05-12-1998J
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
May 12, 1998
7:00 p.m.
Roll Call
Old Business
ITEM #1 PC Letter #26 Airport Mitigation Strategy
Review public comments and discuss potential
changes to redevelopment concept
ournment
Planning Commission
Item #: 1
Letter #: 26
May 12, 1998
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Review the Draft Mitigation Proposal and comments from community
meetings.
ANALYSIS
Proposal: At the Planning Commission meeting on April 28, 1998, Planning
Commissioners received the public comments from the airport mitigation
community meetings held in April. Commissioners should review those
comments and pick out important comments and themes. Commissioners
should be prepared to discuss these themes and their implication for the Draft
Mitigation Proposal.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: Recommend any changes to the Mitigation Proposal based on
community comments.
A
MITIGATION PROPOSAL AFT
FOR
THE IMPACTS TO RICHFIELD STAKEHOLDERS
RESULTING FROM DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION
OF
A NEW NORTH -SOUTH RUNWAY
FOR
THE MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SITE
TWIN CITIES, MN
Prepared For
The City of Richfield, MN
Prepared By
The Brauer Group, Inc.
project managers
On The Basis of Information and Analysis Provided By
Dr. Stanford Fidell Walter E. Gilfillan
Airports Noise Airports Planning and Operations
Brauer & Associates, Ltd. Dr. Geoffrey Gosling
Parks and Recreation Facilities Aviation Systems Planning
City of Richfield HRA Westwood Professional Services
Housing /Redevelopment/Relocation Transportation and Traffic
JMS Communications
Communications
DRAFT4 /30/98
Richfield Community Services
Public Works and Public Safety
Steven Pflaum, Attorney at Law
Legal
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
A MITIGATION CONCEPT REPORT
for a proposed
NEW NORTH -SOUTH RUNWAY
for
The Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Site
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART SUBJECT PAGE
PART ONE Executive Summary .....................ONE -1 to ONE 9
PART TWO Identification of Stakeholders .... TWO -1 to TWO 5
PART THREE Definition of Impacts..... THREE -1 to THREE -12
PART FOUR Mitigation Proposals ..............FOURA to FOUR -7
PART FIVE Implementation Process ........... FIVE -1 to FIVE-6
ADDENDA Supporting Documentation
A. BBN Report No. 8196
B. BBN Report No. 8211
C. City of Richfield Comprehensive Plan
D. Data from the Final Environmental Impact Statement
E. Roster of Stakeholders
F. Roster of Non - Residential stakeholders
DRAFT 4/30/98
PART ONE..... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OF
A MITIGATION CONCEPT
FOR
THE IMPACTS TO RICHFIELD STAKEHOLDERS
RESULTING FROM DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION
OF
A NEW NORTH -SOUTH RUNWAY (17/35)
FOR
THE MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SITE
TWIN CITIES, MN
PART ONE.... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION NO. SUBJECT PAGE NO.
1.1 Overview ONE -2
1.2 Identification of Affected Populations
and Other Stakeholders ONE -2
1.3 Identification and Definition of Impacts
to be Mitigated ONE -3
1.4 Mitigation Proposals ONE -5
1.5 Implementation Process ONE -8
1.6 Exhibits.... Noise Impacted Areas in Richfield ONE -9
1. Summary from BBN Report No. 8196
2. Summary from BBN Report No. 8211
3. Existing Land Uses
4. Existing Population
5. Existing Market Values
6. A Redevelopment Concept
7. Option Six Plan For MSP Site Development
DRAFT 04/30/98
U5%U7%96 THE lu:25 FAX M " E
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
This report contains the City of Richfield's plan for mitigating the impacts that would be
produced by the proposed north -south runway at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport
MSP "). Notwithstanding the significant noise, traffic, economic, and other impacts that the
runway would produce in Richfield - - impacts far greater than those that would be experienced in
any other community -- Richfield does not wish to oppose the new runway. However, Richfield
believes that the runway project must include a comprehensive mitigation plan that reduces the
project's impacts to the fullest extent possible. This report contains an effective and cost.
effective plan for achieving that objective.
The draft Environmental Impact Statement for the runway project released in late 1996
the "DEIS ") failed to address important potential impacts, such as low frequency aircraft noise,
and consequently failed to propose any mitigation for those impacts. Richfield was therefore
constrained to take it upon itself to analyze impacts overlooked in the DEIS and to formulate
appropriate mitigation measures.
Richfield retained the Brauer Group, Inc., a [CITY] planning firm with more
than years of experience, to serve as project manager of the mitigation effort. To
supplement the Brauer Group's expertise in mitigation of "traditional" land use, traffic, and
economic impacts, Richfield hired BBN Systems and Technologies, an intemationally respected
acoustical engineering firm, to analyze whether the new runway would create significant noise
impacts in Richfield.
BBNT focused its attention on low frequency noise from aircraft on or near the ground,
such as noise emanated by aircraft while taxiing, taking off, employing thrust reversers on
landing, or undergoing engine maintenance run -ups. Such low frequency noise is experienced as
low rumbling and /or vibration which continues far longer than noise produced by an aircraft
overflight. Recent years have witnessed increased concern about low frequency noise at airports
across the United States, including San Francisco International Airport, Boston's Logan
International Airport, and Baltimore- Washington International Airport.
In its initial report (appended hereto as Appendix A), BBN concluded that the new north -
south runway would significantly increase low frequency noise in a large portion of eastern
Richfield and that such impacts could r= be effectively mitigated by either a noise berm parallel
to the runway or traditional residential soundproofing measures. Specifically, BBN found that:
Aircraft operations on the proposed runway would "substantially
elevate [low frequency noise levels] up to about a mile from the
runway...."
Levels of low frequency noise exposure similar to those that will
be creased in eastern Richfield by [the new runway] have given
rise to noise complaints in communities near other airports."
Z U U _
05/07 19 8 THU 10:26 FAX ISVE
An acoustic barrier (noise berm) of sufficient size to provide
appreciable low frequency noise reduction for eastern Richfield is
unlikely to be cost - effective. (Appendix A at 3.)
Having learned that the new runway would dramatically increase low frequency noise
levels in eastern Richfield, the challenge then became to determine the precise area that would be
exposed to significant . low frequency noise impacts. Consistent with applicable state and federal
environmental laws, Richfield believes that the extent of significant impacts should define the
extent of needed mitigation. On the basis of a second study performed by BBN (Appendix B
hereto) which measured the degree of community annoyance associated with low frequency
noise - -the same consideration underlying the FAA's 65 DNL standard for defining significant
traditional" airport noise impacts — Richfield based the area of significant impact on a low
frequency noise level of 75 dB. The "primary redevelopment area" shown on the map on the
following page (Figure 1 -1) corresponds with the 75 dB low frequency noise contour.
1.2 Summary of Mitigation Plan
As reflected on the land use plan depicted on Figure 1 -2, Richfield's proposed mitigation
plan includes the following elements:
Redevelopment of the portion of Richfield subjected to significant noise impacts
from the new runway with the twin goals of (1) replacing largely residential land
uses with development compatible with the noise produced by the runway, and
2) minimizing the resulting population loss_ To that end, Richfield's
redevelopment plan would replace existing land uses with high - and low - density
office and commercial uses in the eastern portion of the redevelopment area, and
with high- density, noise- resistant residential uses in the remaining portion of the
redevelopment area east of Bloomington Avenue (further away from the new
runway).
b. [EXPLAIN WHAT IS PROPOSED FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE
PRIMARY REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND FOR THE TRANSITION AREA.
REPLACEMENT OF DOORS AND WINDOWS ?].
C, Relocation of the approximately 1,000 residents and 35 businesses that would be
displaced by the redevelopment plan.
d. To reduce the impact on Richfield schools, implementation of a program to attract
and retain families with school age children in Richfield by [EXPLAIN WHAT
THE PROGRAM WOULD INVOLVE]
Replacement of the Rich Acres and New Ford Town parks and related facilities
if it is determined that the loss of those facilities is consistent with state and
federal law), including the expansion of the Ft. Smelling Golf Course into an
2-
U 003
05/07/98 THU I.Ot H FAX IWE
18-hole facility and the provision of a replacement site for the community gardens
and archery range.
f.. Widening and upgrading of W66th, Portland, Twelfth, Bloomington, and Nicollet
Avenues, and related traffic "calming" improvements, to accommodate diverted
overflow freewav traffic and to manage further diversions through residential
areas. The traffic improvements would accommodate potential future provision
of transit access, including light rail transit. [AM I RIGHT ABOUT THE
FUTURE PROVISION OF TRANSIT ACCESS ?]
g. A 200 -foot wide "greenbelt" of mixed trees and prairie grasses would be provided
over the full length of the MAC site adjacent to TH77. The greenbelt would be
supplemented by berms or fences where needed to minimize off - airport intrusion
of landing lights from ground operations by aircraft.
h. Vehicle traffic noise would be mitigated with the best available technology (BAT)
for aesthetically pleasing and ecologically responsible sound barriers,
Iandscaping, parks, and trails [CAN WE INDICATE WHERE, E.G., ADJACENT
TO TH 77 ?]
Groundwater quality impacts would be mitigated by appropriate wellhead
protection or closure improvements to wells that would be abandoned.
j. MAC property adjacent to Richfield in Taft Park would be annexed into
Richfield.
k. Construction impacts would be mitigated by equally distributing construction
traffic to all four access points to the MSP site and by completing improvements
to access routes prior to construction. In particular, improvements to the W66th
Street/TH77 interchange and construction of the W77th Street tunnel and ramps
would be completed before airfield construction is begun.
1. Full funding of the redevelopment project, including interim replacement of taxes,
fees, and other revenues lost to Richfield and the local School District, would be
provided by MAC and/or the state. [CAN WE BE MORE SPECIFIC ?]
1.3 Implementation Process
Richfield would manage implementation of the mitigation plan. It is currently estimated
that planning and design activities would require nine to eighteen months. Actual redevelopment
work would require approximately five to ten years. The total cost of the implementation plan
over the life of the entire project is $214,000,000. This represents less than eight percent of the
remaining $2.8 billion cost of the north -south runway project.
GADATA\CI J\05 3 180 510 1 01MIS15QTN SSFP.006
Z 004
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH -SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
1.1 Overview ................of a concept for mitigation of the impacts of the
proposed new runway 17/35 (the "north- south" runway) and related development is
presented in a brief, summary statement format in this Executive Summary.
1.1.1 TERMINOLOGY AND CATEGORIES ......... of impacts and mitigation proposals
in this report refer to specific items (and alphabetical designations) that are
either major categories or sub - headings under the major categories in the DEIS.
1.1.2 IN RICHFIELD.... environmental consequences and impacts are compounded
and quite disproportional to impacts on any other community, while mitigation
options and choices are few, complicated, and not easily understood by the
affected people. For this reason, the process of formulation, adoption, and
management of a mitigation program must be carefully crafted and effectively
administered in order to be understood, fair to all concerned, and accepted by
those directly affected.
1.2 Identification of Affected Institutions, Populations, and
Other Stakeholders ............ include affected institutions, facilities, residential
owners and renters, and businesses that are not identified in the DEIS, but as
stakeholders must be important participants in an equitable and successful mitigation
process. Organizations and their representatives, and individuals that are
stakeholders are identified as follows:
1.2.1 THE CITY OF RICHFIELD....... represented by its City Council, Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA), Planning and Community Services
Commissions.
1.2.2 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 280......... represented by its Board, staff
and parent- student organizations.
1.2.3 MT. CALVARY PRIVATE SCHOOL .............represented by its Board, staff,
and parent- student organization.
1.2.4 MT. CALVARY & RICHFIELD EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCHES... presented
by their Church Boards and staff.
1.2.5 THIRTY FIVE (35) BUSINESSES .............represented by owners, managers or
employees..
DRAFT 4130/98 PART ONE..... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE- 2
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
1.2.6 SIX HUNDRED FOUR (604) SINGLE FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS ..... ..... will
represent themselves..
1.2.7 FOUR HUNDRED (400) RENTAL MULTIPLE DWELLINGS with SIX
HUNDRED FORTY ONE (641) TENANTS....... will be represented by owners,
property managers, and tenant representatives.
1.2.8 ABOUT 10,000 USERS OF EXISTING PARKS, GOLF COURSES, and
ATHLETIC FACILITIES .......will be represented by the Richfield Community
Services Commission and designated representatives of each of the specific
recreation and athletic groups that are affected..
1.2.9 FOUR (4) FRANCHISE INFRASTRUCTURE ORGANIZATIONS ........... (electric
power, gas service, telephone, and cable tv) will be represented by employees
and /managers.
1.2.10 NATURAL SYSTEMS ....................... of wetland and upland plant (urban forest)
communities will be represented in the process by the Community Services
Commission and designated representatives of affected arboreal groups.
1.2.11 CUSTOMERS AND VISITORS......... affected or impacted by the development
include non - resident customers of the businesses and visitors to residents in the
affected area, will be represented by residents and business owners or
managers.
1.2.12 FUTURE SOCIO- ECONOMIC AS WELL AS THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF
THE NEIGHBORHOODS........... will be represented by a cross - section of the
resident population, the HRA, Planning Commission, City Council, and special
Task Groups designated by the Council with the advice and assistance of
special consultants
1.3 Identification and Definition of Impacts to be Mitigated....
IN The DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for the MSP expansion
project lists "Environmental Consequences" under 33 headings (A through GG), and
describes the affected environment, the impacts, and mitigation measures proposed
under each heading. This report modifies, or expands on those impacts, and adds
new categories as follows:
1.3.1 A. AIR QUALITY ........ must be expanded to include impacts from aircraft
engine exhaust while on the ground to residents and businesses nearest to
the new runway.
1.3.2 C. BIOTIC COMMUNITIES .......... must be expanded to recognize the loss of the
urban forest and upland habitat in the existing golf courses and parks.
DRAFT 4/30/98. PART ONE..... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE- 3
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH -SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
1.3.3 E. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ........... must recognize the disproportionate
impacts on Richfield transportation and traffic if traffic and highway
upgrades are not completed prior to construction.
1. 3.4 L. ECONOMIC........ impacts must recognize the disproportionate economic
impacts on Richfield under airport related development, golf course
revenues, tax capacity, population, and student losses.
1,3,4 N. INDUCED SOCIO- ECONOMIC IMPACTS ............ must be expanded to
consider the disproportionate socio- economic impacts on the smallest
neighboring city, that will lose population, and the only one that must
convert large areas of fine residential neighborhoods into non - residential
uses.
1.3.5 O. LAND USE ............ conversions of 1,000 residential units to compatible non-
residential uses within the low- frequency noise impacted area must be
added to the impacts to be mitigated.
1.3.6 P. LIGHT EMISSIONS ......... must be expanded to include consideration of he
impacts of powerful landing lights on aircraft while taxiing in the air cargo
area near the west property line along Cedar Avenue.
1.3.7 S. NOISE.......... impacts, including those frequency impacts defined in BBN
Report No. 8196, must be included in the effects to be mitigated. See
EXHIBIT 3, Existing Land Uses Within the Low Frequency Noise Impacted
Area, that delineates the boundaries of the impacted area.
1.3.8 R. PARKS AND RECREATION .......... areas within the DNL65 contours should
include Washington Park, and the low- frequency noise APE must include
Christian Park in addition to those listed in the DEIS. Replacements for the
Golf Courses, Baseball Fields, Community Gardens, and Archery Range
should be included in mitigation funding consistent with State and Federal
laws and rules.
1.3.9 T. SOCIAL IMPACTS ............ from displacement of 1,000 residential units and
35 businesses in Richfield must be recognized as substantially more impact
than on any other city, and the basis for community support funding.
1.3.10 U. SECTION 4(f) IMPACTS ........... should include New Ford Town. Rich Acres
Parks that should be acquired under appropriate State and Federal law
requirements.
DRAFT 4/30/98 PART ONE..... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE —A
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
1.3.11 W. TRANSPORTATION ACCESS ........... will have negative impacts on
access to TH77 for Richfield residents and businesses, and increased traffic
on the freeways will result in additional traffic diversions to local Richfield
streets. The DEIS must also include improved transit access to and from the
City.
1.3.12Y VISUAL IMPACTS ..............of converting golf course and open space
amenities into paving.and large buildings must be considered and mitigated.
1.3.13 BB SURFACE WATER QUALITY .......... must confirm that the Richfield Storm
Water Plan is not compromised by the additional runoff from airport
development and loss of storage areas for City flows.
1.3.14CC GROUNDWATER QUALITY .......... provisions should include proposals for
wellhead protection of acquifers that supply Richfield wells from future
contamination.
1.3.15GG DESIGN, ART, AND ARCHITECTURE .......... must recognize that the very
large air cargo structures that will replace the golf course do have substantial
negative impact and need to be mitigated.
1.3.1611 OTHER IMPACTS NOT INCLUDED IN THE DEIS ......... that should be
included are:
a. Long -Term Fiscal Impacts on the City and School District...... should
be recognized and identified.
b. City Boundaries ........should be modified to consider trades of MAC
acquisitions within the City for current and future MAC lands outside of
the primary airport site.
c. The Legal Process ........for an effective mitigation program should be
negotiated.
1.4 Mitigation Proposals
1.4.1 A..AIR QUALITY ........ in neighborhoods adjacent to the new runway should be
monitored and reported, and should be controlled as much as possible by
limiting the number of aircraft queued and holding nearest the residential area.
1.4.2 C..BIOTIC COMMUNITIES......... that are replaced by pavements and structures,
must be mitigated by providing a 200 -foot wide "greenbelt" of Miked trees and
prairie grasses over the full length of the MAC site adjacent to T1477.
DRAFT 4/30198 PART ONE..... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE- 5
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
1.4.3 E. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS .......... can be mitigated by completing
improvements to access routes prior to construction, and directing construction
traffic to be distributed over all four access points.
1.4.4 I. ECONOMIC ........ impacts on the smallest neighbor with the most economic
losses must be mitigated through complete fiscal support of the redevelopment
project replacement of tax, fees, and other revenues lost to the City and the
School District, as .well.as funding community. organization and redevelopment
management activities (See 1.5, Implementation for cost estimates)
1.4.5 N. INDUCED SOCIO- ECONOMIC IMPACTS ........ can be affected by MAC
policies that support redevelopment of the noise impacted area or Richfield, and
particularly financial support of activities that attract and retain families with
school age children in Richfield. (See 1.5, Implementation for cost estimates)
1.4.6 O. LAND USE .............redevelopment proposed for the primary noise impacted
area of Richfield (See EXHIBIT 6) should be approved by MAC and fully funded
See 1.5, Implementation for cost estimates).
1.4.7 P. LIGHT EMISSIONS ......... from aircraft moving on the ground in the air cargo
area adjacent to TH77 should be mitigated by construction of berms and fences
in the "green belt" area, and by restriction of the use of landing lights in this
area from 9:00pm to 6:00am.
1.4.8 Q. NOISE .......... mitigation activities must extend structural protection beyond
the DNL60 limits for all runways, to include all of the areas within low frequency
75db, or A90 (BBN Report 8196) area limits and a two -block "transition zone"
delineated by EXHIBIT 3, Noise Impacted Areas in Richfield. Structural
protection must include replacement of doors and windows and other actions
that will specifically reduce the impacts of low frequency sound and related
vibrations. MAC must approve the redevelopment concept (See EXHIBIT 6) and
provide all required financing. (See 1.5, Implementation for cost estimates).
a) Surface Access Transportation Noise ..................should be mitigated with
the best available technology (BAT) for aesthetic and ecologically
responsible sound barriers, landscaping, parks and trails.
1.4.9 R. PARKS AND RECREATION .......... impacts must be mitigated by approval of
Richfield proposals for replacement of the Rich Acres and New Ford Town Parks
land, amenities, and improvements, provision of a replacement site for the full
community gardens and archery range, relocation assistance in expedition of
land acquisitions and exchanges that will result in the expansion of the Ft.
Snelling Golf Course into an 18 -hole facility, and full funding of these activities
See 1.5, Implementation for cost estimates).
DRAFT 4/30/98 PART ONE..... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE- 6
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH -SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
1.4.10T. SOCIAL IMPACTS.........must be mitigated with full funding of relocation of all
1.000 residents and 35 businesses that are displaced under the relocation
concept (See EXHIBIT 6) and related highway transportation improvements,
and continued funding of community organization activities for the two existing
neighborhoods that are substantially affected by the redevelopment concept.
See 1.5, Implementation for cost estimates).
1.4.11 U. SECTION 4(f) IMPACTS ............ should include New Ford Town and Rich
Acres Parks also covered under R. PARKS AND RECREATION, above as well.
1.4.12 W. TRANSPORTATION ACCESS ......... mitigation must include improvements to
the W66th Street/TH77 interchange and construction of the W77th Street tunnel
and ramps before the proposed air cargo area is operational. (Should be done
to better accommodate construction traffic as well). Diverted overflow freeway
traffic on city streets (W66th, Portland, Twelfth, Bloomington, and Nicollet
Avenues) will require widening and upgrading those streets, and traffic
calming" improvements to mange further diversions through connecting
residential areas. Provision must also be made in plans to accommodate
connection of transit access (including LRT) to and from Richfield. (See 1.5,
Implementation for cost estimates.)
1.4.13Y. VISUAL IMPACTS .............of the conversion from golf course and residential
area to vast paved areas and large buildings must be mitigated by development
of a 200 -foot wide "green belt" described under 1.4.2, above.
1.4.14 BB. SURFACE WATER QUALITY ......... must meet all requirements of the
Richfield surface water management plan.
1.4.15 CC. GROUNDWATER QUALITY ........... must include appropriate wellhead
protection or closure improvements to the existing wells that will be abandoned
in order to protect the aquifer that serves the Richfield system.
1.4.16 GG. DESIGN, ART, ARCHITECTURE .......... must provide the "green belt" area
previously described as a buffer, as well as architectural treatment of the air
cargo buildings appropriate with the fact that many multiple residential units less
than 1,000 feet to the west will have full view of the structures.
1.4.1711. OTHER IMPACTS NOT INCLUDED IN THE DEIS ........... as follows:
a. Long -Term Fiscal Impacts ..............on the City and the School District
should be mitigated by compensation equal to the loss of tax, fee, grants,
and other revenues lost because of all of the impacts of this airport project.
See 1.5, Implementation for cost estimates).
DRAFT 4/30/98 PART ONE..... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE-- 7
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
a. City Boundaries ........... should be revised to exclude New Ford Town and
Rich Acres, and should be expanded to include all of MAC property in and
adjacent to the City (Taft Park area).
b. The Legal Status and Process...... required for effective implementation of
the approved mitigation plan must be defined and adopted by both the City
and MAC.
1.5 Implementation Process
1.5.1 ADOPTION OF A COMPREHENSIVE MITIGATION PLAN ................must first
be accomplished by CITY, and the funding mechanism adopted by MAC,
through formal resolutions. The PLAN must include full funding, staffing,
allowance for outside consulting commitments, stakeholder involvement, a
communications program, a time line, in order to survive periodic changes in
Council Members , Commissioners, and staff, as well as continuous changes
in the affected participants and "public interest" groups that weave in and out of
these kinds of situations
1.5.1 MANAGEMENT OF THE PLAN ........... will be assigned to staff or consultants as
appropriate, by the City. The Mitigation Project Manager (MPM) will work under
the direction of the City Manager or his designated staff. The City Manager will
coordinate and communicate regularly with the MAC Executive Director.
1.5.3 STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN MITIGATION ACTIONS ........ will include
frequent and consistent information disseminated by newsletter, direct mail,
media releases, presentations to neighborhood gatherings, informed feedback
through response cards and calls, random sample telephone interviews,
interactive public forums, and the continuing involvement of various
stakeholder representatives through specific major project task groups.
1.5.4 AN ESTIMATED TIME LINE ..............target dates will be related to the airport
facility final design, final negotiated mitigation activities construction and
operating schedules, and other factors, most of which are not yet set. A
preliminary estimate would be nine to eighteen months for planning and design,
and five to ten years for actual redevelopment work.
1.5.5 MITIGATION FUNDING TO BE PROVIDED BY THE PROJECT....... is
estimated to be $214,000,000 over the life of the entire project (10 years),
although some specific projects may continue beyond that time,
DRAFT 4/30/98 PART ONE..... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE-- 8
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
1.5.6 REVIEW THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCESS ANNUALLY ......... in order
to evaluate effectiveness, responsiveness, timeliness, appropriateness, and to
update all legal, financial and legislative criteria and constraints.
1.6 EXHIBITS .........attached to this part of the report include:
1. Summary of BBN Report Number 8196
2. Summary of BBN Report Number 8211
3. Noise Impacted Areas .....Existing Land Uses
4. Noise Impacted Areas...... Existing Population
5. Noise Impacted Areas...... Existing Market Values
6. A Redevelopment Concept
7. Option Six Plan for MSP Site Development
DRAFT 4/30198. PART ONE..... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE- 9.
PART FIVE... IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
OF A
MITIGATION CONCEPT
FOR
THE IMPACTS TO`RICHFIELD STAKEHOLDERS
RESULTING FROM DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION
OF
A NEW NORTH -SOUTH RUNWAY (17/35)
FOR
THE MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SITE
TWIN CITIES, MN
Prepared For
The City of Richfield, MN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART NO. SUBJECT
PART FIVE Implementation Process
DRAFT 04/30/98
PAGE
5.1 Overview FIVE - 2
5.2 Adoption of a Mitigation Plah FIVE - 2
5.3 Legal Basis FIVE - 2
5.3.1 Independent Project
5.3.2 Funding Basis
5.4 Management of the Plan FIVE - 2
5.5 Stakeholder Participation FIVE - 3
5.5.1 Stakeholders
5.5.2 Participation Process
5.6 An Estimated Time Line FIVE - 4
5.7 Estimated Mitigation Funding FIVE - 4
5.8 Estimated Annual Budget FIVE - 5
5.9 Annual Review FIVE - 6
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
PART FIVE..... MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
5.1 OVERVIEW ...................... of a procedure for implementation of the mitigation
concepts outlined in PART FOUR is presented in outline format. More detail can
be provided as required to support negotiations or to formalize an agreement for
accomplishing the work.
5.2 ADOPTION OF A COMPREHENSIVE MITIGATION PLAN ................by -the City,
and approval of the funding mechanism by MAC must first be accomplished by
formal actions of the City and MAC. The City will provide a complete PLAN
including effective staffing, provision of office space and equipment, a
projected time line and performance goals, and a schedule of funding
requirements from MAC, by formal resolutions.
5.3 THE LEGAL........ process must be complete and appropriate to the requirements
of both the City and MAC for joint powers activities.
5.3.1 INDEPENDENT PROJECT .................for redevelopment must be set
apart from the actual airport construction project as well as from the day -to -day
operations of both the City and MAC, in order to effectively complete the
mitigation activities, and to maintain credibility with the affected stakeholders.
The mitigation Plan must be seen as an undertaking worthy of its own specific
identity, responsibility and authority, rather than an insignificant adjunct to the
huge airport construction project, or simply short-term extra duty for City staff.
The City may consider contracting with a corporate or not - for - profit, private
sector development entity (or entities if the project is divided into geographical or
functional units) for planning, management, and construction of the
redevelopment portion of the overall project..
5.3.2 FUNDING BASIS ...............from all available sources for both MAC and
the City should be effectively applied in order to generate as much as possible
of the investment capital and management costs from the development project
itself. The City and MAC will likely need to cooperate in asking the Minnesota
Legislature for special funding and management authority for this unique
situation.
5.4 MANAGEMENT OF THE PLAN ........... should be directed by a Mitigation Project
Manager (MPM) hired or retained by the City, . The MPM will employ staff and
retain consultants, utilize City and MAC staff when appropriate and applicable,
direct and coordinate the work of the redevelopment contractors, and will
prepare a budget document for adoption by the City and review by MAC each
year. The MPM will be responsible to, and work under the direction of the City
DRAFT 4/30/98 PART FIVE... IMPLEMENTATION PAGE FIVE- 2
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Manager or his designated staff. The City Manager will coordinate and
communicate with the MAC Executive Director and, and will make presentations
to both groups and to the public on a regular basis. .
5.5 STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN MITIGATION ACTIONS ........ must include
frequent and consistent information dissemination by newsletter, direct mail,
media releases, presentations to neighborhood groups, signage, hand -outs,
etc.. Feedback, input, and critiques from the affected individuals and groups
should .be provided through forums, focus groups, telephone .and in- person
interviews, etc., on a continuous basis throughout the project. Meaningful
participation will most likely prove to be the primary means available that can be
successful in preservation of the solid community character that exists in the
affected area today.
5.5.1 STAKEHOLDERS ................include at least three distinct groups, each
of which view the project and the process quite differently because of different
risks, and the nature of involvement over time. While all will need to know the
same basic information and have opportunities to participate in the process,
each group will have differing concerns and needs that must be recognized and
met. These groups can be defined as follows:
a) The Displaced ............ stakeholders are the first group, and are the easiest to
identify and communicate with because they are within the boundary of the
redevelopment area itself.. They are involved in the project until they are
displaced, and most will not have any long -term involvement unless they move
to a new location in the redevelopment project or to a home in the neighborhood
that is made available to them. Every effort should be made to retain families
with school -age children through finding and swapping available housing in the
neighborhood .
b) Abutting ........ stakeholders are the second group because their property is on
the outside of the redevelopment boundary line and are most directly affected by
the actual redevelopment activity and the future structures and uses. Abutting
properties, like the displaced, can be exactly determined by their property
description, and, unlike the displaced group, are most concerned with the long
term aspects of the project since they will remain through redevelopment.
b) Bordering ........ stakeholders are the third and largest group. They are those
that will remain where they are today .beginning one lot or so beyond the
boundaries of the redevelopment area, and extending to a not so easy to
determine outer limit. Concerns may be views, traffic, non - residential land
uses, occupant demographics, etc., most important of which are the long term
aspects of the project. Stakeholders should share in the definition of this area
early in the process. Ultimately, any who believe that they are in the affected
area, and are actively involved, will be included..
c) Neighborhood ......... stakeholders are those that live or work anywhere east of
12th Avenue and want to be actively involved.
DRAFT 4/30/98 PART FIVE... IMPLEMENTATION PAGE FIVE- 3
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
d) Community .................stakeholders will come from outside of the geographic
areas defined above, and will include representatives of community groups
Chamber of Commerce or Service Clubs), quasi - public institutions
churches. -clubs), public institutions (Conservation or Watershed District) as
well as individual residents and business people..
5.5.2 THE PARTICIPATION PROCESS .............must include clear, adequate,
and complete information so that the stakeholders can make informed judgments
and decisions. .The process must also be..flexible and-open to changes in both
substance and form that come from the participants. The managers, leaders,
and moderators used in the process should be experienced, objective, and
without a vested interest in any outcome.
5.6 AN ESTIMATED TIME LINE ...............begins with negotiations, adoption,
funding, and designation of management of the PLAN, and will continue until
the last mitigation activity has been accomplished. Specific TARGET DATES
will be related to the airport facility final design, negotiated mitigation
parameters, funding commitments, construction and operating schedules, and
other factors, most of which are not yet evident. A preliminary outline based
upon the recommendations in this report is as follows:
Negotiate the Mitigation Plan Joint Powers Agreement 3 to 5 months
Approve The Agreement and select the MPM 2 to 3 months
Initial Stakeholder Information and Communication 3 to 4 months
Complete Investigations, Surveys, and Designs 5 to 6 months
Public and Stakeholder Review of Preliminary PLAN 2 to 3 months
Complete Final PLAN, do Funding, Bids and Contracts 9 to 18 months
Demolition, Construction, Relocation 5 to 10 years
Periodic Feedback Forums and Surveys quarterly
Project Management Review & Evaluation annually
Project Completion Review and Evaluation 3 to 4 months
5.6 ESTIMATED MITIGATION FUNDING TO BE PROVIDED FOR THE PROJECT
is estimated over the estimated life of the entire project (10 years),
although some specific projects or activities may continue beyond that time
frame as follows:
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION OF MITIGATION ACTION ESTIMATED COST
1.4.1 Air Quality Monitoring & Management $ 500,000
1.4.2 Biotic Communities 1,200,000
1.4.3 Construction Impacts 40,000,000
1.4.4 Economic Impacts 4,000.000
DRAFT 4/30198 PART FIVE... IMPLEMENTATION PAGE FIVE -- 4
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
1.4.5 Induced Socio- Economic Impacts 14,000,000
1.4.6 Land Use (Seed Money Fund) 50,000,000
1.4.7 Light Emissions (Included under 1.4.2, above)
1.4.8 Noise Treatment for 740 homes 26,500,000
1.4.8a Highway Noise Mitigation (Included under 1.4.4, above)
1.4.9 Parks And Recreation 12,000,000
1.4.10 Social Impacts 12,750,000
1.4.11 Section 4(f) Parks (2) 2,250,000
1.4.12 Transportation (In addition to 1.4.3, above) 33,000,000
1.4.13 Visual Impacts (Included under 1.4.2, above)
1.4.14 Surface Water Quality 500,000
1.4.15 Groundwater Quality 100,000
1.4.16 Design, Art, Architecture 3,000,000
1.4.17 Other Impacts..... Fiscal; Impacts 15,000,000
ESTIMATED TEN -YEAR MITIGATION COSTS $ 214,000,000
5.8 ESTIMATED ANNUAL MANAGEMENT COSTS............ are based on the scale
and magnitude of the project concept outlined in this report as follows:
a) Professional and Support Staff (Estimated Annual Cost Range)
DRAFT 4/30/98 PART FIVE... IMPLEMENTATION PAGE FIVE- 5
Project Manager ................. ............................... $ 45,000 to $ 55,000
Assistant Project Manager . ............................... 30,000 to 35,000
Administrative .................... ............................... 25,000 to 32,000
Professional Staff (or consultants ) ..................... 35,000 to 40,000
Technical Staff (or consultants) ........................ 25,000 to 30,000
b) Office Space and Equipment
Office Space, Equipment, & Furnishings ......... 10,500 to 13,000
Personnel Field Equipment (Rental) .................. 3,500 to 5,000
c) Communications Expenses
Telephone ........................... ............................... 3,000 to 3,500
Internet ............................... ............................... 1,000 to 1,500
Teleconferencing ................. ............................... 11,000 to 13,000
Postage, Messenger, Express .......................... 2,000 to 3,000
d) Travel, Mileage, and Other
Auto Mileage and Travel ........ ............................... 3,000 to 4,000
Other Expenses ..................... ............................... 2,000 to 4,000
e) Management Consultant and Government Support Services
Management and Legal Services ......................... 30,000 to 40,000
Government Support Goods and Services........... 9,000 to 12,000
Estimated Total Annual Cost For Project Management 235,000 to 273,500
Estimated Project Cost For Ten Years...... $ 2,350,000 to $ 2,910,000
DRAFT 4/30/98 PART FIVE... IMPLEMENTATION PAGE FIVE- 5
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
5.7 REVIEW THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCESS ANNUALLY ......... in order
to evaluate effectiveness, responsiveness, timeliness, appropriateness, and
all legal, financial and legislative criteria and constraints.
a) The MPM will prepare an annual report that details the activities of the past
year, specifically describes the status of each subproject, and outlines the
proposed action plan for the next year.
b) The action plan will be developed with participation of the stakeholders.
c) .The action plan will be-reviewed,. amended, revised, . and approved by the
City and confirmed by MAC.
DRAFT 4/30/98 PART FIVE... IMPLEMENTATION PAGE FIVE- 6
EXHIBIT 3
NOISE IMPACTED AREAS IN RICHFIELD
Existing Land Uses and Areas
Z
0
z a
F-
7 w
r_
r = r
r rr w
some
E wa
M
r - /. /i `/. _
t w ter•
r
ME
r
ra
1R a Nn a as
s
r O
r a
ra r
r rt rr _
r
ar
rr Zr
A-
ME
pfa
01 — r rr
t•
r r - MIN r
A
rr !
4
ANN N4Nf
a !! f rr rr
rr rra
Ar
mm
3:V
r/
w
rA
ii
J =
w in
0 co N z
63RD ST.
64TH ST.
65TH ST.
86TH ST.
87TH ST.
68TH ST.
69TH ST.
70TH ST
71ST ST.
72ND ST.
73RD ST.
74TH ST.
75TH ST.
Primary Area
G@rR! Vad ," .ricPai'ce le 'Ares ' +ACrenge,.
Apartment 32 1 680469 249 1 15.62
Church I 1 10484.247
Commercial
0.24
Commercial 61 932431.898 21.41
Duplex 1 29 282011.100
6
6.41
Park 1 6 83641 2.656
4953354.545
19.20
Quasi - Public 1 52851.109
1 1.38
1 1.211
Residential 892 I 7848215.984 180.17
School 2 60123.119 1.38
Vacant 2 28053.501 0.64
Apartment Units = 401
Redevelopment Area
tAlld QS @r •Cf Pert:ll9 J1[!A, 'ACr@Ag!'-
Apartment 32 680469.249 15.62
Church 1 10484.247 I 0.24
Commercial 48 I 189568.690 18.13
Duplex 29 I 282011.180 I 6.47
Park 6 836412.656 19.20
Residential 1 546 1 4953354.545 1 113.71
school 2 60123.119 1 1.38
Vacant 1 21399.932 1 0.49
Apartment Units = 401
Comprehensive Plan
Lend [7ae r1 PerCel, tACea• c .,t;/iereape. -
Apartment 30 665893.833 15.29
Commercial 47 762862.633 17.51
Duplex 29 282011.180 6.47
Park 5 378724.307 8.69
Residential 228 2089105.537 47.96
Vacant 1 21399.932 0.49
Apartment Units = 387
Transition Area
Apartment 1 13936.638 0.32
Church 1 48711.604 1.12
Commnercial 10 144980.182 3.33
Duplex 4 50514.669 1.16
Park- 1 476495.721 10.94
Residential 409 3616760.663 83.03
School 1 240714.323 5.53
Apartment Units = 10
76TH ST. N
77TH ST. + add
500 0 500 1000 Feet
78TH ST.
April 8, 1998
EXHIBIT 4 NOISE IMPACTED AREAS IN RICHFIELD
Existing Resident and School Populations
DEVELOPMENT AREA — Existing Conditions vs. Proposed Redevelopment Concept
LAND USE AREA ac Concept Units u Concept
Total
Population Concept
School
Population Concept
Single Family 113.7
6.5
547
122
1258
Multi - Family Medium Density
179
401
Single Family High Density 6.5 50.5 58 404 122 848 20 81
Multi - Family Medium Density (25 u /ac) 15.6 401 641 1155 122 17
Multi - Family High Density (50 u /ac) 16.5 825
Regional Commercial /Office 18.2• 48.8
Streets 47.4
High Density Office
Other
18.2
vacant, schools, churches, quasi-public)
Low Density Office 34.7
285.8 1352 2817 428
Includes all commercial uses
Neighborhood Commercial 1.3
Parks 19.2 24.3
Streets 60.6 18.5
Other 5.06 5.5
vacant, schools, churches, quasi-public)
TOTAL 220.7 218.3 1006 1229 2021 2003 321 98
Includes all commercial uses
PRIMARY AREA
LAND USE AREA (ac) Units (u)
Total
Population
School
Population
Single Family 180.2 893 2054 377
Single Family High Density 6.5 58 122 11
Multi - Family Medium Density 15.6 401 641 40
Multi - Family High Density
Regional Commercial /Office 21.4`
High Density Office
Low Density Office
Neighborhood Commercial
Parks 29.7
Streets 47.4
Other 6.42
vacant, schools, churches, quasi-public)
TOTAL 285.8 1352 2817 428
Includes all commercial uses
Page 1 4/30/98
EXHIBIT 5
NOISE IMPACTED AREAS IN RICHFIELD
Existing Market Value of Properties
Z
LJ
0
Z J
Q W
2 K u_
L = 2 2 2 8 2F 2 2 0 2 2 F- 0
In
co
i0 OD
0 -j N N N
r
2
S`
r
r
r _
r
r
rr
ter/
RINI
vlo
63RD ST
64TH ST
65TH ST
66TH ST
67TH ST
68TH ST
69TH ST
70TH ST
71ST ST.
72ND ST.
73RD ST.
Primary Area
Lend-USe' ` .0 Parcels, market value
Apartment I 32 9438000
Church I 1 I 0
Commercial 61 16306300
Duplex 29 I 2873000
Park 6 I 0
I Quasi - Public I 1 1 O I
Residential I 892 73277100
School 2 I 0
Vacant , 2 I 97000
Redevelopment Area
Land Use 0 Parcels Marker Value
Apartment I 32 I 9436000
Church I 1 I 0
Commercial I 46 14959100
Duplex I 29I 2873000
Park I 6 I 0 I
Residential I 546 46487000
School I 2 I 0
Vacant I J. I 78000 I
Comp Plan Area
Land Use -`_ gParce ls :- Market; Ya lue..
Apartment I 30 8594000
commercial I 47 14814100
Duplex I 29 2873000
Park 5 i 0
Residential 228 I 19433900
Vacant I lI 78000
74TH ST.
N
75TH ST.
500 0 500 1000 Feet
76TH ST.
77TH ST. February 4, 1998
EXHIBIT 6 NOISE IMPACTED AREAS IN RICHFIELD
A Proposed Redevelopment Concept
u
83RD L T
i i ni
J
4- E]
O
rT,
L--L-J .
w O At
U.
w
z z
W
z
r U OJ ^ N N N
F1 1
1 -494
Proposed Concept
77TH ST.
78TH ST.
500 0 500
February 3, 1998
z
OF
z
x x x O x
m
u
83RD L T
i i ni
J
4- E]
O
rT,
L--L-J .
w O At
U.
w
z z
W
z
r U OJ ^ N N N
F1 1
1 -494
Proposed Concept
77TH ST.
78TH ST.
500 0 500
February 3, 1998