securing" this replacement housing is defined as "identifying a site and reserving of a source of funds to pay the total development cost of the replacement housing."76 The Housing Ordinance does not require the City to fund the replacement housing in every case of displacement. For "City-assisted projects" that displace "affordable housing," Paragraph 4 74Sections 5.01, 5.04. 'SHousing Ordinance, ~ 3 (emphases added). 76Id. (emphasis added). -32- requires that the source of replacement housing funds be "the developer."" Nonetheless, the City would still be responsible for funding replacement housing if the project that displaces 50 or more dwelling units is not "City-assisted" or does not involve the displacement of "affordable housing."'g The proposed Parking Ordinance also anticipates the expenditure of City money. The Pazking Ordinance applies to off-street pazking lots or garages with a capacity for 5,000 or more parking spaces.'9 Paragraph 5 applies to parking lot or garage accesses located within one mile of a public or private school with students in grades K - 1280 In those cases, the City "shall, by exercise of its power of eminent domain if necessary, regulate or take" the accesses "to prevent. excessive traffic during normal school hours.s81 Every part of the City is within one mile of a public or private school, meaning the ordinance would apply to any 5,000 pazking space garage or lot developed in Richfield. The City would then have to "regulate or take," "by the power of eminent domain, if necessary," the accesses to these facilities. The inherent expenditure in this ordinance is the "just compensation" the City would have to provide for any property it is required to take.82 "Housing Ordinance, ~ 4. 78Housing Ordinance, ~~ 3, 4. '9Pazking Ordinance, ~ 2, 4 and 5. Note: The proposed Pazking Ordinance does not have a Pazagraph 3. 80Parking Ordinance, ~ 5. 81Id. (emphases added). 82Minn. Const. art 1, § 13. See also Richfield City Charter, Chapter 9 (Eminent Domain). -33- B. Are the Proposed Housing and Parking Ordinances Prohibited by Charter as Ordinances "Appropriating Money" Because Compliance Would Require the City to Spend Money? At first reading, it would appear that the proposed ordinances are barred by City Charter because they would force the City to incur expenses. However, a decision of the Minnesota Court of Appeals complicates this analysis. In Gould v. City of Bloomington,83 the Court of Appeals held that an ordinance that increased raising the salaries. of the mayor and the six city council members was subject to the referendum provisions of the Bloomington City Charter. The Bloomington City Charter reserved to the people of Bloomington the powers "to initiate and adopt any ordinance, except an ordinance appropriating money or authorizing the levy of taxes" and "to require such an ordinance when passed by the council to be referred. to the electors for approval or disapproval: '~ A-group of citizens submitted a petition for a voter referendum on the ordinance approving the raises.85 The Cit refused to certify the referendum petition because, among other things, it believed Y the monetary nature of the ordinance shielded it from a referendum vote.86 The Court of Appeals rejected this argument without explanation .and found the ordinance neither an appropriation of money nor a tax levy.87 The Richfield City Charter contains the same prohibition construed in Gould. 83394 N.W.2d 149 (Minn. App. 1986). 84Gould, 394 N.W.2d at 151 - 152, quoting Bloomington, Minn. Charter § 5.01. ssld. at 150. sold. at 151. S7Id. at 152. -34- The Court of Appeals did not explain the rationale for its ruling in Gould, and neither the Gould decision nor this issue has been addressed in later published opinions. Once again, this Legal Opinion must predict how the Minnesota Supreme Court would .construe the law. There are two possible interpretations of Gould. Proponents of the Richfield initiative proposal might argue that Gould implicitly distinguishes between ordinances requiring "appropriations" of money and those which merely authorize the City to incur expenses. (This argument might presume that the City could pay for new expenses without authorizing new "appropriations.") Under this reasoning, the proposed initiative would not be barred by charter. The outcome in Gould would be cited in support of this position. However,. even if Gould is deemed governing legal authority, the proposed Housing Ordinance may still fall within the Charter prohibition against appropriations. Paragraph 3 of the proposed Housing Ordinance requires the City to "reserv[e] a source of funds to pay the total development cost" of replacement housing. The Ordinance. does not explain what it means to "reserve" funds for this purpose. However, if "reserve" means to designate specific portions of the City budget for replacement housing, it would appear to be the type of "appropriation" forbidden under the City Charter. The distinction between an "expenditure" and an. "appropriation" does not save the proposed Housing Ordinance; it is likely prohibited by Charter under any construction of Gould. Gould's application to the proposed Parking Ordinance is uncertain. A closer examination of the precise issues considered. in Gould diminishes the impact of that decision on our analysis of the proposed Richfield initiatives. The briefs filed by the attorneys in Gould spotlight the issue presented there: May citizens conduct a referendum to enact legislation which revents the City -35- . from appropriating money?88 The City of Bloomington took the position that the pay raises passed by the city council involved "appropriations," and any ordinance involving the appropriation of funds could not be challenged by referendum.89 The petitioners argued that the electorate had the right to stop elected officials from giving themselves raises and pilfering public funds. Viewed from the petitioners' perspective, the referendum question did not involve an appropriation-but just the opposite. The Court of Appeals agreed with the petitioners and permitted the referendum. When Gould is properly understood, it might very well be limited to the very specific dispute there at issue: the effort by citizens to revent officials from spending more public funds (on themselves). The absence of explanation or reasoning in that opinion reduces its impact as persuasive authority supporting the initiatives proposed by petitioners in Richfield. In sum, the proposed ordinances are vulnerable to challenges based on the Richfield City • Charter. The .housing ordinance is most vulnerable. Under either construction of Gould, the proposed Housing Ordinance would likely be barred by Charter as requiring appropriations of money. The proposed Parking Ordinance would certainly force the City to incur costs, such as expenditures for "just compensation." While presenting a closer question, the parking ordinance-with its directives to acquire property via eminent domain-maybe excluded by charter as an inappropriate subject of referendum as well. At very least, the cryptic ruling on this point in Gould would not foreclose a re-examination of the "appropriating money" prohibition in the $~'I'he plaintiffs' brief emphasized that the referendum sought to rohibit salary increases for .city council members: Referendum sought to revent the expenditure of funds: "If there could be no referendum by the people on a city ordinance allowing a salary increase, this could possibly invite a `looting' of the city treasury fnr exnrhitant salaries to electer~ nfficialc_" Plc Rriaf ;n (ini.l~ at R g~'I'he City took the position that a referendum was improper on any issue involving appropriations, whether to authorize appropriations or to prevent them. City's Brief in Gould, at p. 17. -36- Richfield City Charter. THIRD QUESTION PRESENTED Are the ordinances proposed by the initiative petitions unconstitutional as currently drafted? If the proposed ordinances are unlawful as currently worded, may the City correct or revise language in the proposed ordinance in order to eliminate grounds for potential legal challenge? A. Introduction: The City's Authority To Reject An Unconstitutional Proposal. The City Council has the right to refuse to put an ordinance it believes to be unconstitutional on the ballot, even if the petition supporting the ordinance meets all other City Charter initiative requirements. In Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Minneapolis (HRA) v. City of Minneapolis,90 the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the trial court's determination that a proposed • amendment to the Minneapolis City Charter was unconstitutional because it was vague and because it violated the equal protection rights of the voters it hoped to exclude from future housing decisions. The Court also upheld the trial court's injunction that prevented the City of Minneapolis from placing this "manifestly unconstitutional" charter amendment on the ballot.91 The Court believed that preventing the vote in the first place was preferable to allowing the vote and then ruling on the proposal's validity: It was therefore proper for the trial court to enjoin the election rather than permit the administration and the voters of the city of Minneapolis to experience the frustration and. expense of setting up election machinery and going to the polls in a process which was ultimately destined to be futile.92 90HRA, 198 N.W.2d at 537. 91Id. at 536. ~Id. -37- . The Court reached the same conclusion in Davies v. City of Minneapolis, 316 N.W.2d 498 (Minn. 1982). The Court found the proposed charter amendment to be unconstitutional because it impaired the contractual rights of the bondholder in that case.93 The Court specifically addressed whether a city may refuse to place an appropriate initiative on the ballot: "When a proposed charter amendment appears to be manifestly unconstitutional, the City Council must have the authority to avoid what would amount to a futile election and a total waste of taxpayers' money."9a Any city that wishes to invoke this authority should do so with some caution, however. The Court, in the above cases, upheld the decision not to allow votes on the respective initiatives, but only because the proposals were "manifestly unconstitutional." The Court did not define what it meant by "manifestly unconstitutional," but the context suggests that the unconstitutional aspect must be apparent from the terms of the proposal, as opposed to being unconstitutional as applied in a specific instance. The City. should not reject an ordinance for this reason unless it is reasonably confident the ordinance is unconstitutional and the unconstitutional aspect of the ordinance is obvious on its face. B. Are the Proposed Ordinances "Manifestly Unconstitutional"? "Ordinances, like statutes, are presumed valid and may not be found unconstitutional unless clearly invalid or shown beyond a reasonable doubt to violate the constitution."9S The party vsDavies, 316 N.W.2d at 504. 941d. ,citing HRA. See also Minneapolis Term Limits Coalition v. Keefe, 535 N.W.2d 306, 308 (Minn. 1995), citing Davies, HRA, and State ex rel. Andrews v. Beach,155 Minn. 33,191 N.W. 1012 (1923). 95Press v. City of Minneapolis, 553 N.W.2d 80, 84 (Minn.Ct.App. 1996), citing Essling V. Markman, 335 N.W.2d 237, 239 (Minn. 1983) and State v. Ellis, 441 N.W.2d 134; 136-137 • (Minn.Ct.App.1989). -38- . challenging the constitutionality of an ordinance has the burden of proof. There are two sources of constitutionality concerns: (1) are the terms of the ordinances excessively vague? (2) Do the ordinances expose the City to liability for unconstitutional takings? 1. Vagueness. An ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague "if persons of common intelligence can readily determine what constitutes a violation and what meets the requirements of the ordinance."~' Nevertheless, both of the proposed ordinances contain terms or provisions whose meanings or implications are not immediately clear: Housing Ordinance -Paragraph 3 of this Ordinance requires the City to replace displaced housing with "equal or better quality housing." The Ordinance does not define that term, nor does it indicate how the City will be able to determine when it has satisfied this requirement. Parking Ordinance -Paragraph 5 of this Ordinance requires the City to "regulate or take" accesses to parking lots or garages with 5,000 vehicle capacities "to prevent excessive traffic." The term "excessive traffic" is not defined in the ordinance. This again makes it difficult for the City to know when it must "regulate or take" a given access or when it has achieved success in controlling the amount of traffic to and from the access. 2. Potential Takings Liabilities. The Minnesota Constitution states that, "Private property shall not be taken, destroyed or damaged for public use without just compensation therefor, first paid or secured."98 A city may take Press, 553 N.W.2d at 84, citing Ellis, 441 N.W.2d at 137. 97Id. at 85. • 98Minn. Const. art 1, § 13. -39- . private property, but it must do so for a public purpose and for "just compensation."99 What constitutes a "public purpose" is a question for the courts.100 The Parking Ordinance contains explicit takings requirements in Paragraph 5 regazding certain pazking lot/gazage accesses. However, the Housing Ordinance also contains provisions that may have implicit takings implications. Specifically, Paragraph 3 prohibits the City from approving a development project that displaces 50 or more housing units until the City can "secure" replacement housing. "Securing" replacement housing includes identifying a site and reserving funds to pay for that housing. The City must do this within one yeaz of the displacement. If not, the City cannot approve the project. If the City were ever to reject an otherwise valid application. because it could not "secure" replacement housing, it is possible that it could be liable to the applicant for. a taking of his or her property. C. A Conclusive. Legal Opinion Regarding the Constitutionality of the Proposed Ordinances as Worded Is Premature in Advance of Further Sta, f,~'Consideration and Input. This Opinion has akeady concluded that the proposed initiatives are likely preempted by state statute and may also be barred by city charter. Whether constitutional challenges provide a third independent and alternative basis for invalidating these proposals requires further dialogue involving city staff, the city .attorney, and the city council. In particulaz, these participants must address whether terms such as "equal or better quality housing" and "excessive traffic" are terms of art with specific meanings, or whether these phrases can be defined with reference to readily ascertainable Wegner v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance Company, 479 N.W.2d 38, 40 (Minn. 1991), reh. denied, January 27, 1992 (citations omitted). • 100Wegner, 479 N.W.2d at 40 (citations omitted). -40- • standards. If such standards or benchmarks do not exist, realistic hypothetical scenarios should be explored to determine whether reasonable people might disagree about whether these criteria have been satisfied. Neither staff nor the public should be forced to guess about whether certain actions satisfy or violate the ordinances. If guesswork is required, the ordinance is manifestly unconstitutional. D. The City May Not Revise or Rewrite the Proposed Ordinances to Eliminate Grounds for Constitutional Challenge. The Minnesota Supreme Court strongly discourages efforts by city council or staff to revise ordinances proposed by petitioners in order to shield them from legal challenge. The Court stated in HRA: We cannot search the minds of those who signed the petition to ascertain their intent. In the absence of such prescience, we feel compelled to hold that the proposal which • would be submitted to the voters is not the one which the petitioners sought to have adopted ... [W]e think the better rule is to prevent an election directed only at a proposal which has been substantially emasculated.101 The City Charter does give the City Council the option of approving its own version of a proposed ordinance.102 If four-fifths of the sponsoring committee expresses dissatisfaction with the amended version within 10 days of its approval, however, the City Charter suggests the original ordinance should then go before the voters.103 The City Council would have to decide in that case if it had sufficient reason to prevent the vote on one or more of the grounds discussed above. ioiHRA, 198 N.W.2d at 538. 102City Charter, Section 5.07. • 'osld -41- • • • Dated: ~ p~l.a~ Respectfully Submitted, Cliffor M. Gr ne Green Espel, P.L.L.P. 333 South Seventh Street, #1700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 -42- C] • AGENDA SECTION: Admin. Reports AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2001 DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: STEVEN L. DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE STEVEN L. DEVICH ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TLE J~,~'A `. '~ 7 ~ SIGNATURE '' ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Certification of petitions regarding Replacement Housing Stock Initiative and Traffic and Parking Requirements Initiative. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:- No Action Required. Receive the City Clerk's Certification of the following two initiative petitions regarding: • Replacement Housing Stock • Traffic and Parkins Requirements. III. BACKGROUND The Richfield City Charter, Chapter 5, establishes a procedure for Initiative, Referendum and Recall. Charter Section 5.04 provides the authority for five registered voters of Richfield to form a Sponsoring Committee for the purpose of submitting a petition to initiate an ordinance. The process for filing such an initiative petition provides that at least 5% of the total • number of registered voters at the time of the last regular election sign such petition and that it be submitted to the City Clerk for examination to determine whether the petition has the sufficient amount of valid signatures. 0212initiative Once the City Clerk has completed the examination process, the Clerk is to notify the sponsoring committee of the findings and, if the number of signatures is found to be sufficient, certify the findings to the City Council at its next regular meeting.. On January 19, 2001 a Sponsoring Committee consisting of five registered Richfield voters submitted two initiative petitions to the City Clerk. One petition proposes an ordinance initiative that would require the replacement of displaced housing units for certain projects before the City approve such project.. The second proposed ordinance initiative would create traffic and parking regulations for high-density office developments. The Acting City Clerk completed an examination of both petitions in the time frame proscribed in the City Charter. Both petitions were found to be sufficient, in that they contained the signatures of at least 5% of the registered voters at the time of the last regular election. The Acting City Clerk then made all necessary notifications pursuant to the City Charter. The City Charter provides that the City Clerk now certify these findings to'the City Council at the regular meeting of February 12, 2001. • III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The provisions of the: City Charter guide initiative and referendum procedures for the City of Richfield. • The Acting City Clerk followed those provisions after the petitions were received. B. CRITICAL ISSiJES • The timing for examination of the petition signatures and certification to the City Council are in compliance with the City Charter. • Since the City Clerk's examination of the petitions' signatures, the City has received five letters from individuals asking that their names be removed from the petitions. C. FINANCIAL • None D. LEGAL • The City Charter requires the City Clerk to certify the findings of the examination of the petitions to the City Council at the February 12, 200.1 meeting. ALTERNATIVE KECOMMENDATION(S) ~ • None. The City Clerk must certify the findings. to the City Council • I V . ATTACHMENTS I • Copies of the blank initiative petitions including proposed ordinance language. • The results of the Acting City Clerk's findings of sufficiency. • Letter of notification to Sponsoring Committee. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. INITIATIVE PETITION Proposing an ordinance to preserve the housing stock of the City of Richfield, a copy of which ordinance is attached hereto. This ordinance is sponsored by the following committee of registered voters: Name Address 1. Dewayne Sietsema 6724 Vincent Avenue South, Richfield, MN 2. Deb Nordmarken 6933 Sheridan Avenue South, Richfield, MN 3. Peggy Handt 7545 Colfax Avenue South, Richfield, MN 4. Myrle Richter 7615 Dupont Avenue South, Richfield, MN 5. Joseph Krryzaniak 1920 West 76~' Street, Richfield, MN The undersigned registered voters, understanding the terms and nature of the ordinance attached, petition the Council for its adoption, or, in lieu thereof, for its submission to the voters for approval. Name Address 1. s 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. - 13. • 14. 15. STATE OF NIINNESOTA ) ss.: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The undersigned, being duly sworn, says that the undersigned is the circulator of the foregoing Initiative Petition and each signature appended to the Initiative Petition, is the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be. Subscribed and sworn to before me this Name: day of December, 2000. Address: Notary Public Hennepin County, Minnesota My Commission Expires ORDINANCE 2006204v3 ORDINANCE • WHEREAS, the City of Richfield's (the "City"} Comprehensive Plan, which guides the presern and future development of the City, states that the City's goal is to achieve a standard of land use reflective of Richfield's "hometown" character, and WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelop Authority of the City of Richfield has designated a majority of the City to be subject to redevelopment, and WHEREAS, since 1995 the shortage of housing that is affordable to low and moderate income families has intensified in the Twin Cities for a variety of reasons, including the demolition of housing for redevelopment, and WHEREAS, the City supports a balanced housing supply, with housing available to individuals and families of all ages and levels of income in the purchase, sale, rental and location of housing within the Richfield community, and WHEREAS, in order to preserve affordable housing and a balanced supply of housing for families • at all levels of income, the residerns of the City warn to adopt an ordinance prohibiting City approvals and City-assistance for projects that will result in the net loss of fi$y or more dwelling units unless the City can determine that the lost dwelling units will be replaced with comparable dwelling units within one year a$er such dwelling units are removed from the housing stock. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. All applicarns for City approvals shall include in their applications for City approvals an analysis ofthe effect ofthe project on housing stock within the City. The required analysis shall include a description of the total number of dwelling units to be demolished or converted to a use other than housing and a statemern of the net gain or loss of dwelling units resuhing from the project. If the analysis discloses a loss of fi$y or more dwelling units, the report shall include the following additional information, about each dwelling unit: i. number of bedrooms; • ii. currern gross rern (for rental units); iii. fair market value (for all dwelling units); iv. analysis of physical condition of each dwelling unit, including structural, mechanical and electrical systems, prepared by a licensed architecx, engineer, or residential coxmactor; and v. probable replacemern cost of each unit, including land costs. 2006204v3 2 3. The City shall not issue any City approval for any project that will displace fifty or more dwelling units until the City secures the replacement of each dwelling unit with a dwelling unit of equal or better quality at a price that is comparable to the displaced unit within one year after the displacement of the residents for the project. The City shall secure replacement by ideirtifying a site and reserving of a source of funds to pay the total development cost of the replacement housing. 4. For City-assisted projects, if the housing to be displaced is affordable housing, the source of funds for the replacement housing must be the developer of the City-assisted project. No City-assisted redevelopment project may proceed with demolition of housing until the City has secured replacement housing. 5. Upon the approval of a plan and financing for replacemer dwelling units, the Director of the Richfield Housing and Redevelopmen Authority shall oversee and monitorthe implementation ofthe plan. 6. This ordinance is effective upon the date of enactment and applies to all City approvals and all City-assisted projects, including City approvals and City assistance for projects for which the City has • approved financial assistance or authorized or commenced eminent domain proceedings. DEFINITIONS (a) Affordable housing: Housing that is affordable to low or moderate income households, as those terms are determined by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. (b) City: the City of Richfield, the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and any other division or agency of the City of Richfield. (c) City approval: Any land use or development approval or permit required for development and construction of a project, including without limitation rezoning amendments, subdivision approvals, conditional use permits,. variances, building permits, and certificates of occupancy; and any other approval the City is authorized to grant, including any license required for the conduct of a business in a project. • (d) City assistance: Public financial assistance or aid in securing public financial assistance, including any state or federal grants administered by the City, any bond financing for which the City is the issuer, tax increment financing, tax abatement, tax levies, funds or revenues controlled by the City; exercise of the City's power of eminerrt domain to acquire land for a redevelopment project, or any other action undertaken by the City on behalf of a developer or an agency proposing a redevelopment project. (e) City-Assisted Project: a housing, commercial, office or industrial real estate redevelopment project to which the City of Richfield provides City assistance. (f) Dwelling units: living quarters for one family only, including single family residences and aparlrnents within multi-family residences and including reirtal units and owner-occupied units. 2006204x3 3 • • U STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss.: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The undersigned, being duly sworn, says that the undersigned is a member of the sponsorship committee for the foregoing Ordinance and the Initiative Petition. to which it is attached, which are the Ordinance and Initiative Petition that the sponsorship committee prepared for filing with the City Clerk of the City of Richfield and for signature by registered voters. This verification is provided in compliance with Sections 5.04 and 5.05 of Appendix A to the City Charter of Richfield, Minnesota. Name: ~ i /~UD~I~CI~ ~-C~ Address: -~~ x ~' ~I Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of December, 2000. `-11,n~,~.. ; .~ ~~ .1~ Notary Publ~ Hennepin County, Minnesota My Commission Expires 2006204v3 -31-C~ NAPS::"' ~ . GIBBS i~~ . :y public ,~sota My Comraas...:.rpires Jan. 31.2005 4 TRAFFIC AND PARKING ORDINANCE e I1~tITIATIVE PETITION Proposing an ordinance to establish traffic and parking regulations to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. A copy of which ordinance is hereto attached This ordinance is sponsored by the following committee of registered voters: Name Address 1. Dewayne Sietsema 6724 Vincent Avenue Richfield, MN 2. Deb Nordmarken 6933 Sheridan Avenue Richfield, MN 3. Peggy Handt 7545 Colfax Avenue Richfield, MN 4. Myrle Richter 7615 Dupont Avenue Richfield, MN 5. Joseph Krzyzaniak 1920 West 76~' Street Richfield, MN The undersigned registered voters, understanding the terms and nature of the ordinance attached, petition the Council for its adoption, or, in lieu thereof, for its submission to the voters for approval. Name Address • 1 , 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. STATE OF NIINNESOTA ) ss.: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The undersigned, being duly sworn, says that the undersigned is the circulator of the foregoing Initiative Petition and each signature appended to the Initiative Petition, is the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be. Subscribed and sworn to before me this Name: day of December, 2000. Address: Notary Public Hennepin County, Minnesota My Commission Expires ORDINANCE . WHEREAS, increased traffic volume negatively impacts the health, safety and general welfare ofthe residents ofthe City of Richfield (the "City'; diminishes residential property values; diminishes the quality of life for all City residents; and creates hazards for drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists; WHEREAS, traffic generated by high density office development may exceed the capacity of existing City streets, increase already high levels oftraffic congestion on City streets that provide access to and from the Inrterstate 35W and 494 entrance ramps, and increase traffic on existing residential streets by motorists seeking alternative routes to avoid the Interstate 35W and 494 ernrance ramps; WHEREAS, the peak hours for traffic generated by office development coincide with the hours during which children travel to and from school and therefore increase the likelihood of traffic accidents involving children; and WHEREAS, City residents walrt to amend Chapter XIII ofthe Richfield City Code to establish a traffic and parking regulations to protect the public health, safety and general welfare; to regulate development that increases traffic volume; and to prohibit the City Council from providing City approvals to any projects that will create unacceptable traffic conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Chapter XI[I of the Richfield City Code is hereby amended to create traffic- and parking regulations for high-density office developments. 2. All applicants for City approvals for office buildings within the City. of Richfield for which the minimum off-street parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Richfield equals or exceeds 5,000 parking spaces must satisfy the following requirements as a condition of the issuance of any City approval: (a) All applicants for City approvals shall include in their applications for City approvals a travel demand management plan (TDM) prepared by a licensed traffic engineer in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering practice, which TDM shall address the transportation impacts ofthe development on air quality, parking and roadway infrastructure within the City. (b) The City manage shall review the TDM and shall recommend any mitigating measures deemed reasonably necessary, and the City manager or the parry or body responsible for issuing the City approval shall include such recommendations as conditions ofthe issuance of such City approval. (c) Any TDM shall contain at least the following: (1) A description ofthe goals ofthe TDM and its relationship to applicable city transportation policies and programs. (2) A description of the transportation impacts ofthe development, including but not limited to forecasts of overall and peak period employment,. 2019596v4 forecasts of trips generated and mode splits, parking demand and parking i supply available, changes in levels of service at existing intersections and transit demand and transit supply available. (3) A description of mitigating measures designed to minimize the transportation impacts of the development, including but not limited to on-site transit facilities, transit use incernives, preferential location of car pool and van pool parking, on-site bicycle facilities including secure storage areas and amenities, staggered starting times and telecommuting opportunities. 4. The City shall not issue any City approval for any project that, (a) according to the approved TDM and the Institute of Traffic Engineers rating system, will result in the creation or continuation of (i) a Level of Service of E, or F at any time at any itrtersection affected by the project or (ii) a Level of Service of D, E, or F at any intersection with a one mile. radius of any public or private school for students in grades Kindergarten through 12; or (b) will locate an access to a public right-of--way from a parking lot or parking garage, or any combination of both, serving more than 5,000 cars within a one mile radius of any public or private school for students in grades Kindergarten through 12. 5. With respect to any access to a public right-of--way from any parking lot or parking garage, or combination of both, with a capacity of 5,000 cars or more, existing as ofthe effective date ofthis ordinance that is within a one-mile radius of a public or private school for students in grades kindergarten through 12, the City shall, by exercise of its power of eminent domain if necessary, regulate or take such access to prevent excessive traffic during normal school hours, as such hours may be established by the school district. 6. This ordinance is effective upon the date of enactment and applies to any City approval that has not been grarned as ofthe effective date. DEFINITIONS (a) City approval: Any approval or permit required from the City for developmern, construction and use of occupancy of an office building or office complex, including without limitation zoning amendments, subdivision approvals, conditional use permits, variances, building permits and occupancy permits, and any license required for the operation of such office building or office complex. 2019596v4 STATE OF MINNESOTA • COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ss.: The undersigned, being duly sworn, says that the undersigned is a member of the sponsorship committee for the foregoing Ordinance and the Initiative Petition to which it is attached, which are the Ordinance and Initiative Petition that the sponsorship committee prepared for filing with the City Clerk of the City of Richfield and for signature by registered voters. This verification is provided in compliance with Sections 5.04 and S.OS of Appendix A to the City Charter of Richfield, Minnesota. Name: ~ LEi~~ . Address: ' ~ i~~ ~~ ~~ U • Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of December, 2000. Notary Pul~'IJi c Hennepin Coumy, Minnesota My Commission Expires ~ ",?jJ- ~,S NANCY tC. GIBBS y ~-;Mary Public f.9inneS010 (Ny Commission Expires Jan.31.2005 2019596x4 ~ r ••~ O N ~ N O ~' ~_ ~ U ~ N C O 3 "~ C N N '~ C c O v O ='' c ai X W ~ Y '~ U •~ •Un Y ~ > CO c '~ ~ N N ~ ~' to O N r• O I O M tp r ~ r fA : r' O ~' .. ~ c_ . N CA o ~ c ~ 0 rn c I i 0 C~O ° C~O r _ CO N N O ~ O ~ ~ ~ O N ~ ~ N M ~S ;~ U_ •C 00 > ~ C C ~ ° ~ ~ _ f` d• r O ~ O O ~ ~ .c y . ~ N ~ '~7 ~' CO ~ Q ~ ~ O ~ ~ Ua ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ti ~ N COO M O ~ p ~' 0 0 N C ~ O •C ~ N N ~ `gyp ~ C ~ V j Q O ~ ~ j •c N ° a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ti 3 ~p ~ ~ ~ o ti a o ~ ~, c •~ ~ a~ •v c a °' p ~ a i .. >~ ~ a o ai '° o •c oo~ m .c ~ 4 ~ 0 •O ~' >a m ~ ~ c ~ ~ o ~~y ~ o m ~ ~ ~ ~ 'd ~ ~ ? ~ m ~ C ~' N ~ ~ o ~ Eo ~Q a N t_ ° ~ NmO ~ ~L NCO ~ 'Ci 'CC .Z`•~p ,~~ c a ° a N per cif ~ = p ~ ".. ~ ,C ~ cti .: ~ C m ~ ~ O ~ ° v-. ~ ~'o ~ TMj Cn vw~ ~ ctf a ca o ~ o'4 ° ao Q _ me ~ ~ 3"' _ . ~ y a. ° c z O ° ~ Oc - ^ m rnQ a • c ~ ~ orno._ ~ ~nOy_ ~y~~ Z~ :?~o ~o'°' ~ c-oaai ° ~O a ~ o ~ ca~ ~ a°'i m Q.v~ m c a~ m ca.~ y ~'c y c , p~ ~ a, c z °> is •L a> L o a~ o ;~+ of ~ o ctf ° s: ~~ m c~ a v r v~o ° c a.p~'r ~ •- c c ~ O ~ ca ° ~ o o °,Q ~ -o ° c o ~ ~ .r. a~ :~ o U ~ a'QU ~ ~ Z~O ,, c~•~ ti -~ ~`.O ~ - (~~O C d Qtn >> CA> d F r~ ~~ D<«ay~ne Sietsema 67?~ `"incent Avenue Debra Nordmarken 6933 Sheridan Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Peggy Handt 7545 Colfax Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 RE: Initiative and Referendum Petitions Dear Committee Members: Myrle Richter 7615 Dupont Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Joseph K:rzYzaniak 1920 West 76~ Street Richfield, MN 55423 • The office of the Richfield City Clerk has completed its examination of the initiative and referendum petitions submitted by your committee on January 19, 2001. The results will be certified to the City Council at its next regular meeting on Monday, February 12, 2001, commencing at 7 p.m. The preliminary resuhs are provided on the enclosed table. The results aze preliminary, because signers have the opportunity to withdraw their signatures up to the time of the February 12 council meeting. The petitions, including the City's records of disqualified signatures, are available for review at City Hall. If you would like to review any of the records, please contact Nancy Gibbs at 612-861-9730. Yours truly, Steven Devich Acting City Clerk • • AGENDA SECTION: ~Llmri ~ FZez orts AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # 4 Q STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2001 • REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: STEVEN L. DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE STEVEN L. DEVICH SERVICES DIRECTOR ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Certification of referendumpetitions regarding repeal of: • ordinance approving Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and • ordinance amendment to Section Appendix 1 of the Ordinance Code. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: No Action Required. Receive the City Clerk's certification of the two referendum petitions proposing the repeal of: • Ordinance approving Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and • Ordinance amendment to Section Appendix 1of the Ordinance Code. II. BACKGROUND The Richfield City Charter, Chapter 5, establishes a procedure for Initiative, Referendum and Recall. Charter Section 5.11 provides the authority for registered voters of Richfield to submit a petition to request the repeal of an ordinance. . The process for filing such a referendum petition provides that at least 10% of the total number of registered voters at the time of the last regular election sign such petition and that it be submitted to the City Clerk for examination to determine whether the petition has the sufficient amount of valid signatures. 0212referendum Once the City Clerk has completed the examination process, the Clerk is to notify • the Sponsoring Committee_of the findings and if the number of signatures is found to be sufficient, certify the findings to the City Council at its next regular meeting. On January 19, 2001 a Sponsoring Committee consisting of five registered Richfield voters submitted two referendum petitions to the City Clerk. One petition proposes the repeal of an ordinance amending the City's Comprehensive Plan. The second referendum petition proposes the repeal of an ordinance amendment to Section Appendix 1 of the City Ordinance Code. The Acting City Clerk completed an examination of both petitions in the time frame proscribed in the City Charter. Both petitions were found to be sufficient, in that they contained the signatures of at least 10% of the registered voters at the time of the last regular election. The Acting City Clerk then made all necessary notifications pursuant to the City Charter. The City Charter provides that the City Clerk now certify these findings to the City Council at the regular meeting of February 12, 2001. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The provisions of the City Charter guide initiative and referendum procedures for the City of Richfield. • The Acting .City Clerk followed those provisions after the petitions were received. • B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The timing for examination of the petition signatures and certification to the City Council are in compliance with the City Charter. • Since the City Clerk's examination of the petitions' signatures, the City has received five letters from individuals asking that their names be removed from the petitions. C. FINANCIAL • None D. LEGAL, • .The City Charter requires the City Clerk to certify the findings of the examination of the petitions to the City Council at the February 12, 2001 meeting. ~ IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ ~ • None. The City Clerk must certify the findings to the City Council I V . ATTACHMENTS I • Copies of the blank referendum petitions including the specific ordinance language proposing to be repealed. • The results of the Acting -City Clerk's findings of sufficiency. • Letter of notification to Sponsoring Committee. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. REFERENDUM PETITION • Proposing the repeal of the attached ordinance to revise the comprehensive plan. The proposed repeal is sponsored by the following committee of registered voters: Name Address 1. Dewayne Sietsema 6724 Vincent Avenue South, Richfield, MN 2. Deb Nordmarken 6933 Sheridan Avenue South, Richfield, MN 3. Peggy Hands 7545 Colfax Avenue South, Richfield, MN 4. Myrle Richter 7615 Dupont Avenue South, Richfield, MN 5. Joseph Krzyz:aniak 1920 West 76~` Street, Richfield, MN The undersigned registered voters, understanding the terms and nature of the ordinance hereto attached, and believing it to be detrimental to the welfare of the City, petition the Council for its submission to the voters for approval or disapproval Name Address L 2. • \ 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. • 14. 15. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss.: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The undersigned, being duly sworn, says that the undersigned is the circulator of the Referendum Petition to which this Affidavit is attached and each signature appended to the Referendum Petition is the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be. Subscribed and sworn to before me this Name: day of December, 2000. Address: Notary Public Hennepin. County, Minnesota My Commission Expires 2020403v1 C: AFFIDAVIT VERIFIED COPY OF ORDINANCE December ~, 2000 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ss.: The undersigned, being duly sworn, says that the undersigned is a member of the sponsorship committee for the foregoing Referendum Petition, attached hereto is a true and correct copy of the ordinance that is the subject of this Referendum Petition, which the sponsorship committee obtained from the City Clerk of the City of Richfield, and this is the Referendum Petition the sponsorship committee has prepared for filing with the City Clerk of the City of Richfield and for circulation for signature by registered voters. This verification is provided in compliance with Sections 5.04 and 5.05 of Appendix A to the City Charter of Richfield, Minnesota. Name: Address: Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of December, 2000. •~ • Notary Public ennepin County, Minnesota My Commission Expires % -,~ / _ D ~ • NANCY K. GIBES Notary Public Minnesota ~~pnmtssion ExpiresJan.3~. 2020403v • BILL NO. 2000-19 TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. 17.99 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS AMENDED CONCERNING THE INTERCHANGE WEST AREA THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The City's Comprehensive Plan provides a Guide Plan establishing classifications for individual property. The property located in the Interchange West area, specifically between Knox and Penn Avenues and 76th Street and midway between 77th and 76th Street is designated R-SFH (high density single family residential) and C-N (neighborhood .commercial) (the "subject area"]. The City has. reviewed the Guide .Plan classifications and determined that it would be appropriate to classify this area as C-R/O (regional commercial/office). Section 2. The Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing concerning modifying the Guide Plan classifications of property in the subject area. The Planning • Commission approved the modification on March 28, 2000 following a public hearing. The City Council held a public hearing on the amendment on April 24, 2000 and May 8, 2000. The Metropolitan Council approved the amendment on September 27, 2000. The City Council held a public hearing on the ordinance adopting the amendment on November 27 and December 11; and Section 3. The City of Council makes the following findings of fact: A. An objective of the Comprehensive Plan is to "advocate and support with municipal investment a high quality visual environment throughout the City and particularly along major transportation corridors." The proposed amendment is consistent with this objective. B The amendment is also consistent with the following goal of the . Comprehensive Plan: "Provide an economic climate within Richfield that will encourage the availability of quality goods, services and employment opportunities for residents." C The amendment is consistent -with the Comprehensive Plan goal to, . "Promote diverse development that .will broaden the tax base while reinforcing the residential character of .Richfield," and .with its accompanying objective, "promote development that can support itself and broaden the tax base." D The amendment is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan . • objective: "promote Richfield's locational advantage within the greater E. metropolitan area." The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan objective to "address the means to improve the visual quality throughout the City, • concentrating on design districts and transportation corridors, beginning with land use coordination." F. The amendment is consistent with the description of the I-494 West subarea plan that states as follows: "The area between I-35W and Penn Avenue offers the same future commercial development potential as its counterpart to the east of I-35W." G. Although housing is not part of the development that is currently being proposed for the subject area, approximately $7 million of the tax increment generated by the development will be placed in a housing fund to finance construction and rehabilitation of affordable and market rate housing throughout the community. Section 4. The City's Comprehensive Plan as amended, changing the classifications of property in the subject area from R-SFH and C-N to C-R/O, is hereby approved. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December, 2000. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor • ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk • REFERENDUM PETITION • Proposing the repeal of the attached ordinance to revise the zoning map of the city of Richfield. The proposed repeal is sponsored by the following committee of registered voters: Name Address 1. Dewayne Sietsema 6724 Vincent Avenue South, Richfield, MN 2. Deb Nordmarken 6933 Sheridan Avenue South, Richfield, MN 3. Peggy Handt 7545 Colfax Avenue South, Richfield, MN 4. Myrle Richter 7615 Dupont Avenue South, Richfield, MN 5. Joseph Krzyzaniak 1920 West 76's Street, Richfield, MN The undersigned registered voters, understanding the terms and nature of the ordinance hereto attached, and believing it to be detrimental to the welfare of the City, petition the Council for its submission to the voters for approval or disapproval. Name Address 1. • 2 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. _ 13. • 14. 15. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss.: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The undersigned, being duly sworn, says that the undersigned is the circulator of the Referendum Petition to which this Affidavit is attached and each signature appended to the Referendum Petition is the genuine signature of file person whose name it purports to be. Subscribed and sworn to before me this Name: day of December, 2000. Address: Notary Public Hennepin County, Minnesota My Commission Expires 2020403v1 AFFIDAVIT VERIFIED COPY OF ORDINANCE December ~ 2000 STATE OF MINNESOTA ss.: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The undersigned, being duly sworn, says that the undersigned is a member of the sponsorship committee for the foregoing Referendum Petition, attached hereto is. a true and correct copy of the ordinance that is the subject of this Referendum Petition, which the sponsorship committee obtained from the City Clerk of the City of Richfield, and this is the Referendum Petition the sponsorship committee has prepared for filing with the City Clerk of the City of Richfield and for circulation for signature by registered voters. This verification is provided in compliance with Sections 5.04 and 5.05 of Appendix A to the City Charter of Richfield, Minnesota. Name: Address: Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of December, 2000. •` ~ Notary Publi ennepin County, Minnesota My Commission Expires % - 31-DS NANCY K. GIBBS Notary Public Minnesota MyColnmission ExpiresJan.31.2005 2020403v BILL NO. 2000-20 AMENDMENT TO SECTION APPENDIX 1 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD (Best Buy Campus Planned Unit Development Plan and Rezoning) THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Findings of Fact. The City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact: A. The City's zoning ordinance establishes zoning classifications for individual property. The property located in the Interchange West area, specifically between Knox and Penn Avenues and 76th Street and midway between 77th and 76th Street is zoned R (single family residential), MR-1 (two family residence), MR-2 (medium density multiple residence), and C-2 (general commercial) [the "subject area"]. B. Opus Northwest, L.L.C., on behalf of Best Buy Co. Inc., has submitted an application to the City for a planned unit development plan [the "PUD plan"] in the subject area. The PUD plan proposes to construct 1.5 million square feet • of office space and 7,500 parking stalls. C. The City has reviewed the zoning ordinance and determined that it would be appropriate to rezone the subject area as PC-2 (planned general commercial) and approve the PUD plan to establish the regulations governing the PC-2 district. D. The Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing concerning the PUD plan and amending the zoning ordinance in .the subject area. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD plan and. zoning ordinance amendment on September 26, 2000 following a public hearing. The City Council held first reading of the rezoning on October. 23, 2000 and a public hearing on the PUD plan amendment and rezoning on November 27, 2000 and December 11, 2000. E. The City's zoning ordinance provides criteria for approving a PUD plan and rezoning of property to a planned unit development. The City Council finds that the PUD plan and rezoning of property in the subject area meets the criteria in the following ways: 1) The proposed development conforms with the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Development Plan and. any applicable redevelopment plans: a) The project area is designated Regional Commercial/Office and the proposed development is consistent with this designation. b) An objective of the. Comprehensive Plan is to "advocate and support with municipal investment a high quality visual environment throughout the City and particularly along major transportation corridors." The PUD plan and rezoning are consistent with this objective. c) The PUD plan and rezoning are also consistent with the following -goal of the Comprehensive Plan: "Provide an economic climate within Richfield that will encourage the availability of quality goods, services and employment opportunities for residents." d) The PUD plan and rezoning .are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal to, "Promote diverse development that will broaden the tax base while reinforcing the residential character of Richfield," and with its accompanying objective, "promote development that can support itself and broaden the tax base." e) The PUD plan and rezoning are consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan objective: "Promote- Richfield's locational advantage within-the greater metropolitan area." f) The. .PUD plan and rezoning are. consistent with the Comprehensive Plan objective to "address the means to improve the visual quality throughout the City, concentrating on . design districts and transportation corridors, beginning with land use coordination." g) The PUD plan and rezoning are consistent with the description of the I-494 West subarea plan that states as follows: "The area between I-35W and Penn Avenue offers the same future commercial development potential as its counterpart to the east of I-35W." h) Although housing is not part of the development that is currently being proposed for the subject area, approximately $7 million of the tax increment generated by the development will be placed in a housing fund to finance construction and rehabilitation of affordable and market rate housing throughout the community. 2) The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries: The project is designed to create an office campus setting for Best Buy Co., Inc. The buildings, ramp and site development are all part of one unified development. 3) The development is in substantial conformity with the purpose and intent of the original C-2 zoning district, and departures from the original district regulations are justified by the design of the development: One setback for the parking ramp and the building heights depart from the original district regulations.. The setback for the parking ramp on 76th Street is five feet less than .would be required in the original district regulations for an accessory building. The reduced setback along 76th Street .will allow for a right .turn lane on 76th Street onto Knox Avenue. Significant landscaping will be installed in this area to make up for the reduced setback area. The additional building height is appropriate for freeway office development and allows for more open space on the site. 4) The development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets, or other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the development: Transportation improvements are proposed to accommodate traffic from the development and to improve existing traffic problems in the area at Penn Avenue and I-494 and Penn and 76th Street. The existing sanitary sewer Lift station will be expanded to accommodate increased flow from the development. With the improvements, there are sufficient utilities to serve the development. 5) The development will not have .undue adverse impacts on neighboring properties:. Transportation improvements are proposed to accommodate traffic from the development. Site features are planned to minimize visual impacts from the development on neighboring properties. The final development plan provides details regarding landscaping and lighting which are designed to minimize the impacts of the development on neighboring properties. 6) The terms and conditions proposed to maintain the integrity of the plan are sufficient to protect the public interests: A final development plan, which establishes the terms and conditions of the development, is required before construction can commence. An EIS and Indirect Source Permit are required for the project. The EIS identifies impacts of the project and proposes mitigation measures. The Indirect Source Permit requires that the mitigation measures be implemented. The EIS was determined- to be adequate by the City Council on December 11, 2000. Section 2. Appendix 1 of the zoning ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Richfield Zoning Code: Boundaries of Zoning Districts" is hereby amended: A. Section 7, Paragraph (10) is amended to read as follows: '`~ }~ ~--~ o~tl~est ~ 7th sr? i~er~~ ~"i°~s ~~°o 1~~c ~°~ the ~cntcrlir~ c Pry P~vcr~u are the ~~~ fio t~ c~rcir lire c~~ ~~~i~~ . "c~vr~l~i ~~~ ~ ~~r~o ir: ~~~~ ~ir~r~c~ ors ~1~ c~~.:1~; ~l~a contriir~ ~ c~ A~~~ ~°~ ~i~ c~; ors 1~ ~o~~trlin ~1~ ~~ ~~-~ ~ cr~h. B. Section 3, Paragraph (7) is amended to read as follows: • I"7`1 ~SIi ~ ~ + n l ~}.. ~~ + 1s -.~. °7"7~~, ~„-.i '7L2~acw ~r~s a a a~ ~t-ta~'~a a ~ ~ e av ~~ i~--m~ ~~f-nt`~ ~ ea ~.i I s-^art s -a i a^-^~ c a o 6'w C. Section 3, Paragraph (29) is amended to read as follows: rr+ rs s. Lam. ~a n ar : r r~ r3 , r j ~ ~ ~ S e-,.~~e ~ ra rn §~° s^.. xF f! c s r, r4 a y w~. ~ ~} i~^, .»~,. rv s^en -F .-~, .-s ro,^, r "7 #4-. ~.'4 vr.n#• ~`e^E r, .w r*? °*rx a~ <w `s' .a. r~° 30;" .F 4. ~. """ ~' ~ ,~.~ k~ ~ S s . , .• v o D. Section 3, Paragraph (60) is amended to read as follows: 1 E. Section 12, Paragraph (23) is amended to read as follows: ~'~" [~~ RIf .1 ICC n r n 7C.~b-, .-~r a*I r~ •-=w TT~"'!"3~.1~i'( cb ~r"r.' ~-~'~'~5~. °sa~`."S ~ ,r, ~'' -, ~~a e e , F. Section 11, Paragraph (7) is amended to read as follows: 1 Ir. a r+ ~„" e "ro C'! ._-~ '3 ._,~! .-e r~ ~ t^, r, r. r-s'~~ s°„",° ~ e~~~ ~ ... ,.. s~- ra v,_ G. Section 11, Paragraph (8) is amended to read as follows: ~ ~ [ ,,,~ r-r t,~ ~ r~ t t nay .~~„-~ a. En$-xrs<~.r~rs~r* io-^aro4 h r-~rJi~ie^~rs H. Section 11, Paragraph (10) is amended to read as follows: ~! 176-~I-~'s~~f'~-~f~f ~1,~-a~r'~i'~ CS~~C , 1 ~'~! 4 ~° , 4"t 4 ~:JI`~y' e~~s~~t-~tre ~t---(,~F~~~ d a d~ i I ( I~ e~,~-~-4-} Section 3. This amendment constitutes a rezoning of the following property: R to PC-2: 7601-7649 Penn Avenue South, 7600-7644 Oliver Avenue • South, 7601-7645 Oliver Avenue South, 7600-7644 Newton Avenue South, 7601-7633 Newton Avenue South, 7600-7634 Morgan Avenue South, 7601-7629 Morgan Avenue South, 7645-7647 Morgan, Avenue South, 1915 West 76th Street, 7615 Logan Avenue South MR-1 to PC-2: 7639-7645 Newton Avenue South, 7638-7644 Morgan Avenue South, 7639-7641 Morgan Avenue South, 7608-7646 Logan Avenue South MR-2 to PC-2: 7601 Logan Avenue South C-2 to PC-2: 7745 Penn Avenue South, 2015-2121 West 77th Street, 1920-2100 West 78th Street, 7701- 7725 Morgan Avenue South, 7700-7708 Logan Avenue South, 7701 Logan Avenue South, 7600-7700 Knox Avenue South, 7629-7645 Logan Avenue South Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective on such date as all subject parcels are held in common ownership by or under the control of Best Buy Corporation or 30 days following publication of this ordinance, whichever is later. For purposes of this ordinance, a parcel is deemed to be under the control of Best Buy Corporation if either (i) the parcel is under purchase agreement in favor of Best Buy or its agents or (ii) a court of competent jurisdiction has entered an order approving the acquisition of the parcel by eminent domain by the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December, 2000. C7 Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk n 0 O _U N ~ N O ~' ~_ ~ U~ N C O N C N N .a C '~~_. .~ O V c N o. c aNi ~~ W ~_ c '~ Ua ~^ Y p (!~ > CO ~ c ~ ~ N N ~ ~ ~ O N (~. O O M ~ r r ;~. C N O '~' ;;a ~ O ~ c rn O Z rn c 0 N N r- O N N O r O CA a~ ca ~S N 'a' t0 M ;~ , _ ~ O F- > ~ .~ ~ C70 ~ ~ ~ I` ti' r" O ~ O O .C ~ CV ~ C 0 Q ~ ~ O = Ua ~ ~ ~ d" O ° O d~ ~ O ti ~ N COO M O ~ C ~ N C O O CO C .~ N N~ C p = G ~ V ~~ ~ N j N ° a ~ o m= ~ ~ '3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ` y O ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ C ~ ~- a> tU ° N o ~ -Q ~ ~ ~ ~ -Q O .t y ~ m .c CO Q ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ° L y Z to o2S CU a ~ v'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E C ~ Q ~ ~ N CU ~ ~ N L ~_ ~ a ~~ a ~ `~ N ~ p~iy ~~Nyy e}' ~ "' C C+4? .C O tNC4~ ~ '°~ ~ Qm L ~~C1 ~ Q ~ CC ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c C. ~ ~ ~ Z ~ coo oM ~ ~ a~i c"raa Q ya ° ~ c QQ ~'c~ ~ ° a. ~ Z o a~ a~~+s ~a ~ E ~ ^ ~ ~~ n~ ~b ~ cQa ° =a ~ ~,~ o ~ ~ ,a ° ~ ~a~ ~ a> m ~ Q.° o C a~ ~ cttw ° ~t "~ y ~ °~ ~~ c Z ~ i ~ a a~a~o m ~~ ~ cn ~.Q~' ~ c ca E~ts~--. °~~ a~'i~ Q.Q. ~° ~c~m ~-~_' ~ma~~, ~ ~ o E oo- o ° ~ ~~ o ~ o ~ ~ > • lanuar} 2-~. 20Ci i Dewayne Sietserna 6724 Vincent Avenue Richfic~~~. i~ilti X5423 Debra Nordmarken 6933 Sheridan Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Peggy Handt 7545 Colfax Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 RE: Initiative and Referendum Petitions Deaz Committee Members: Myrle Richter 7615 Dupont Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Joseph K:rz;yaaniak 1920 West 76`~ Street Richfield, MN 55423 The office of the Richfield City Clerk has completed its examination of the initiative and referendum petitions submitted by your committee on January 19, 2001. The resuhs will be certified to the City Council at its next regulaz meeting on Monday, February 12, 2001, commencing at 7 p.m. The preliminary results are provided on the enclosed table. The results aze preliminary, because signers have the opportunity to withdraw their signatures up to the time of the February 12 council meeting. The petitions, including the City's records of disqualified signatures, are available for review at City Hall. If you would like to review any of the records, please contact Nancy Gibbs at 612-861-9730.. Yours truly, Steven Devich Acting City Clerk n • AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 5 G REPORT # 3 9 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME, TirLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE • DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:. ~~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Agreement with .Richfield State Agency and The Oaks, L.L.C. for maintenance of property adjacent to 67th Street between Pleasant and Harriet Avenues and utility services at 66tH Street and Pleasant Avenues. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Authorize an agreement with Richfield State Agency to maintain 67th Street between Pleasant and Harriet Avenues and with The Oaks L.L.C. to provide utility services at 66th Street and Pleasant Avenue. • IL BACKGROUND The "Urban Village project", now known as Woodlake Centre, The Oaks, and The Pines at 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue is complete. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) issued a Certificate of Completion in January. To accommodate maintenance on the perimeter of the new development, two agreements have been formulated. The public right-of--way at 67th Street has been vacated and modified as part of the project. The developer, Richfield State Agency (RSA), has agreed to contribute to the cost of the City maintaining portions of the vacated right-of--way. RSA will also maintain the common boundary of the development adjacent to the single-family neighborhood to the south. An 0212AgreeRSA agreement was prepared that outlines the terms. An agreement was also prepared for The Oaks L.L.C. to install and provide water service to the traffic island at Pleasant Avenue and 66th Street: Rerouting of water services during construction required an agreement to continue water service for irrigation at the 66th Street traffic island. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The neighborhood and City staff have expressed concern about the completion and maintenance of the area shared by the new development ..and the residential neighborhood to the south and ongoing services provided by the City at 66th Street. • B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The south residential neighborhood had expressed concern about the responsibility for and upkeep of the alley extension at Grand Avenue, and adjacent sidewalks and other improvements along the common boundary with the development: • The developer funded modifications in the alley to improve garbage truck circulation and lighting.. • The developer responded to privacy screening concerns. and made improvements. • The developer agreed to a financial contribution for ongoing maintenance of portions of the vacated public right-of--way adjacent to the project over a 20 year period. • An irrigation line to the traffic island was .cut and required to be rerouted. The Oaks L.L.C. agreed to take responsibility for returning water service to the island. C. FINANCIAL • The City and south neighborhood incurs no extraordinary expenses for maintenance due to the new development along 67th Street. • The agreement with Richfield State Agency provides for a financial contribution from the developer for vacated right-of--way maintenance. • The agreement with The Oaks L.L.C. restores irrigation equipment and water supply to the traffic island at the developer's cost. D. LEGAL • The agreements were reviewed by legal counsel. TERNATIVE • i ne Lity cou~d modify the terms for the common boundary. ATTACHMENTS • Attachment A, Maintenance ~ • Attachment B, Easement and or assume more or less responsibility ment Regarding Utility Service ~ VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~ • Attachment A • MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT. RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY, INC. and CITY OF RICHFIELD THIS MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT is entered into this 12th day of February, 2001, by and between RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY, INC., a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Owner" and the CITY OF RICHFIELD, hereinafter referred to as "Richfield". WHEREAS, Owner is the owner of the property legally described as Lot 1, Block 2, Richfield Urban Village, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which property contains a 78- unit, assisted living facility at 400 West 67th Street, Richfield, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Owner is the owner of property legally described as Lot 1, Block 3, Richfield Urban Village, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which contains a 138-unit apartment building at 6601 Pleasant Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota, .and WHEREAS, as part of said development 67th Street has been vacated and access from the southerly half of 67th Street has been restricted from Pleasant Avenue through the alley between Harriet and Grand Avenue; and • WHEREAS, the alley between Harriet and Grand Avenues through Grand Avenue on 67th Street is presently constructed as a bituminous surface and will be designated as an alley extension; and WHEREAS, to assist the City of Richfield and to avoid the necessity of changing the bituminous surface to a concrete surface, the Owner has agreed to maintain the bituminous portion and adjacent improvements of the alley extension for a period of twenty (20) years from the date hereof based on the following schedule: 1. Mill and overlay the alley twice; once in 2001 and the next time in 2021; 2: Fill cracks, seal coat and gravel overlay three (3) times: in 2006, 2011, and 2016; and 3. Repair, as needed, if concrete aprons or retaining wall at end of alley is inadvertently damaged by normal use. WHEREAS, also within the abandoned area are two sidewalks, one between Harriet and Grand Avenue and one between Pleasant Avenue and the apartment building. The Owner agrees to routinely maintain these sidewalks, the removal of debris and snow and ice as may be agreed to by the parties. The owner will. widen sidewalks to a 6 ft. width to allow city equipment to plow and sweep. The .Owner will also promptly repair retaining walls and guardrails, as needed, within the described • area. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Recitals incorporated. The foregoing .recitals hereto are hereby incorporated into the terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties. 2. Owner agrees to compensate Richfield for the cost to maintain the bituminous portion and adjacent improvements of the extension of the alley between Grand and Harriet Avenue to Grand Avenue for a period of twenty (20) years from the date of this agreement. 3. Owner agrees to maintain the public sidewalks that connect to and run adjacent to the described property as may agreed by the parties and to widen the sidewalks to allow city equipment to maintain the sidewalks. The owner will maintain other retaining walls and guardrails that exist in the described area. 4. Richfield agrees to be the designated contractor for improvements and repairs to the alley extension and adjacent improvements and to determine costs through a public bidding process unless otherwise agreed by the parties. • 5. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs,. successors and assigns of the parties hereto. 6. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. Executed as of the date first above written. RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY, INC. By: Steven L. Kirchner Its: President CITY OF RICHFIELD By: Martin J. Kirsch Its: Mayor C • STATE OF MINNESOTA) )SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of , 2001, by Steven L. Kirchner, the. President of Richfield State Agency, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary- Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) )SS The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of , 2001, by the of the City of Richfield, a under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the City of Richfield: Notary Public n U Attachment B • EASEMENT AND AGREEMENT RE UTILITY SERVICE (Traffic Island at 66t1i Street and Pleasant Avenue) TNTS :AGREEMENT is made this o?07 day of ,~aC~n~. .2000 by and bettiveen The Oaks L.L.C. (The Oaks), a Minnesota corporation, and CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Cite"). Recitals A. The Oaks is the owner of real property located near. the intersection of 66t1i Street and Pleasant Avenue in the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota,, legally described as: Block 3 Lot 1, Richfield Urban Village. B. As a result of the construction of improvements on the The Oaks property, The Oaks disconnected certain water lines and valves owned by the City, which lines and valves supplied irrigation for the traffic island located on 66"' Street at Pleasant Avenue. C. In lieu of reconnecting the City water lines and valves at The Oaks' cost, The Oaks has proposed to supply water from The Oaks' private irrigation system to the traffic island. • Agreement 1. Easement. The Oaks hereby grants to the City a perpetual easement over that portion of The Oaks property described below (the "Easement Area") for the purposes of accessing, maintaining and servicing the irrigation system components referenced at paragraph 2 of this agreement. The Easement Area is comprised of the existing drainage and utility easement: North 10 feet of Block 3 Lot 1, Richfield Urban Village. 2. Irrigation System Installation. On or before December 1, 2000, The Oaks agrees to install the .water lines, valves and other system components necessary to provide water irrigation to the traffic island in 66~' Street at Pleasant Avenue and to connect said irrigation system to the irrigation system that is located within and serves The Oaks property. The Oaks further agrees to install within the Easement Area a securable cabinet that contains separate shut off valves for the traffic island irrigation system, a time clock controller, ablow-out valve, and space for a water meter. The City must approve the locations and specifications for all system components to serve the traffic island, and The Oaks agrees to pay all costs of the system components and installation. 3. Water Irrigation. At its cost, The Oaks shall provide water for irrigating the traffic island for as long as this agreement remains in effect. The Oaks shall be responsible for maintaining, repairing and replacing the irrigation system components that provide service to the traffic island, eYCept that the City shall be responsible for repairing or replacing any damage that it causes to the irrigation system. • ~4: Termination of Agreement; Reconnection to Cit~System. If The Oaks or any future owner of 'The Oaks Property fails to consistently supply water or power for the irrigation of the traffic island, the City may at its sole option terminate this agreement upon 30 days' written notice to such CA H- 187641 v RC 12i_ 182 owner. In such event, the owner of The Oaks property shall be required to reimburse the City for its costs in reconnecting the traffic island to the City's irrigation system. On behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, The Oaks agrees to make reimbursement within 30 days after receipt of the . City's invoice for its reconnection costs. 5. Agreement to Run with Land. The covenants, easement and conditions of this agreement shall run with the land and be binding upon the parties and their respective successors in interest. 6. Notices. All notices required or permitted by this Agreement shall be in writing and deemed to be duly given if sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, and addressed: If to the City: City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Attn: Public Works Director If to The Oaks: The Oaks L.L.C. 6625 Lyndale Ave. S., Suite 500 Richfield, MN 55423 Attn: Jan Susee Or to such other address as shall, from time to time, be supplied in writing by the party in question to the other party. In witness of the foregoing, the undersigned have executed this agreement as of the date and year written above. THE OAKS L.L.C. By Its C of Mana er CITY OF RICHFIELD By Its Mayor By Its City manager • C'AH-I S7Cv~ l v l RC' 12~-I S2 • AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 5 F REPORT # 3 $ ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2001 • REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: GEORGE L. ATKINSON, ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR NAME, TITLE MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration to approve plans, order project and authorize ad for bids for reconstructing the 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By .Motion: Approve the plans and specifications for the reconstruction of the 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue, order. City Project 401-30-672 and authorize advertisement for bids. IIL BACKGROUND ~ As part of the Lyndale Gateway redevelopment, Richfield committed to reconstructing the 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue. The work was originally scheduled for the year 2000, but the developers were-not ready to have the street closed to traffic. The project was, therefore, delayed until August of 2001. The 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue has been in need of major reconstruction for several years. Staff has had construction plans and specifications drafted and, • despite delays totaling a year and a half, is now ready to advance the project to construction. 0212-7600Lyndale The City will construct the street (curbline to curbline). The developer will construct the sidewalk and streetscape behind the curb.. The contract includes work on 77th Street to correct a heat expansion/cracking .problem. The cost estimate for the project is included in the 2001 Capital Improvement Budget. The work was separated from the larger ($10 million plus) Lyndale Avenue Bridge project in order to accommodate the development in the 7600 block of Lyndale. The financial section below identifies the expected adjustment in the Revised 2001 Capital Improvement Budget. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield has used infrastructure redevelopment as a tool in assisting new businesses to develop in the City. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The 7600 block of Lyndale is in need of reconstruction. C. FINANCIAL • The total City cost of the project is estimated to be $1,200,000. The developers are expected to complete the sidewalk and streetscape work using Housing and Redevelopment (HRA) funds. The revised 2001 • Capital Improvement- Budget will increase the Municipal State Aid (MSA) expenditure from $100,000 in 2000 and $300,000 in 2001 to an estimated $1,200,000 (final amount to be determined after the bid opening). D. LEGAL • The City has made commitments to The Lyndale Gateway developers to provide a new street with an upgraded streetscape. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council could decline to advance the status of this project, but commitments have been made to the Lyndale Gateway developers. • .Delaying this project can be expected to raise the cost by 5% or more. V. ATTACHMENTS • Map of Lyndale Gateway as proposed. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None known at this time. • .~ i i i i i i i oo+as oo+~£ oo+os ~ ~ -~~ 77TH STREET ~ ~ • AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL .MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CONSENT 5E REPORT PREPARED BY: .10HN EVANS, ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE NAME,. TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: AIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR NAA~, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~, ~ , S NATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution authorizing the City of Richfield's application for the 2001 Municipal Recycling Grant from Hennepin County and the signing of the 2001 recycling contract. III. RECOMMENDED ACTION: II By motion: Approve the resolution authorizing the City of Richfield's. application for the 2001 Municipal Recycling Grant from Hennepin County and the signing of the 2001 recycling contract. III. BACKGROUND. The City of Richfield receives a municipal recycling grant from Hennepin County each. year to promote recycling initiatives. 90% of this grant is given to Richfield residents as a quarterly utility bill refund and 10% is used to cover administrative costs of the recycling program. The amount of the grant varies from year-to-year; last year's grant was approximately $93,000. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield supports a residential recycling program as part of local environmental management. 0212 recycling B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Approval of the resolution is .required to receive the grant. • Action is requested on February 12 to meet the grant application deadline. C. FINANCIAL • The City acts as a community partner and, with this grant, no expenses are incurred to administer this program. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not approve the resolution, preventing. the implementation of the recycling program. • Deferring action is not an alternative as the grant deadline needs to be met. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution authorizing the grant application. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • No public participation is anticipated.. • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF THE MUNICIPAL GRANT APPLICATION FOR 2001 HENNEPIN COUNTY RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING PROGRAM AND THE SIGNING OF THE 2001 MUNICIPAL RECYCLING PROGRAM CONTRACT. WHEREAS, Hennepin County provides annual grants related to residential recycling programs; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield desires to participate in the residential recycling grant program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Richfield City Council of the City of Richfield: 1. That a municipal grant application be processed for participation in the 2001 Hennepin County Residential Recycling Program. 2. That the City Manager of the City of Richfield is hereby authorized and.. directed to execute and file such .application with Hennepin County Department of Environmental Management. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of February, 2001 Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • l~~I L_ J AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 5D REPORT # 3 6 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2001 C~ REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: 1/~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: /~ RICK BEANE, GARAGE SUPERVISOR NAME, TITLE MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a purchase of Public Safety administrative cars in excess of $50,000. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a purchase order to North Star Garage, Inc. in the sum of $70,026.40 for four new sedans to be used by Public Safetv administrative staff. III. BACKGROUND Four mid-size sedans (Units No. 9459, 9677, 9678, 9679) being used by the Public Safety Department are scheduled to be replaced in 2001. The four sedans currently in use by Public Safety administrative staff were purchased in 1994 and 1996. All four vehicles will be fully depreciated in 2001. Purchase of the new vehicles has. been coordinated through the State of Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Program. 0212PSadmin III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • When the purchase of materials, merchandise, equipment or construction exceeds $50,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. • North Star Garage, Inc: submitted a bid for vehicles of this class, which was accepted by the State of Minnesota. • The City of Richfield participates in the Minnesota State Cooperative Purchasing Program. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Approval at the February 12, 2001 Council meeting will facilitate delivery of the new vehicles. C. FINANCIAL • The approved 2001 budget contains $80,000 for this purchase. • Upon delivery of the vehicles, charges for transfer of police equipment such as radios will be deducted from the remaining funds budgeted for this purchase. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council may delay approval to a later meeting. However, delayed approval will result in delayed delivery. • Council may choose to deny approval and direct staff to obtain new bids for these vehicles; however, staff believes the best price(s) are available for the Dodge Intrepid, through the joint purchase contract. V. ATTACHMENTS • None. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT 1VIEETING • None. • AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # ~ _ REPORT # 35 STAFF REPORT ~ CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: RICHARD REGNIER, BUILDING OFFICIAL NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME. TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: '® Go SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the continuation of the contract with the City of Bloomington for provision of ins ection services for Richfield for the ears 2001 and 2002. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the continuation of the contractual agreement with the City of Bloomington to provide various types of building inspections and code enforcement for the City of Richfield for the years 2001 and 2002. II. BACKGROUND The City of Bloomington has provided inspection and enforcement services in the areas of plumbing, heating and air conditioning, food service and plan check for food services for many years. New for 2001-2002 is the separation of this one contract into two contracts with Bloomington for all of these areas. The Richfield Inspections Division handles • plumbing and heating and air conditioning services, while the Administrative Support Services Division handles food services and plan check food services. As changes continue to occur in the level of services needed by Richfield via this 0212BIoomingtonHousinglnspectionContract contract, it made sense to split the one contract into two, each being negotiated and handled by the division manager responsible for that function area. The proposed contract for 2001 for plumbing,-heating and air conditioning services will be $72,165, compared to the 2000 contract amount of $37,200. The increase is based on the number of inspections performed and time spent by Bloomington staff on reviewing plans. The increased level of services provided by Bloomington is expected to continue for at least the next two years. The administrative costs contained in past contracts were lumped together into one amount for both divisions. This year's separate Inspections contract reflects $8,565 as that division's costs for administrative services provided by Bloomington. The proposed contract for 2002 for plumbing, heating and air conditioning services will be $75,125, compared to the 2001 contract amount of $72,165. It is also being proposed that Richfield enter into atwo-year contract with the City of Bloomington, as in the past, thereby eliminating the need to renew the agreement on an annual basis. The terms of the contract still provide for the contract to be terminated upon the expiration of 30 days after the service of written notice upon the other party, if there should be a need to terminate it before it expires December 31, 2002. The Bloomington City Council approved this contract on January 16, 2001. They would like to evaluate this contract in four to six months to determine what effect this workload has on their staff level and the quality of service provided to the City of Richfield. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Bloomington has provided inspection and enforcement services in the areas of plumbing, heating and- air conditioning, food service and plan check for food services for many years. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The City of Bloomington has sufficient resources to provide a professional level of inspection services to Richfield residents. Annual evaluations of their services have shown that they are providing efficient services in a very cost-effective manner. C. FINANCIAL • Increases for this contract occurred as a result of a higher level of .services being provided by Bloomington staff than was originally expected due to the development projects occurring in Richfield. It is . anticipated that these increases in costs will be recovered through increased .permit fees. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The Council could decide to have Richfield provide its own plumbing, heating and air conditioning services. The cost of hiring the staff necessary to provide the same level of services and administrative support would be more than current expenditures and would require a budget increase. • The Council could decide to compensate the City of Bloomington at a lower rate, which would require designated reduction in services or programs. V. ATTACHMENTS • 2001-2002 City of Bloomington Inspection Contract VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None • • • AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON AND THE CITY OF RICHFIELD .FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF BUILDING INSPECTIONS AND CODE ENFORCEMENT This Agreement is made this O~ day of January, 2001, by and between the City of Bloomington, a Minnesota municipal corporation located at 2215 West Old Shakopee Road, Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 (hereinafter referred to as "Bloomington") and the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation located at 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423 (hereinafter referred to as "Richfield"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Richfield is authorized and empowered to provide for various types of building inspections and code enforcement to ensure the public health, welfare, and safety; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the parties and the purpose of this Agreement that certain of such services be performed by Bloomington on behalf of Richfield; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions as set forth below, the above parties hereto agree as follows: I. TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement shall be from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2002, subject to ternzination as provided in Article V. II. DUTIES OF BLOOMINGTON 1. For the term of this Agreement, Bloomington shall provide Richfield with the following services, in and on behalf of Richfield: a. Plumbing inspections, plan review and code enforcement as • necessary. • b. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning inspections, plan review and code enforcement for new residential structures and commercial/industrial applications. 2. In addition to the services listed above, Bloomington shall, upon request, also provide for and on behalf of Richfield: a. Electrical inspection and code enforcement services; b. Inspection of replacement residential heating and air conditioning equipment; c. Building inspection and code enforcement services. Such services shall be paid for by Richfield on an hourly basis at the rate of $52.50 per hour, and said hourly rate shall be separate .from, and in addition to, the M payment provided for by Article III of this Agreement. All other provisions of this Agreement shall remain applicable with respect to the electrical and heating, ventilation and air conditioning inspection services being provided. 3. In addition to the services listed above, Bloomington shall, upon request, also provide building plan checking services for and on behalf of Richfield. Such services shall be paid for by Richfield on an hourly basis at a rate of $53.00 per hour, and said hourly rate shall be separate from, and in addition to, the payment provided for by Article III of this Agreement. All other provisions of this Agreement shall remain applicable with respect to the building plan checking services being provided. __ __ 4. Bloomington shall have control over the manner in which inspections, plan review and ccde e~~forcement activities are conducted and over the deter~r~inaticn of 2 • what enforcement action is appropriate and consistent with Richfield City Code Section 615 and other policies as established by the City of Richfield. 5. Bloomington shall assume the expense of performing the inspections and code enforcement. 6. Bloomington shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Richfield, its officials, employees and agents, from any and all claims, causes of action, lawsuits, damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from Bloomington's (including its officials, agents, or employees) performance of the duties required under this Agreement, provided that any such claim, damages, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, diseases or death or to injury to or destruction of property including the loss of use resulting therefrom and to the extent caused by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of Bloomington. 7. Bloomington shall carry liability insurance in the amount of at least $300,000 per individual and $1,000,000 per occurrence. Bloomington shall carry property damage liability insurance in the amount of $100,000. Richfield shall be named as an additional insured, and a certificate of said insurance shall be provided to Richfield. Bloomington shall carry Worker's compensation Insurance as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 176.181, Subd. 2 and further agrees to provide a certificate of said insurance to Richfield. 8. Any employee assigned by Bloomington to perform its obligations __ hereunder shall remain the exclusive employee of Bloomington for all purposes including, but not limited to, wages, salary and employee benefits. • 3 III. DUTIES OF RIC>EIFIELI) 1. In 2001, Richfield shall pay Bloomington the sum of SEVENTY-TWO THOUSAND, ONE HUNDRED .SIXTY-FIVE AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($72,165.00) for services provided pursuant to this Agreement. One-half (1/2) of this amount shall be due on June 30, 2001, and the remainder shall be due on November 30, 2001. 2. In 2002, Richfield shall pay Bloomington the sum of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND, ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($72,125.00) for services provided pursuant to this Agreement. One-half (1/2) of this amount shall be due on June 30, 2002, and the remainder shall be due on November 30, 2002. 3. In the event of a termination prior to December 31, 2002, a prorata reduction of the compensation owed by Richfield to Bloomington shall occur which reflects the period remaining on the Agreement at the time of termination. IV. MISCELLANEOUS 1. It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of copartners between the parties hereto or as constituting Bloomington's staff as the agents, representatives or employees of Richfield for any purpose in any manner whatsoever. Bloomington and its staff are to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services perfornzed under this Agreement. Bloomington represents that it __ has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required in performing services under this Agreement. Any ar~d all personnel of Bloomington or other persons, while engaged • in the performance of any work or services required by Bloomington under this 4 • Agreement shall have no contractual relationship with Richfield and shall not be considered employees of Richfield, and any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims whatsoever on behalf of any such person or personnel arising out of employment or alleged employment including, without limitation, claims of discrimination against Bloomington, its officers, agents, contractors or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of Richfield; and Bloomington shall defend, indemnify and hold Richfield, its officers, agents and employees harmless from any and all such claims regardless of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission or court. Such personnel or other persons shall not require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from Richfield, • including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers' Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, disability, severance pay and PERA. 2. The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures of the Bloomington relevant to this Agreement, are subject to examination by Richfield, and either the legislative or state auditor as appropriate, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 16B.06, Subdivision 4. 3. This Agreement represents the entire Agreement between Bloomington and Richfield and supersedes and cancels any and all prior agreements or proposals, written or oral, between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof, and amendments, addenda, alterations, or modifications to the teens and conditions of this Agreement shall • be in writing and signed by both parties. • 4. Bloomington and Richfield agree to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment of employment in its services, programs, or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all services, programs and activities. Bloomington has designated coordinators to facilitate compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, as required by Section 35.107 of the U.S. Department of Justice regulations, and to coordinate compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as mandated by Section 8.53 of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations. Richfield agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Bloomington from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorney's fees • and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought alleging a violation of ADA by Richfield. Bloomington agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Richfield from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought alleging a violation of ADA by Bloomington. 5. Bloomington and Richfield agree to comply with all applicable state, federal and local laws, piles and regulations. 6. Bloomington and Richfield agree to submit all claims, disputes and other matters in question between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement to mediation. The mediation shall be conducted through the Mediation Center, 1821 University Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota. The parties hereto shall decide whether mediation sr~all be binding or non-binding. If the parties cannot reach agreement, • mediation shall be non-binding. In the event mediation is unsuccessful, either party may 5 • exercise its legal or equitable remedies and may commence such action prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. V. TERMINATION Either party may terminate this Agreement, for any reason, upon giving thirty (30) days' advanced written notice to the other party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement, the date and year first written above. CI7 DATED: ~ '~ /~ ' ~Or ~ By: • DATED: 1- /~ - ~a~/ By: Reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. .i~~ /~ ~~~',~ City Attorney DATED: CITY OF RICHFIELD Bv: Its: n U 7 • AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 5 $ REPORT # 34 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: BARRY FRITZ, POLICE CAPTAIN NAME, REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ® ~~ SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: First reading of an ordinance amendment to Section 315 that would allow the timely disposal of forfeited property acquired by the City pursuant to civil or criminal forfeiture proceedings under state law. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the first reading of an ordinance amendment to Subsection 315.01, Subdivision 4, relating to disposition of forfeited, abandoned, junk and impounded motor vehicles, which expands the limitation on application to include motor vehicles and personal property acquired by the City through civil or criminal forfeiture proceedings; and, the addition of Subsection 315.02 that will give disposition authority to the City Manager to determine what forfeited property is to be sold and the method of sale of lawfully forfeited property to facilitate disposal in a timely manner. Schedule a public hearing and second reading for March 12, 2001. 0212ForfeitVehicleSales • ~ II. BACKGROUND Recent changes in State Statutes allow for administrative forfeitures of vehicles driven by persons charged with certain D.U.L offenses. These changes have led to the City acquiring significant numbers of vehicles that eventually need to be disposed of through sales or, in the case of worthless vehicles, by scrapping via salvage yards. There is no language in the current ordinance that allows for timely, efficient sale or disposal of the vehicles. The ordinance amendment gives the City Manager authority to determine the appropriate method of sale and lists those methods. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • N/A B. CRITICAL ISSUES • There are currently numerous vehicles that need to be disposed of by sale or salvage. • There is a limited amount of space for the storage of these vehicles. • Large numbers of vehicles stored for long periods of time become eyesores. • C. FINANCIAL • The City receives the proceeds from the sale of vehicles. • Vehicles sold in a timely manner bring better prices because those impounded for lengthy periods of time are subject to mechanical probterns and appearance problems due to vandalism, the elements, and rodents. • Public Safety leases space for storing vehicles from Housing and Redevelopment Authority for $300 per month. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney drafted the amendments to the ordinance at the request of Staff. • The language for disposal of the forfeited property is based on the Uniform Municipal Contracting Law (471.345). IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The City Council could do nothing at this time. That would mean vehicles acquired through forfeiture would continue to accumulate. r~ U • V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None expected. • • BILL NO. • AN ORDINANCE RELATING.TO DISPOSITION OF FORFEITED, ABANDONED, JUNK AND IMPOUNDED MOTOR VEHICLES; AMENDING. SUBSECTION 315.01 AND AMENDING SECTION 315 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE BY ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION, 315.02 THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 315.01 subdivision 4 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: Subd. 4. Limitation on application. This subsection does not apply to motor vehicles or to personal property that the City. acquires through civil or criminal forfeiture proceedings... Disposition of an abandoned.. funk or impounded motor vehicle is governed by Minnesota Statutes, section. 1686: Disposition of motor vehicles and other personal property that the City has acauired through forfeiture proceedings: is governed by subsection 315.02 of this code. Section 2. Section 315 of the- Richfield City Code is amended by adding a subsection as follows: • 315.02.. Disposition of forfeited property. Subdivision 1. The purpose of this subsection is to provide for the disposal of forfeited property. For purposes of this subsection, the term "forfeited property" means any personal property acquired by the City pursuant to civil or criminal forfeiture proceedings under state law. Subd. 2. Method of disposition. When the sale of forfeited property is permitted under applicable law, the city manager will determine what forfeited property is to be sold and the method of sale. The available methods of sale are: (a) Sale by quotation. If the sale is made upon quotation it must be based, so far as practicable, on at least two quotations which shall be kept on file for a period of at least one year after their receipt. Sale by quotation may not be used for forfeited property, the estimated value of which exceeds $50,000. (b) Sale by public auction. If the sale is made by public auction, the auction must be conducted under the direction of the city manager, following published notice in the official newspaper at least 10 days in advance of the sale date. (c) Sale by other auction. The city manager may provide for sale • of forfeited property by placement in an established dealer auction or salvage auction conducted by a licensed broker: (d) Sale by direct negotiation. The city manager may direct the sale of a forfeited motor vehicle to a scrap yard by direct • negotiation, if the vehicle has an approximate fair market value equal only to the approximate value of the scrap in it. The city manager may direct the sale of forfeited personal property to the storage facility where the property is stored, if the forfeited property has an approximate fair market value equal only to the storage fees. Subd. 3. Disposition of proceeds. The proceeds of the sale of forfeited property must be disbursed in accordance with applicable law. Section 3. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this th day of 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor • ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # SA REPORT # 33 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TITLE CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAA~; DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of first reading of transitory ordinance providing funding for certain capital improvements from the. Special Revenue Fund: ~~ I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: ~~ By Motion:. Approve first reading of the transitory ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds from the Special Revenue Fund for certain capital improvements and schedule the public hearing and second reading for March 12, 2001.. _ III. BACKGROUND At the December 11, 2000 City Council meeting, the. City Council authorized $625,000 of Special Revenue Funds for improvements to several City parks and other City capital improvements in 2001. In addition, the 2001 Capital Improvement Budget provides for expenditure for all types of funds contained in the budget document including county funds, municipal state aid, user fees, federal grants and state grants. However, authorization by ordinance is not required for these expenditures. L~ 02122001 TransitoryOrd III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION • A. POLICY • City Charter Section 7.12, Subd. 2 requires that Special Revenue Funds used for capital improvements must be authorized by ordinance. • This processprovides for public input through a public hearing. B. CRITICAL ISSUES- • Under Section-3.09 of the City Charter, a transitory ordinance becomes effective. 30 days after. publication of the second hearing notice. The ordinance requirements-must be completed early enough in 2001 so that the capital projects can be initiated on a timely basis, completed and the funds expended. • In order for the timely start of the projects under consideration in the Capital Improvement Budget, it is suggested that the first reading of the transitory ordinance take place on February 12 and a public hearing and second .reading be completed at the March 12, 2001 City Council meeting. C. FINANCIAL. • While the total 2001 Capital Improvements Budget (CIB) includes total budgeted expenditures of $63,547,120 the portion of CIB concerning proposed funding from the Special Revenue Fund is $625,000 as shown below: • Park Shelter Replacement - Fairwood/Monroe $ 175,000 Community Center Room Dividers 25,000 Community Center Carpet/Paint/Repair 30,000 City Owned Parking Lots -Replace 120,000 Park Maintenance 100,000 Ice Arena Second Sheet (repayment) 75,000 Ice Arena Air Conditioning ($50,000) 25,000 Emergency Police/Fire Generator 75,000 • A transitory ordinance is necessary to finalize these appropriations pursuant to City Charter. • The source of Special Revenue Funds are municipal liquor profits. D. LEGAL • The City Charter requires that a transitory ordinance be used to authorize the expenditure of Special Revenue Funds. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The City Council could postpone the first reading of the transitory ordinance to a future City Council meeting. • The City Council could decide to authorize none or only a portion of the expenditures identified from special revenue in the CIB. V. ATTACHMENTS • An ordinance providing. for the expenditure of money from the Special Revenue Fund for certain capital improvements. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None.