2022.11.21 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Minnesota Joint Application – Attachment C: Avoidance and Minimization 13620 Fenway Boulevard North – Hugo, Minnesota Carlson McCain, Inc. Page 4 The second proposed project is a separate two-story building and accompanying parking lot. As part of their normal schedule of operations, the nuclear plants are taken off-line for refueling, training and maintenance periods. This Central In-Processing (CIP) building will serve a critical role in supporting these planned plant outages. Currently, In-processing for employees and contractors that support nuclear maintenance outages is provided at the individual sites, but the configuration of facilities at the sites aren’t efficient. Outages typically require an additional 800 staff and contractors from throughout Xcel and from around the country to surge onto the site for a work period. In-processing is required for all types of contractor trades: electricians, pipefitters, steelworkers, plumbers, HVAC, etc.). Presently, for each outage, temporary offices, classroom trailers and other equipment is moved on-site to facilitate maintenance activities. Also, during outage operations, training for site personnel must be suspended to free up classroom space. This project provides Xcel with opportunities to improve efficiencies and significantly lower operating costs. In addition to improving In-Processing operations, Xcel training personnel see the opportunity to relocate training operations now hosted at the RTC, which is over 90 years old. This will allow Xcel to centralize their Technical Training staff in Hugo, creating operating efficiencies and improving the sharing of resources across Xcel’s training programs. The project includes construction of virtual training classrooms, to lower training costs as well as provide needed space to train the workforce of the future in Renewable Energy technologies. Avoidance. Both the CWA and the WCA require that impacts to aquatic resources be avoided if practicable alternatives exist. Clearly describe all on-site measures considered to avoid impacts to aquatic resources and discuss at least two project alternatives that avoid all impacts to aquatic resources on the site. These alternatives may include alternative site plans, alternate sites, and/or not doing the project. Alternatives should be feasible and prudent (see MN Rules 8420.0520 Subp. 2 C). Applicants are encouraged to attach drawings and plans to support their analysis: The original development plan called for adding on to the existing building (see attached Concept Plan A). This was quickly deemed not feasible since the existing building’s systems were not designed to handle an expansion, and therefore it would be significantly expensive to add on to the current building. Reducing the building and/or parking lot size (as shown in the attached Concept Plan B) could minimize wetland impacts twofold by first creating more room for the stormwater pond, and by minimizing the size of stormwater pond required. However, the size of the proposed building (footprint of approximately 24,700 square feet) is driven by specific programming requirements from the departments to be using the building (see Attachment A). Any reduction in size would limit the effectiveness of the new facility. The design and floor layouts optimize efficiencies of the activities planned for the facility. Reducing or reconfiguring the design would have a negative impact on the overall use of the facility. The current plan does exceed the required parking outlined by the City Code. A total of 186 Parking Stall is required for the In-Processing Building and a total of 329 Parking Stalls are being provided. The parking above and beyond the Code requirement is required by Xcel to make this facility function due to the Training nature this facility is providing (ie events where a large number of “non-regular” employees will be requiring parking, in addition to the “everyday”