Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015/07/13 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA JULY 13, 2015 (Mayor Jacobs Out) 6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Community Room Discussion Items 1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 20 & July 27, 2015 2. 6:35 p.m. Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensing 3. 7:05 p.m. 2015 Omnibus Liquor Bill Update 4. 7:35 p.m. Single Use Plastic Bags Discussion – Debrief & Next Steps 5. 8:20 p.m. Southwest LRT Update – Supplementary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) 8:50 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal) 8:55 p.m. Adjourn Written Reports 6. New Minnesota State Commercial Building and Energy Codes 7. Update on Outdoor Rink Project - Hockey Association Agreement Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: July 13, 2015 Discussion Item: 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 20 and July 27, 2015 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for a Special Study Session on July 20, 2015 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on July 27, 2015. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed? SUMMARY: At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the proposed discussion items for a Special Study Session on July 20, 2015 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on July 27, 2015. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 20 & 27, 2015 Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 20 and July 27, 2015 Special Study Session, July 20, 2015 – 6:30 p.m. Tentative Discussion Item 1. Lutheran Church of the Reformation Property Guidance – Community Development (30 minutes) Discuss the future use of this property and whether the City or EDA should consider purchasing the property in order to facilitate the construction of single family homes on the site 2. Southwest LRT SDEIS – Community Development (30 minutes) Review comments on the Southwest LRT Supplementary Draft Environmental Impact Statement for submittal to Metropolitan Council. Reports 3. Arlington Road Development End of Meeting: 7:00 p.m. Study Session, July 27, 2015 – 6:00 p.m. Tentative Discussion Items 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) 2. MSP 2035 Long-Term Comprehensive Plan - Update by MAC Staff/Commissioner – Inspections (45 minutes) The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) is in the process of preparing a 2035 Long- Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) for the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport. Since SLP is a member city on the Noise Oversight Committee, MAC planning staff will provide an overview of the planning process, its progress to date, and timeline. 3. Polystyrene Industry Expert/Stakeholder Panel – Operations & Recreation (150 minutes) An expert and stakeholder panel will be providing their insights related to City Council’s desire to limit the use of polystyrene food and beverage containers in St. Louis Park. Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes) Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session agenda for the purposes of information sharing. Reports 4. SWLRT Update 5. Partnership with CEE - Commercial Energy Code Assistance Program 6. June 2015 Monthly Financial Report 7. 2nd Quarter Investment Report (April - June 2015) 8. Service Contract with Golden Valley for Central Park West End of Meeting: 9:25 p.m. Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: July 13, 2015 Discussion Item: 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensing RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action required. The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with requested information regarding the establishment of size limitations on off-sale intoxicating liquor stores. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council want to create size limitations on off-sale intoxicating liquor establishments? What other information would the Council like to review regarding off-sale intoxicating liquor licensing? SUMMARY: • On January 12, 2015, the City Council had a discussion on off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses and locations. It was the consensus of the majority of the Council to direct staff to prepare a resolution imposing a limit on off-sale liquor licenses to allow time to study this topic. • On January 20, 2015, the City Council adopted a resolution limiting the number of off- sale intoxicating liquor licenses that applied to all pending and future applications with an expiration date of December 31, 2015. • On April 20, 2015 the City Council discussed this topic and reviewed zoning, business locations, regulations, public safety, licenses per capita, and data regarding existing establishments. At this meeting, Council directed staff to review information on limiting store square footage and research legal issues related to such a regulation. City Code does not contain specific provisions limiting the number of liquor establishments in St. Louis Park, although statutorily the Council has the power to limit the number of licenses or employ other restrictions. City Ordinance Sec. 3-72 states the City Council may, by resolution, restrict the number of any type of liquor license issued within designated areas or zoning districts within the City. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Map of Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Establishments Prepared by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Title: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensing DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: At the April 20, 2015 Study Session, the Council continued discussion on off-sale intoxicating liquor license, reviewed zoning, business locations, regulations, public safety, licenses per capita, and data on existing establishments. At this meeting the Council directed staff to review information on limiting establishment square footage and research legal issues related to such a regulation. Can a city create limitations on square footage (size) of off-sale intoxicating liquor establishments? Staff consulted City Attorney Soren Mattick on this question. The research focused on a city’s ability to regulate square footage requirements utilizing the controls provided to the City through zoning and liquor licensing. The City Attorney stated size limitations can be established with development of certain criteria: • The Council would need to establish a sound rationale for the regulation for the maximum square footage that is being established. Ideally the Council would describe how the regulation benefits the health, safety and welfare of the community. • If a size limitation is established, criteria will need to be established regarding how potentially existing licensed businesses larger than the new limit would be allowed to continue operation. o Decide if existing licensed businesses that are over the new size limit can continue operation at that size, but not expand. o Decide if a new owner will be able to operate at an existing licensed business location? o Decide if an existing licensed business with a store that exceeds the new size limit will be able to relocate and maintain the same size store? • If a size limitation is established, the ordinance would need to set rules for how requests for expansions from existing licensed businesses will be handled. o The code could allow an existing business that is below the size limit to expand up to the size limit. o The code could prohibit expansions of existing licensed businesses that are at or above the size limit. • Any size limitations on off-sale intoxicating liquor stores are more appropriate to the liquor licensing code, rather than the zoning code. Are there examples of size limitations in other cities? Staff has found a couple examples through its research and inquiries. With more time and effort, staff would likely be able to identify other communities that also limit the size of these establishments. One local example is in Hopkins, which very recently established an ordinance limiting the size of off-sale liquor stores to 5,000 square feet. Victoria, British Columbia has city policies limiting the size of liquor stores to 2,200 square feet, but has recent examples where they have considered or allowed stores that are 7,200 to 13,800 square feet in size contrary to the policy. What should be the criteria for the size limitation? In the case of liquor compliance issues in St. Louis Park, there is not a pattern of additional violations in larger liquor stores than smaller stores. Which size threshold, if any, would be most appropriate has not been identified by staff. Council may want to review the existing liquor store Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 3 Title: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensing Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensed Establishments Address Development, Mall or Shopping area Premises CURRENT approx Sq Ft Liquor Violations past 5 years Year Business Began Total Years in business 1 St. Louis Park Liquors 6316 Minnetonka Blvd Minnetonka Park Mall 1,200 2 (2013, 2014)2001 14 2 Target Liquor Store T-2189 8900 Highway 7 near Knollwood Mall 1,850 0 2015 less than 1 3 Jennings’ Liquor Store 4631 Excelsior Blvd Excelsior & Grand 2,600 2 (2011, 2013)1946 69 4 Trader Joe’s #710 4500 Excelsior Blvd Excelsior & Grand 2,600 0 2006 10 5 Vintage Wine & Spiritz 8942 Highway 7 Knollwood Village 2,800 0 2006 10 6 Supervalu CUB liquor store 5370 16th Street W West End 3,400 0 2009 6 7 Costco Wholesale #377 5801 W 16th St West End 3,884 0 2001 14 8 Westwood Liquors 2304 Louisiana Ave S 4,100 0 1963 52 9 Liquor Barrel 5111 Excelsior Blvd Miracle Mile 4,500 1 (2011)2005 9 10 Texas-Tonka Liquor 8242 Minnetonka Blvd 4,772 1 (2011)1962 53 11 Knollwood Liquor 7924 Hwy 7, Suite A Knollwood Mall 5,367 1 (2013)1967 48 12 Byerly’s Wine & Spirits 3777 Park Ctr Blvd 6,000 0 1979 36 13 MGM 8100 Highway 7 Knollwood Mall 8,891 0 Nov 2014 less than 1 14 Liquor Boy 5620 Cedar Lake Rd Park Place Plaza West 9,000 1 (2013)2012 3 15 Sams Club 3745 Louisiana 10,560 0 1986 29 Liquor Stores CLOSED Napa Jacks 4200 Mtka Blvd wine store 3,800 0 May-Dec 2006 8 mos Vino 100 5601 Wayzata Blvd Excelsior & Grand 1,795 0 2006 - 2008 1.5 Cedar Lake Wine & Spirits 5330 Cedar Lake Rd Cedar Point Business Complex West End 1,280 0 2012 - 2013 1 Four Firkins-Lagers Ales Wine 5630 West 36th Street Harmony Vista Shopping Center 1,800 1 (2012)2008-2015 7 sizes and also consider how many businesses would be at or above any proposed size threshold. To that end, staff provided a table sorted by size from smallest to largest (see below). Potential size limitation options: 1. 10,560 square foot limitation (current size of largest establishment). 2. 5,000 square foot limitation (average square footage of current establishments 4,582). 3. Other If a size limitation is established, can a waiver be granted? Staff does not recommend including waivers to allow exceptions to the rule if the liquor ordinance is changed and includes size limitations. Instead, Council would need to take formal action to amend the ordinance to allow larger stores. Having a waiver would defeat the purpose of the ordinance. What is the current square footage of our off-sale intoxicating liquor stores? Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 4 Title: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensing What is the history of the number of Off-Sale Liquor Licenses? There are three different types of off-sale liquor license categories in St. Louis Park. Only an exclusive liquor store can be issued an off-sale “intoxicating” liquor license. Other off-sale licenses include 3.2 malt liquor either in a grocery store or brewery. Below is the history of the number of off-sale licenses issued since 2000: YEAR Off-Sale Intox (liquor stores) Off-Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor (grocery stores) Off-Sale Brewery (growlers) TOTAL Off-Sale Licenses 2014 16 3 2 21 2013 15 3 2 20 2012 14 3 2 19 2011 14 4 2 20 2010 13 3 1 17 2009 12 3 1 15 2008 11 3 1 14 2007 13 3 16 2006 10 2 12 2005 10 2 12 2004 9 3 12 2003 9 4 13 2002 9 4 13 2001 9 4 13 2000 7 4 11 Is there any comment from the Police Department on off-sale intoxicating liquor stores? The Police Department previously did not feel there was any direct relationship between the number of and/or location of off-sale establishments and any particular outcomes, either positive or negative. Police Management reviewed this question along with store size and stated the current number of liquor stores has had no direct effect on public safety. Why are there off-sale intoxicating liquor establishments outside of the C2 Zoning District? The “Liquor Store” land use designation was created in 2013, and is currently allowed only in the C-2 Zoning District by the zoning code. Prior to 2013, liquor stores were considered “Retail” and were allowed in any zoning district where retail was allowed. As a result of the 2013 zoning change, liquor stores that existed in zoning districts other than the C-2 District became legally non-conforming (grandfathered). Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 5 Title: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensing Are there limits set by the State of Minnesota on the number of liquor licensed establishments? No. Currently, State law and City Code do not contain provisions limiting the actual number of off-sale intoxicating liquor licensed establishments in St. Louis Park; and the Council has the power to limit the number of liquor licenses. City Ordinance Sec. 3-72 states the City Council may, by resolution, restrict the number of any type of liquor license issued. MN Statute 340A.413 subd.5 limits off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses in cities of the 1st class (over 100,000 population) to not more than one license for each 5,000 population, and in all other cities the limit is determined by the governing body of the city. What are the current regulations relating to intoxicating liquor locations for the City? • City Ordinance Sec. 3-110 (f) states that no initial license to sell intoxicating liquor may be issued within 300 feet of a school or place of worship as measured from the property line of the site to receive the proposed license to property line of the school or place of worship. (Adopted June 2007) • Zoning Code Sec. 36-194 (d) (19) states liquor stores are allowed in the C-2 General Commercial zoning district by Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions: The liquor store must be at least 1,000 feet from the property line of a site containing a pawnshop, currency exchange, payday loan agency, firearms sales or sexually-oriented business. (Adopted November 2013) Comment: Currency exchange and payday loan businesses are licensed by MN State Department of Commerce. The City of St. Louis Park does not have any licensed classifications of currency exchange or payday loan through the State Department of Commerce at this time. • In the case of a shopping center or multi-use building, the distance shall be measured from the portion of the center or building occupied by the liquor store. (Adopted November 2013) NEXT STEPS: • July 13 continued discussion on off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses. • If there is no additional information requested or further study needed, does the Council want to take action on this item or remove the temporary limit on off-sale intoxicating liquor stores set by resolution on January 20, 2015. Excelsior Blvd Minnetonka Blvd Lake StLouisiana AveW o o d d a l e A v e 36th St W Cedar Lake Rd 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 116 15 14 13 12 11 10 On & Off Sale Liquor Establishments Liquor Establishments Off Sale Intox (16) On Sale Intox; Off Sale Brew/Pub (1) On Sale Brewery Taproom & Off Sale Brew/Pub (1) Off Sale 3.2 (3) Places of Worship Private/Public Schools Fire Arm Sales Pawn Shop C2 Zoning District March 2015 # Establishment # Establishment1 Byerly's-St. Louis Park 9 MGM Wine & Spirits2 Costco Wholesale #377 10 Sam's Club #63183 Cub Liquor 11 St. Louis Park Liquor4 Four Firkins 12 Texas-Tonka Liquor5 Jennings' Liquor Store 13 Trader Joe's #7106 Knollwood Liquor 14 Vintage Wine & Spiritz7 Liquor Barrel 15 Westwood Liquors8 Liquor Boy 16 Target Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensing Page 9 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: July 13, 2015 Discussion Item: 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: 2015 Omnibus Liquor Bill Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. The purpose of this item is to provide an update to the Council on the recent legislative changes included in the omnibus liquor bill and to seek direction regarding updates to the liquor licensing provisions contained in the City Code. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council want to update current City Code provisions to reflect recent legislative changes related to the sale of alcohol? SUMMARY: New liquor laws were adopted during the 2015 legislative session and became effective May 1st. One of the amendments included allowing the sale of growlers on Sundays by licensed brewers. Another change is the new “Bloody Mary” law which permits any on-sale intoxicating license holder, with a corresponding on-sale Sunday license, to begin their Sunday sales at 8 a.m. St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 3, Article II, Division 3, Section 3-105 regulates the hours and days of sale of alcoholic beverages. Currently the City Code states that the hours and days of sale shall be as allowed by state law. If the City made no changes to the current ordinance provision regulating the hours and days of sale of alcoholic beverages, all on-sale intoxicating liquor license holders who also hold an on- sale Sunday license would be permitted to serve intoxicating liquor beginning at 8 a.m. on Sundays if they so choose. The City does have the authority to set hours of operation that are more restrictive than State law. Prior to the enactment of the “Bloody Mary” law, the hours of operation for on-sale intoxicating license holders was from 10:00 am on Sundays to 1:00 am on Mondays. An ordinance amendment would be required if the Council chooses to restrict the hours of operation on Sundays beyond what is allowed under State law. With respect to the sale of growlers on Sundays by licensed brewers, the State did not set specific hours during which the off-sale of growlers is permitted. Because the St. Louis Park City Code directly references State law regarding the permitted hours and days of sale, an ordinance amendment would be required to establish hours of operation for licensed brewers to sell growlers at off-sale on Sundays. Licensed brewers in St. Louis Park cannot sell growlers on Sundays until such time that the City establishes hours of operation. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Title: 2015 Omnibus Liquor Bill Update DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: Minnesota Statute 340A.301, subdivisions 6d and 7, now allow municipalities to issue licenses for Sunday sales to the holders of off-sale brewer malt liquor licenses within its jurisdiction. The City currently has two establishments (Granite City and Steel Toe Brewing) that hold off-sale brewer malt liquor licenses. Because both establishments already hold an off-sale license to sell growlers, the City must simply approve Sunday growler sales in general and establish the hours during which off-sale can occur. Because current City Code provisions regarding the hours and days of sale essentially mirror what is allowed under State law, an ordinance amendment establishing specific hours of operation would be required in order for licensed brewers to sell growlers on Sundays. Several other metro area cities, including Hopkins, Minneapolis, and St. Paul, have considered similar ordinance changes to establish hours of operation for Sunday growler sales. In St. Paul growler sales are allowed between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Sundays. In Minneapolis growler sales are allowed between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on Sundays. In Hopkins growler sales are allowed between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on Sundays with the exception of Easter Sunday. The off-sale of alcohol is permitted by statute Monday through Saturday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. As Council is aware, the off-sale of alcohol is prohibited on Sundays with the exception of the new legislative change related to the sale of growlers by licensed brewers. NEXT STEPS: If Council chooses to proceed with amendments to the City Code, an ordinance amendment would be prepared and presented to the Council for consideration of a first reading on August 3rd. Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: July 13, 2015 Discussion Item: 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Single Use Plastic Bags Discussion – Debrief & Next Steps RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report is to provide Council a summary of the Plastic Bag Experts/Stakeholder Panel discussion on June 22, 2015, as well as facilitate the study session discussion. POLICY CONSIDERATION: What direction does Council wish to take regarding banning or limiting single use plastic bags in St. Louis Park? SUMMARY: At the June 22, 2015 Study Session, Council heard from a number of stakeholders on a variety of issues as it considers policy decisions on single-use plastic bags (plastic bags). In the June 22 report, staff provided a number of written statements and information provided by organizations unable to attend the Study Session/Experts Panel discussion. The panel discussion focused on important concerns that stakeholders would like Council to consider. This report includes summaries of the main topics presented by the panel, clarifications made after the expert’s panel, reasons or goals for banning plastic bags, possibilities for regional collaboration, updated policy options and a draft communications plan. Recommended Next Steps: 1. Study Session discussion – Plastic Bags Check-in – July 13, 2015 2. Public information process – July through August/September 2015 3. Study Session/Listening Session with SLP Retailers – August/September 2015 (this is a new suggestion/addition from the previous schedule. Staff is recommending this additional piece of public process be undertaken). 4. Study Session to discuss policy direction desired to be communicated for subsequent public input process (August/September 2015) 5. Study Session/Listening Session for public comment on proposed policy direction from all interested parties – September/October 2015 6. Study Session discussion – Recommendation on Plastic Bags policy – November 2015 7. Council policy decision on course of action to take – TBD 8. Implementation – TBD FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion MPCA June Presentation Slides (Attachment 1) MN Statute 325E.046-Plastic Bag Labeling (Attachment 2) Draft Communications Plan (Attachment 3) Prepared by: Kala Fisher, Solid Waste Program Coordinator Reviewed by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager; Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent; Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Title: Single Use Plastic Bags Discussion – Debrief & Next Steps DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: At the June 22, 2015 Study Session, Council heard from a number of stakeholders with a variety of viewpoints for Council consideration as it considers policy relating to limiting or banning single-use plastic bags (plastic bags) provided by retailers at the point-of- sale. A staff report was provided on June 22 with a number of written statements and information provided by organizations unable to attend the Study Session/Experts Panel discussion. The June 22 report also included three of the most common policy options being researched by staff: charging a fee for plastic bags, banning plastic bags, or banning plastic bags as well as charging a fee on paper bags. Plastic Bag Expert/Stakeholder Panel Summary A summary of the main topics provided by each presenter is provided below. 1. City with Current Bag Ban Scott Dybvad – The City of Corvallis, Oregon • Goal was to reduce the use of single-use plastic bags, which by definition in their ordinance means a plastic bag “provided by a retail establishment to a customer at the point of sale for use to transport or carry away purchases from the retail establishment.” • Process to develop options for reducing plastic bags included a number of stakeholder work sessions and had support from their regional grocers association, local retail networks that would be directly affected, and other community groups. • Outcome was a ban on plastic bags and a fee on paper (to ensure that customers did not simply switch to paper). Plastic bags more than 2.25 mils are considered reusable and therefore exempt. The paper bag fee is kept by businesses. • Two stage implementation: 1) initially, more than 50 FTE (full-time employees); 2) six months later, less than 50 FTE. Applies to all retail establishments with the exception of restaurants. • Outreach included involvement by community groups in support of the ban, direct mailing information, and point-of-sale sticker at registers to promote program, stressed training/education of cashiers to ease the transition. • Enforcement was complaint based. • Metrics of success of implementation are not available; however one large grocery store reported 5,200 fewer plastic bags out the door/per day. 2. Governmental Agencies Madalyn Cioci – Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (see PowerPoint Attachment 1) • MPCA does not have a position on bag bans. They support policies that conserve resources, lower total environmental impacts, and push materials up the waste hierarchy (reduce, reuse, recycling, before disposal). • Stakeholders can provide input in policy development through the Solid Waste Policy Report (due December, every 4 years) and the Metro Solid Waste Policy Plan (input late this year). • A whitepaper will be provided by the MPCA this summer regarding policy considerations around banning bags or other materials. • Clarity of policy goal(s) by the City Council is important. • Need to create a target measurement goal to understand the plastic bag part of the waste stream and the impact removing them from waste stream. Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 3 Title: Single Use Plastic Bags Discussion – Debrief & Next Steps • Life cycle perspective was shared that a product has different impacts throughout its life cycle, extraction of materials, manufactured, transported, used, end-of-life. End-of-life actually accounts for only 1 – 3% of the overall impact to the environment; the biggest part of the impact is the production of the bag. • Plastic uses fewer resources overall, than paper. • Initial impact over time - will customers get used to a fee and begin to be okay with paying it or will the fees/policies need to be relooked at? Compostable plastic bags as an alternative to plastic bags are not desired because the higher resources amount needed to produce them. Paul Kroening – Hennepin County • Hennepin County does not have a position on bag bans. However they are bound to the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Plan that is developed by MPCA with their and other counties input. • Primary target is 75% recycling goal, focus is on portions of the waste stream that will make biggest strides to that goal. • Plastic bags and film through waste sorts at county are at about 6% by weight, half (about 3%) is retail bags. Volume is greater than 6%. • Encourage recycling through retail locations, not at the curb due to issues at the MRF’s (material recycling facilities). Will likely not require or encourage changing to curbside recycling of plastic bags. • Best answer is reusable bag, as long as it is used over and over again. • Originally supported RAM through MN Wastewise program through subsidy of “Its -In-The-Bag” program. • Solid Waste Policy Plan with MPCA will include discussion on plastic bags, voluntary incentive based methods, and focus on materials that will quickly reach the 75% recycling goal. The plan also includes a 6% reduction goal of overall waste. Currently at 41% recycling plus 3% organics recycling, combined 44%. 3. Business Organizations Deb McMillan – TwinWest Chamber of Commerce • Encourage City to consider accomplishing goals in a way that can be measured and will not negatively impact business development in the city. • Concerns over mandates for businesses and residents, increased cost passed on to consumers, difficult to compete with neighboring cities’ businesses due to SLP’s “comfortably close” location. • Concern over the policy becoming regressive. Supports incentives-based solutions which include stakeholders in the process, and take business and consumer interests into consideration. Dan McElroy – Minnesota Restaurant Association • Litter is an issue that his members continue to work to reduce. • 147 cities with bag bans in U.S., 83% exempt restaurants. • Spill-soak-hot-drop-wet problem: messy, wet, hot food products led 93% of one restaurant’s customers to choose plastic. • Subway is piloting bags made from PLA (Polylactic Acid - made by Natureworks). • Restaurants use 2.25 mil bags as reusable bags. Concerns over multiple containers in a carry-out order if plastic bags are not used. Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 4 Title: Single Use Plastic Bags Discussion – Debrief & Next Steps Bruce Nustad – Minnesota Retailers Association (MRA) • Understand consumer behavior is best motivated with incentive as opposed to punitive measures. • Many retailers do not assume that bags are part of the transaction and they will ask if a bag is needed. • Most collect bags for recycling, and many consumers reuse plastic bags. • Some retailers give incentives for not using a bag or using a reusable bag. • MRA is interested in looking for innovative methods in the marketplace, non-profit collaborations, and prefers to talk about ways to positively incent customers to change behaviors. Jamie Pful – Minnesota Grocers Association (MGA) • City should ask questions when creating policy: What is the concern? What are the desired results? What roles can all stakeholders play in the solution? • Caution on unintended consequences if polices create an unequal playing field or limit consumer choice. • MGA is a leader in waste reduction and recycling. Believe two bags come in for recycling, compared to one bag going out (a great service to the community). Banning could hurt some of the voluntary recycling systems already in place. Outreach included bag giveaways, reminder stickers for cars, contests. • Concern internal consumers will travel outside the city to shop or external customers will choose to shop at businesses along the way to SLP to avoid bag ban fees. • Incentive programs usually show a shift in consumer behavior. • Paper bags are 5-6 cents more expensive than a plastic bag. Cautioned that smaller retailers pay more for paper bags, so five-cent difference is not true for everyone. • While MGA does not advocate for a statewide ban, it does make it easier than a patchwork. • Many of the grocers are Minnesota grown companies and are not used to navigating the bans like other national companies. 4. Environmental Organizations Susan Hubbard – Nothing Left to Waste (collaboration with Eureka Recycling) • Perspective of moving to zero-waste, supports a ban on plastic bags and a fee on paper bags. • Reiterated that the purpose or goal is important in designing what you would like to do and the value of understanding the relevance of a life cycle analysis. • Plastic bags consume non-renewable resources. • Even though disposable paper bags are not desirable, they are more desirable than plastic bags because they can be made from renewable resources depending upon how the trees are harvested. This is the reason they do not support banning both paper and plastic. • Concern over plastics in the water and their ability to get through wastewater treatment plants, as well as the endangerment of wildlife. • Discussed plastic bags increasing the cost of curbside recycling, referring to the problems they create to recycling equipment. Plastic film markets are picky about contamination and plastic bags are highly susceptible to contaminates. Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 5 Title: Single Use Plastic Bags Discussion – Debrief & Next Steps • Noted 330 plastic bags per person per year statistic. Recycling of plastic bags = 5%, paper = 50%. • Suggests that plastic bag education and recycling MRF’s needs to be a bigger priority. • Focus on education of use of reusable bags because if they are not re-used several times they have a big environmental impact. • Concern over increase in disposable plastic packaging. 5. Clarifications of points made during Experts Panel Discussion Biodegradable vs. Compostable – It is important to note the distinction between biodegradable and compostable plastics bags. The State of Minnesota, under the enforcement authority of the Attorney General, has a statute that places standards for labeling plastic bags. A scientifically based standard has not been developed in order for bags to be tested, certified, and allowed by State Statute to be labeled “Biodegradable.” On the other hand, compostable bags do have such a testing method and are allowed to be labeled as “Compostable” (see Statute 325E.046 in Attachment 2). Certified compostable plastics completely biodegrade into finished compost. They are made from starch-based polymers that are completely broken down by microorganisms during the composting process. This process only occurs in the right circumstances as compostable plastics are designed to break down in high temperature, controlled settings. They do not compost in streams, backyard, or roadside settings. Some plastic bags are labeled by manufacturers as biodegradable or degradable, but no testing standard is recognized for general biodegradability and or degradation. Biodegradable means that it biodegrades through a process of microorganisms breaking down the material. Degradable means the plastic breaks down into microplastics due to light/water, but those tiny plastics then persist in the environment. City Organics Program Compostable Bags – The City’s Organics Recycling Program supplies certified-compostable bags, purchased from Bag-to-Nature. Staff incorrectly stated at the meeting that these bags are made of polylactic acid (PLA). These bags are made of a proprietary blend of starch-based polymers that are certified to ASTM D6400 standard of compostability, which means they are tested to satisfactorily compost in an industrial composting facility. These bags are also certified-compostable by BPI (Biodegradable Products Institute), which certifies a number of compostable products including bags, cups, cutlery, and more. Logo used on BPI certified compostable products: Plastic Bags Percent of Waste Stream – Local waste composition studies note that 6% of the waste stream is “all plastic film” which includes plastic shrink wrap that businesses use to wrap pallets of goods, agricultural bags, boat wraps, and plastic bags that contain the food and other goods we buy. Plastic shopping bags, used at the point-of-sale, are estimated to constitute 1 – 3% of the waste stream. Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 6 Title: Single Use Plastic Bags Discussion – Debrief & Next Steps This study did include extraction of raw resources, manufacturing, transporting, and customer purchase. A link to the study is listed below, followed by a link to the study that used the table noting reuse considerations: • http://www.truereusablebags.com/pdf/lca_plastic_bags.pdf • http://savetheplasticbag.com/UploadedFiles/2007%20Boustead%20report.pdf The second point is the statement made by Ms. Hubbard of Nothing Left To Waste/Eureka that plastic bags increase global warming more than paper. Ms. Cioci suggests that current studies do not support this statement. Global warming is not increased by plastic bags more than by other bags – except when compared to any other bag that is reused a sufficient number of times. Paper bags require more fossil fuels to manufacture than plastic, and that includes the oil that goes into the plastic as well. Market Prices for Plastic Bags & Film – The Secondary Materials Pricing index, which tracks prices for a number of commodities including plastics, does not track mixed film prices (which would be the market that plastic bags fall into because they are mixed with other bags like cereal and bread bags from consumers). While we know that it is not tracked on this market index, a higher grade plastic film called LLDPE (linear low- density polyethylene), is tracked. LLDPE is slightly thinner than LDPE (low-density polyethylene), and is characterized by a thin stretchy consistency that is different than retail bags. LLDPE’s average price per pound is 16 cents. Plastic bags would likely be priced lower as they are lower quality plastics. Establishment of Goal(s) Determining or clarifying Council’s goals for banning plastic bags in St. Louis Park is essential in both determining the best policy options and future communications to the public. Some of the possible goals and corresponding policies shared in initial conversations with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in November 2014 were: 1) increasing recycling/composting and reducing trash; 2) minimizing litter; 3) addressing health or toxicity concerns; and 4) reducing greenhouse gasses. In a draft report from the Citizens Environmental Advisory Commission for the City of Minneapolis regarding the development of a policy for single use plastic bags, the following statement was noted: “Plastic bags are harmful to the environment. As litter they can be found in our waterways and trees, lingering nearly indefinitely and suffocating animals. They are ubiquitous and are hard to dispose of; not biodegradable and gumming up machinery in the recycling plants not especially suited to dealing with them (such is the case for Minneapolis’s single sort system). The overall goal of this policy should be to reduce waste and decrease the environmental impact of using single-use bags. By increasing the use of reusable bags, the City of Minneapolis will decrease the negative production impacts of single-use bags, including: carbon use, water use, and air and water pollution.” Regional Collaboration The opportunity to collaborate with cities within Hennepin County or the Twin Cities metro area may be possible and the number of cities interested in doing so may increase as the discussion continues. The City of Minneapolis is currently looking at banning plastic bags and has been in contact with staff to share process timelines for implementing a policy on plastic bags. Their Community Environmental Advisory Committee is drafting a recommendation to be proposed to Minneapolis City Council in July. Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 7 Title: Single Use Plastic Bags Discussion – Debrief & Next Steps Potential Policy Options Potential options listed below include a mix of those policies most common in cities throughout the United States, those already being researched by staff, and additional policy options to consider due to input at the Experts Panel on June 22, 2015. Policies being reviewed typically focus on single-use plastic bags provided at the point-of-sale for transporting goods from the store. Many of the policies do not target bags used in-store to separate meat or produce from other products. The options being reviewed include: • Business as usual – allow retailers and consumers to carry on with business as usual. • Incentives based policy – work with retailers and trade associations, such as those presenting during the experts panel, and other stakeholders to create a robust outreach/education initiative and incentives to persuade consumers to choose to use reusable bags and increase participation in store drop-off programs for recycling of plastic bags and film. • Charge a fee on plastic bags only – this approach uses a fee (typically 5 – 10 cents) to discourage the use of plastic bags at the point-of-sale. Paper bags are still provided free of charge. • Charge a fee on plastic bags and paper bags – this approach uses a fee (typically 5 – 10 cents) to discourage the use of plastic and paper bags at the point-of-sale and encourage the use of reusable bags. • Ban plastic bags only – this approach bans the use of plastic bags at the point-of-sale. Paper bags are usually still provided free of charge. • Ban plastic bags and require fee for paper bags – this approach bans plastic bags at the point-of-sale and charges a fee (typically 5 to 10 cents) for paper bags, to encourage the use of reusable bags. The following items are repeated from the last staff report provided on June 22, 2015. During initial research of policies in place in cities around the United States, these details vary and would need to be discussed as policy direction becomes clearer: • Statement of need or goal(s) • Implementation periods • Determining businesses affected or exempted o All retail or specific business sectors o Square footage of business o Number of employees • Requirements for types of plastic bags prohibited o Thickness o Types of Use • Requirements for paper bags (if banning plastic and placing a fee on paper) o Recycled content o Range of fees • Exemptions o Specific uses: newspapers, dry cleaner bags, garbage bags, vegetable/meat/deli bags o Customer exemptions: allowing exemptions for those on state/federal food assistance programs Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 8 Title: Single Use Plastic Bags Discussion – Debrief & Next Steps Draft Communications Plan Staff has created a draft communications plan and will update it based upon feedback from Council during the July 13, 2015 Study Session. The communications plan will be used to inform residents and businesses of Council’s reasons for considering policy to reduce or eliminate plastic bags, the policy options being considered, and their opportunity to provide feedback during a listening session. Please see attached draft communications plan for methods of outreach planned (Attachment 3). Additional Listening Session As noted in the Executive Summary section of this report, staff is recommending that the public process be amended to include as a next step a specific listening session with the local retailers in St. Louis Park, both big and small, that will most likely to be impacted by some type of ban on plastic bags. Although retailer association representatives spoke at the June 22 meeting, staff feels it is important to invite in the actual businesses in St. Louis Park to provide their feedback before the Council determines any kind of policy direction for further public discussion. Attachment 1 1 City of St. Louis Park   Discussion on Possible Bag Policy Madalyn Cioci Waste  and Toxic  Pollution Prevention •MPCA has no stance on bag bans. •Generally supportive of policies that conserve  resources, that lower total environmental impacts,  or that push materials up the waste hierarchy. Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 4) Title: Single Use Plastic Bags Discussion – Debrief & Next Steps Page 9 Attachment 1 2 •Solid Waste  Policy Report (December) •Metropolitan Solid Waste  Policy Plan (late  2016) •Whitepaper (this summer). •Clarity of policy goal –different goals need  different policy levers.  •Choice of target ‐Bags are small part of the waste  stream compared to something like construction  & demolition. •Life cycle perspective Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 4) Title: Single Use Plastic Bags Discussion – Debrief & Next Steps Page 10 Attachment 1 3 •Looking at the whole life of things shows us some  surprising things:  •Plastic uses fewer resources, start to finish, than paper. Green, 2011 •Reuse is important!  All bags do better the more they  are reused, including plastic bags.  Type of bag HDPE Bag  (Not  reused) HDPE Bag  (40% reused as  trash liners) HDPE Bag  (100% used as  trash liners) HDPE bag   (Used 3 times  for shopping) HDPE1111 Paper3479 LDPE45912 Non‐woven PP 11 14 26 33 Cotton 131 173 327 393 Number of uses after which a reusable bag is better than plastic bag (global warming): Edwards & Fry, 2011 Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 4) Title: Single Use Plastic Bags Discussion – Debrief & Next Steps Page 11 Attachment 1 4 Additional considerations •How will you know if the policy worked? •Consumer behavior is an important and  complicated factor: •Fees and refunds get different impacts. •More trash bags? •Initial impact vs. impact over time •Will you shop elsewhere? Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 4) Title: Single Use Plastic Bags Discussion – Debrief & Next Steps Page 12 Attachment 1 5 Questions? Madalyn.Cioci@state.mn.us 651‐296‐6300 Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 4) Title: Single Use Plastic Bags Discussion – Debrief & Next Steps Page 13 1 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2014 325E.046 Copyright © 2014 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 325E.046 STANDARDS FOR LABELING PLASTIC BAGS. Subdivision 1. "Biodegradable" label. A manufacturer, distributor, or wholesaler may not offer for sale in this state a plastic bag labeled "biodegradable," "degradable," or any form of those terms, or in any way imply that the bag will chemically decompose into innocuous elements in a reasonably short period of time in a landfill, composting, or other terrestrial environment unless a scientifically based standard for biodegradability is developed and the bags are certified as meeting the standard. Subd. 2. "Compostable" label. A manufacturer, distributor, or wholesaler may not offer for sale in this state a plastic bag labeled "compostable" unless, at the time of sale, the bag meets the ASTM Standard Spec- ification for Compostable Plastics (D6400). Each bag must be labeled to reflect that it meets the standard. For purposes of this subdivision, "ASTM" has the meaning given in section 296A.01, subdivision 6. Subd. 3. Enforcement; civil penalty; injunctive relief. (a) A manufacturer, distributor, or wholesaler who violates subdivision 1 or 2 is subject to a civil penalty of $100 for each prepackaged saleable unit offered for sale up to a maximum of $5,000 and may be enjoined from those violations. (b) The attorney general may bring an action in the name of the state in a court of competent jurisdiction for recovery of civil penalties or for injunctive relief as provided in this subdivision. The attorney general may accept an assurance of discontinuance of acts in violation of subdivision 1 or 2 in the manner provided in section 8.31, subdivision 2b. History: 2009 c 37 art 1 s 57 Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 4) Title: Single Use Plastic Bags Discussion – Debrief & Next Steps Page 14 ATTACHMENT 3 Plastic Bag/Polystyrene Communications Plan Strategies Park Perspective • July 2015: Article on council consideration of ban on plastic bags/polystyrene • October 2015: Recap of expert panels, public hearings and next steps (policy recommendation in October/November) Social Media • Facebook, Twitter, Nextdoor posts prior to July 27 polystyrene experts panel • Facebook, Twitter, Nextdoor posts prior to listening sessions/public hearings o Plastic bags: September o Polystyrene: October • Gather any comments via Archive Social to be entered into public record for policy discussions in October/November Neighborhood Newsletters • Information about listening sessions/public hearings • Breanna Freedman: send her item to push out to neighborhoods (public hearings) Events • National Night Out: postcards in bags (Erin Nordrum) Mailings • City-wide postcard (businesses and homes) Website • Webpage with background and timeline • Slider on homepage with information on listening sessions Media • May 2015 Star Tribune article about potential plastic bag ban • Information to Star Tribune, Sun Sailor regarding expert panel, public hearings ParkTV • Life in the Park o Recap of plastic bag experts panel (June 25) o Recap of polystyrene experts panel; public hearing notice (July 30) o Public hearing info (August-September) o Recap of public hearings; next steps (September-October) o Overview of new policies (November-December) • Channel 17 o Plastic bag experts panel rebroadcast (2x per day) o Polystyrene experts panel rebroadcast (2x per day after July 27) o TV Billboard Announcements Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 4) Title: Single Use Plastic Bags Discussion – Debrief & Next Steps Page 15 Post Process • POS decals/stickers/signs for retailers to communicate new policy (per input from Corvallis, Oregon, regarding retail clerks taking the brunt of questions/concerns about new policy) • News release to media with details of new policy • Talking points for city spokespeople (council, staff) Items in bold: completed Communication tools to be used in plan Communication Tool Description Deadlines Park Perspective City of St. Louis Park quarterly newsletter Arrives in homes Feb. 15, May 15, July 15, Oct. 15 (Content deadline one month prior) Facebook www.facebook.com/stlouispark Allow 24 hours’ notice to post; You’re encouraged to write posts ahead of time; can be scheduled. Twitter www.twitter.com/stlouispark Please allow 24 hours’ notice to post; Tweets must be 140 characters or less. Nextdoor (www.nextdoor.com) Private social network for neighborhoods Allow 24 hours’ notice for posts. Neighborhood Newsletters Many neighborhoods publish several newsletters, Breanna’s e-newsletter Deadlines vary; Breanna Freedman is the contact. Mailings Examples include: postcards, letters, newsletters, brochures. Work w/ Dan on mailing list, Misty for postcard. Allow at least 5 business days to be printed & mailed. City Website www.stlouispark.org Varies, allow 24-hours’ notice to post an article to the website(s); If you need assistance writing the article, please allow 72 hours. Media Star Tribune, Sun Sailor Deadlines vary; Sun Sailor has a 5 p.m. deadline on Wednesdays for publication the following week TV Billboard Announcements Informal screens that run on the Cable TV system between programming on the city’s five Cable TV channels Varies, please allow up to one week for creation and scheduling. Life in the Park Weekly city TV news now airing on cable channels 14, 15/96, 16, 17 and YouTube (www.youtube.com/slpcable) Information for script due Fridays at noon. Contact Scott Smith. St. Louis Park Communications Contact Jacqueline Larson | Communications & Marketing Manager Office (952) 924-2632 jlarson@stlouispark.org Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 4) Title: Single Use Plastic Bags Discussion – Debrief & Next Steps Page 16 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: July 13, 2015 Discussion Item: 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Southwest LRT Update – Supplementary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review and discuss draft comments on SDEIS. POLICY CONSIDERATION: What comments does the City Council wish to submit or add to the attached draft comments on the SDEIS? SUMMARY: The purpose of the SDEIS is to “inform the public, resource agencies, and local government of the proposed design adjustments made since the publication of the Draft EIS;” the Draft EIS was published in 2012. The SDEIS addresses the design changes made in the past 2½ years and identifies any “new potential significant adverse impacts” associated with them. In particular, the SDEIS addresses the environmental impact to three study areas: • Eden Prairie Segment revised rerouting; • The Operations and Maintenance Facility (OMF) located in Hopkins; • The St. Louis Park/Minneapolis segment (primarily due to the co-location of freight rail with the light rail). The Final Environmental Impact Statement is expected to be issued in the next Spring/Summer timeframe. Comments on both the DEIS and SDEIS will be addressed in the Final EIS. Mitigation measures will also be identified in the Final EIS. For St. Louis Park, the impacts noted in the SDEIS include property acquisitions, one wetland, noise impacts, contaminated soils, loss of tax base and loss of parking. Mitigation measures for these impacts will be addressed in the FEIS. Attached is an initial draft of the SDEIS comments. Staff is continuing to refine and add to the comments and will provide and updated list at the Study Session. Also attached is a summary table from the document, and a summary of St. Louis Park impacts. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Table 3.4-1: Summary of Findings for SLP/MPLS Segment Summary of St. Louis Park Impacts Draft Comments from St. Louis Park Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Deputy Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Table 3.4-1 Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement . Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 5) Title: Southwest LRT Update – Supplementary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS)Page 2 Table 3.4-1 Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 5) Title: Southwest LRT Update – Supplementary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS)Page 3 Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) Summary of St. Louis Park Impacts Groundwater: • Potential for long-term contamination in the form of solvents used to clean greases and oils at Louisiana and Beltline Station. o Maintenance practices would be adopted that minimize the risk of these occurrences. • Potential for short-term contamination during construction at Louisiana and Beltline Station. However, the risk of contamination is reduced because most construction is at-or above-grade. Water Resources: • 0.49 of 1.72 acres of wetlands in the SLP/Minneapolis segment will be filled. One wetland in St. Louis Park in Beltline Station area is .28 acres. Fill may result in loss or disturbance of soils and vegetation. (See attached map) • No floodplains will be filled within the segment. • Public Waters and Stormwater Management. o Increased stormwater flooding due to an increase in impervious surfaces around park- and-ride lots, station platforms, LRT guideway, and light rail tunnel portals. § Tunnel portals would need to pump stormwater out. o Construction may increase turbidity and sedimentation in receiving waters from increase stormwater runoff. o Runoff and new concrete can have high alkalinity which results in degraded water quality and may harm fish. Noise: • 67 moderate noise impacts and three severe noise impacts in SLP/Minneapolis Segment. (See attached map) o 32 moderate noise impacts at Camerata Apartments. o 6 moderate and 1 severe at Railroad Ave. Contaminated Materials: • 6 High-Risk Sites that could require remediation prior to construction (See attached map) o None located in SLP. o 4 sites pose a potential threat to worker and public safety during construction. • Contaminated Sites are defined by MnDOT Office of Environmental Stewardship o High Risk: active and inactive Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) sites and Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act sites, active and inactive dump sites, active LUST sites, and historical industrial sites with likely chemical use on the premises. o Medium Risk: closed LUST sites, sites with underground storage tanks and aboveground storage tanks, and sites with historic vehicle repair activities. o Low Risk: hazardous waste generators, and some farmsteads and residences. § Sites designated high-risk will be investigated prior to construction using a Phase II ESA. • The ESA includes preliminary soil and groundwater investigations. § It is reasonable to expect that previously undocumented soil and groundwater contamination may be encountered during construction. • A Construction Contingency Plan will be prepared prior to construction to account for the discovery of unknown contaminants. Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 5) Title: Southwest LRT Update – Supplementary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS)Page 4 Property Takings: • 26 Properties affected in SLP (See attached map) o 10 Industrial Properties (9 Full & 1 Partial) o 13 Railroad Properties ( 6 Full & 7 Partial) o 3 Commercial Properties (2 Full & 1 Partial) Economic Effects: • Potential reduction of $35,940 in property tax in SLP due to acquisition of properties. Roadway and Traffic: • At Wooddale and Beltline crossings, LRT operations will impede vehicular traffic for 50 seconds 12 times per hour (6 times per hour in both directions). Parking: • 21 on-street parking spaces displaced and 5 new on-street spaces added. o 11 displaced and 5 new added at north side of Oxford St between Louisiana Ave. and Edgewood Ave. o 10 displaced at south side of CSAH 25 Service Rd in front of 4601 Hwy 7. Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 5) Title: Southwest LRT Update – Supplementary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS)Page 5 Water Resources Map Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 5) Title: Southwest LRT Update – Supplementary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS)Page 6 Noise Maps Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 5) Title: Southwest LRT Update – Supplementary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS)Page 7 Contaminated Sites Map Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 5) Title: Southwest LRT Update – Supplementary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS)Page 8 Property Takings Map Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 5) Title: Southwest LRT Update – Supplementary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS)Page 9 City of St. Louis Park DRAFT FOR REVIEW Draft Supplementary DEIS Comments and Questions July 21, 2015 1. Noise impacts: The SDEIS notes noise impacts near the Wooddale Station, at the Camarata Apartments and 6 unspecified locations near 37th Street and the rail corridor. These 6 locations need to be identified. There is not an indication of what types of mitigation could be utilized for severe and moderate impacts. There is also not any indication if the property owners will be notified of the impacts and the proposed mitigation. The SDEIS does not note any noise impacts to the Cityscape Apartments at 5707 State Highway 7 or the Townhomes located at 4400 Park Glen Road. Both are within 90-150 feet of the rail line. 2. Contaminated Sites The map on page 3-190 shows “High-Risk Hazardous and Contaminated Materials” however 17 are noted in the text to be ranked “high” in the Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Why certain locations were elevated to “high” versus other locations must be explained, along with what the risks are to people. 3. Maps a. Several maps show open space around the Wooddale Station in St. Louis Park inaccurately. The land to the north and south of the station area may be publicly owned, however it is not park land. Please see attached map and revise accordingly for the following properties: • Map 3.4-1 on P 3-141 • Map 3.4-5 on p 3-175 • Map 3.4-6 on p 3.181 • Map 3.4-7 on p 3-190 b. Maps 3.4-9 and 3.4-10 (pages 3-210 and 3-211) do not show the entire buffer area. The concern is that this cuts off Meadowbrook Manor apartments; they should be included in the analysis. 4. Traffic Roadway improvements noted on page 2-55 do not discuss the additional traffic analysis that has occurred since the DEIS in 2012. Notably, there has been an access modification on Wooddale Avenue that restricts traffic to right-in/right-out at the east frontage road and this should be noted in the document. This restriction impacts the access for the existing and future development in the area, and this impact should be addressed and mitigated. Traffic on Wooddale Avenue in the SWLRT station area is problematic now and with the addition of LRT, this situation will be worsened. The existing residents and future development is impacted by this change to the roadway system. Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 5) Title: Southwest LRT Update – Supplementary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS)Page 10 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: July 13, 2015 Written Report: 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: New Minnesota State Commercial Building and Energy Codes RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required. The purpose is to inform City Council of the new state energy code requirements for commercial buildings. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: The 2015 Minnesota State Building and Energy Codes for commercial buildings (everything except 1 & 2 family dwellings) became effective June 2. Since the last adoption in 2007 some of the code requirements, especially for improving energy conservation, have changed significantly. The family of State Construction Codes are generally based on model codes, then amended and adopted through the State Rules process. Once adopted by the State, they automatically become effective within the city. The newly adopted Energy Code has transitioned from a Minnesota home grown document to now being based on the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code. This is a significantly larger and more complex document specifying improvements to building envelopes and mechanical systems that reportedly increase efficiency from 11% - 42%. As with most of the model codes, it is more performance based and less prescriptive, allowing the designer more alternatives of achieving compliance. While designing new buildings to be more sustainable is a positive direction, architects, engineers, contractors, and inspectors have a steep learning curve since buildings now being submitted for permitting must be designed and built in compliance with the new code. With the complexity of the new codes comes an expected increase for plan review time by inspection staff. There are additional submittal requirements that architects must include which may lead to delays in getting projects approved unless well planned for ahead of time. A brief overview of the significant changes is attached to this report. Staff is planning to continue encouraging pre-submittal meetings with architects and engineers to discuss code requirements before permit application to help smooth the process. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Minnesota Energy Code Overview Prepared by: David Skallet, Chief Building Official Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 6) Page 2 Title: New Minnesota State Commercial Building and Energy Codes Minnesota Commercial Energy Code Overview Effective June 2, 2015 the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) as adopted for Minnesota applies to all commercial, industrial, multi-family, and other building types except for 1 & 2 family dwellings. The performance provisions allow the designer to use cool roofs, daylighting controls, and other methods within the 2015 IECC to create an alternate package for obtaining the necessary efficiency gains for compliance. The following is a brief summary of some general areas of building components which have new minimum standards under the new Energy Code: • Walls, Roof, and floor insulation - higher R-Value ratings for insulation in walls, roof and floors. • Windows and skylights - lower (U Factor) heat loss requirements and less air leakage. • Heating and cooling equipment (air conditioners, boilers, furnaces and heat pumps) - higher efficiencies and thermostats must have the capability to automatically setback or shut down heating and cooling systems when appropriate. • Pumps, piping and liquid circulation systems - timed switches or other control method to automatically turn off equipment when not in use. • Heat rejection equipment (cooling towers, air cooled condensers) - motors over 7.5 Horse power or larger shall have the capability to operate at 2/3 capacity in response to partial load on system. • Service water heating (kitchens, lavatories, and pools) - reduction in hot water waste with flow-limiting or metering devices and heat loss traps on water heaters. • Electrical power and lighting systems - automatic control devices such as occupancy sensors and daylighting controls must be installed. Options for designers to meet the lighting requirements using various florescent and LED lighting types. • Commissioning of new buildings – a significant requirement is for commissioning to verify that the building and systems are working per design. Including a preliminary commissioning report, drawings and manuals, system balancing report, final commission report, and verification of HVAV, lighting and electrical systems. Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: July 13, 2015 Written Report: 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Update on Outdoor Rink Project - Hockey Association Agreement RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. Please let staff know of any questions you might have. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are the provisions in the draft agreement with the St. Louis Park Hockey Association in keeping with the Council’s expectations regarding their contribution to the City for the construction of the outdoor rink/facility? SUMMARY: At the Study Session held on May 26, 2015 Council was presented with the results of the design development phase for an outdoor refrigerated ice rink at The Rec Center. Direction was given to staff to begin working with RSP Architects and RJM Construction on the construction document phase of design. RSP and RJM are in the process of completing this work and will be presenting updated estimates and design at the July 20 Council meeting. At that meeting the Council will be asked to authorize advertising for bids. Staff has continued to discuss the details of an agreement with the St. Louis Park Hockey Association for their commitment of $1.55 million towards the project. Further information regarding this is addressed later in the report. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The latest cost estimates for the entire project, not including bid alternates, is $5,834,911. At this time the Hockey Association is willing to commit a total of $1.55 million to the capital cost of the project, which includes an additional $50,000 due to increases in project costs. Thus far the Hockey Association has deposited $300,000 with the City and proposes to repay the remaining $1.25 million over the next twelve (12) years with a minimum payment of $104,166 per year. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Prepared by: Jason Eisold, Rec Center Manager Reviewed by: Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of July 13, 2015 (Item No. 7) Page 2 Title: Update on Outdoor Rink Project - Hockey Association Agreement DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: The Hockey Association and the City of St. Louis Park have a long history of partnerships. They have participated financially in the east rink addition, the skate shop renovation, and the public address system in the arena. The intent of this proposed facility is to be a year-round community asset. Although it will be primarily a skating rink, the idea is to use this facility during the spring, summer and fall for other activities and events. Staff has met with the soccer, lacrosse, baseball, and track youth associations and all have expressed interest in using the facility for practice when spring weather does not allow outdoor fields to be used. The cost of turf is included in this estimate. This space can also be used for other activities such as craft fairs, pet expos, dog training, concerts, farmers markets, and garage sales. HOCKEY ASSOCICATION AGREEMENT: With the assistance of the city attorney, staff has been working with the St. Louis Park Hockey Association to finalize the details of an agreement for the project. Details of the agreement include: • Hockey Association shall make a minimum payment of $104,166 annually, billed for half of the minimum payment twice per year, for twelve (12) years, or until the balance of $1.25 million is paid. • Hockey Association is committed to purchasing at least 150 hours of ice time on the outdoor rink for the first ten (10) years of operation. • Hockey Association shall receive a $5 per hour ice time rate reduction from the outdoor ice time rate. • Hockey Association shall have the first right of refusal on ice time reservation for each operating season until September 1 of that operating season. After September 1 ice time is available for purchase to the general public (except for times assigned for city programs and events, such as open skate, open hockey, or city-sponsored programs). The Hockey Association would like to begin a discussion with the City on possible naming and advertising rights and opportunities for the outdoor rink. While the proposed agreement does not address specifics related to this matter, the Hockey Association wanted the Council to be aware of this interest. Staff will bring this item back to the City Council at a later date for discussion.