Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/11/13 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA NOVEMBER 13, 2012 6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers Discussion Items 1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 19 & November 26, 2012 2. 6:35 p.m. Community Recreation Facility Task Force Update 3. 7:35 p.m. Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 9:05 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal) 9:10 p.m. Adjourn Written Reports 4. Administrative Penalties Hearing Officer Appointments 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 Date: November 13, 2012 Agenda Item #: 1 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 19 and November 26, 2012 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the Special Study Session scheduled for November 19 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on November 26, 2012. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed? BACKGROUND: At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion items for the Special Study Session scheduled for November 19 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on November 26, 2012. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 19 and November 26, 2012 Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 19 and November 26, 2012 Special Study Session, November 19, 2012 – 6:30 p.m. Tentative Discussion Items 1. Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Update – Public Works (30 minutes) Provide Council further information with regards to comments and issues raised at the November 5 public hearing for municipal consent, and provide any additional information as requested. Project No. 2005-2000. 2. Highway 7 and Louisiana Update – Public Works (30 minutes) Provide Council with an update with regards to recent activities, including a workshop with local area businesses on November 13, and an open house public informational meeting on November 15. Project No. 2012-0100. Special Study Session Continued, November 19, 2012 – Immediately Following CC Meeting 3. Eliot School Comp Plan Amendment – Community Development (45 minutes) Review of the updated development plan for the Eliot School site and comprehensive plan amendment proposal. Study Session, November 26, 2012 – 6:30 p.m. Tentative Discussion Items 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) 2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting – Community Development (15 minutes) Update on the proposed modification of the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. 3. SWLRT DEIS Follow-Up – Community Development (60 minutes) Discussion and review draft of the official city comments on the SWLRT DEIS. 4. Sidewalk and Trail Plan Update – Public Works (30 minutes) Provide Council an update on the public process, including a compilation of the comments and input received over the past several weeks. 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 5. October 2012 Monthly Financial Report 6. Policy for Spending Lodging Tax Revenue End of Meeting: 8:25 p.m. Meeting Date: November 13, 2012 Agenda Item #: 2 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Community Recreation Facility Task Force Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action at this time. The Council is being asked to receive the report from the Task Force while seeking to understand their work and recommendations and thanking them for their service to the City. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the City Council comfortable with the work undertaken by the Task Force and the next steps proposed in this report? BACKGROUND: At the January 17 Council meeting, the City Council approved 21 members to make up the Community Recreation Facility Task Force. The Task Force met for the first time on January 23 and attended the Study Session presentation conducted by Dr. Ellen O’Sullivan, a well-known expert in the area of Parks and Recreation trends. Dr. O’Sullivan shared trends and emerging directions that may influence facilities and gathering places in the future. Although 21 members were appointed by the Council, the following members have been regularly attending; Laurie Hynes, Joel Odens, Gregg Lindberg, Chuck Souvignier, John Herbert, Lisa Greene, Mary Walters, Shirley Zimmerman, Jim Beneke, Sandy Olevitch, Sophia Flumerfelt, Tom Worthington, and Karoline Pierson. The mission of the Community Recreation Task Force was to consider community input that was received from previous surveys, gather additional information and input and make recommendations to the City Council regarding the addition of future recreation facilities or programs. As a part of this process, the Task Force was also asked to look at possible partnerships and locations. The Task Force met ten times and completed the following: • Reviewed previous surveys; • Toured area community centers; • Discussed and recorded impressions from the facility tours keeping in mind what types of things would potentially be a fit in St Louis Park; • Determined priorities for St. Louis Park based on VISION comments and the surveys; • Reviewed and discussed the facilities that already exist in St. Louis Park (both public and private); • Imagined ideal gathering spaces; • Created an initial program list, quantified and refined the program; • Created site selection criteria; • Ranked sites in the city based on this site section criteria; • Reviewed the survey input again to be sure the program reflects the desires of the community; and • Assisted in developing this report for the City Council. Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Subject: Community Recreation Facility Task Force Update A summary of what the task force did at each meeting is attached In addition to City staff, Michael Lamb from the Cunningham Group assisted the Task Force with this process. The on-line survey and the Decision Resources Survey reported that residents of the City of St. Louis Park identified the following components as the top things they would like to see added in the community: • Indoor recreation space and gyms for multiple uses; • Indoor playground equipment and areas for unstructured play; • Indoor swimming pool; • Indoor gathering places/community spaces; and • Walking track/exercise space. SUGGESTED PROGRAM COMPONENTS: The City Council appointed the Task Force to provide recommendations to the City Council. The Task Force has had discussions regarding what program components should be considered in a facility(s) and which ones should not be considered. When this process began, staff anticipated a check-in with the Council in June. This check in occurred on June 25. At that meeting the Council reviewed the preliminary findings of the task force, provided criteria for the Task Force on location considerations, and asked the Task Force to consider the possibility of a domed turf facility in the community. These items are discussed later in this report The following is a summary of a group consensus which has been reached based on what they believe the community was asking for in the surveys and what types of things are missing in the community on a regular basis. These program elements will be further refined as the process continues. This is a rough draft to let the Council know what types of amenities the Task Force is recommending. A more detailed summary of the process the Task Force has gone through and their recommendations is attached. At this time, the Task Force is suggesting the following program components be considered in a future facility(s): • Gymnasium; • Drop-in child care; • Community room; • Commons/large gathering space; • Coffee shop/food; • Pool/water play area; • Walking track; • Fitness equipment; • Flex activity rooms for workout classes and meetings; • Indoor playground equipment; and • Parking. A facility that includes the programs listed above will comprise approximately 59,150 square feet of building foot print. The preliminary diagrams show a two story building to maximize space. The parking requirements for a building that size would be 227 spaces which encompasses 68,100 square feet. The building and parking is equal to approximately 1.2 times the Rec Center building foot print. Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 3 Subject: Community Recreation Facility Task Force Update The Task Force discussed at length including a theater and competitive pool and decided not to recommend them as part of a future facility. After reviewing the existing facilities in the area, the Task Force believes there are a number of theater options (five in St. Louis Park and two in Hopkins) available. Theaters are expensive spaces to design, program and operate. Often, identified user groups have a specific need and it is very difficult to meet all those needs in one facility. Communities that built theaters are having difficulties programming them and covering operating costs. Given the number of options in our City, the Task Force believes staff from the two high schools and the JCC might work with the theater groups to accommodate their needs. Park Nicollet also has a room with theater style seating that is available to reserve for a speaker series or other similar activities. The idea to include a competitive pool was brought forth by the Task Force because the school facilities aren’t large enough to host large meets. The St. Louis Park High School and Junior High currently serve as the host sites for St. Louis Park and Benilde-St. Margaret’s youth swim teams. After several discussions, the consensus of the group was that a competitive swim venue doesn’t fit with a community facility and the other suggested program components. The City Council also asked the Task Force to discuss the possibility of adding an indoor turf facility. The task force did discuss it at two of their meetings and wanted to pass the following observations on to Council: • Although turf was mentioned in the survey results, it was not one of the top five priorities. • The scale of the youth programs in our City would not support a turf facility on its own. If the Council is serious about exploring a turf facility, they should strongly consider partnering with another entity. • The best location for this type of facility appears to be to dome the existing turf field at the High School. The School Board and City Council would need to discuss this and form a collaborative relationship so that both entities were committed to further studying this idea. Given the limited sites we have to develop a new community facility, adding turf to the recommended program listed above would likely require more space than is practical. • It appears that the City of Edina is moving ahead and continuing to explore an indoor turf area. Research has shown that an indoor turf facility needs multiple youth associations from several cities to reach the desired user numbers and capacity to recoup enough operating expenses to remain open. To that end, they will need the St. Louis Park teams to buy time from them. SITE SELECTION CRITERIA AND TOP SITES: At the June 25 Council Study Session the City Council provided the Task Force with their ideas for site selection criteria. The Task Force then added some of their own and came up with the following list of criteria by which sites in the community were evaluated and the top sites chosen: 1. Convenient/easy to get to; 2. Central to population; 3. Adjacent to civic gathering spaces; 4. Safe to walk or bike to (paths, walks); 5. Aesthetics/landscape; 6. Existing public land; 7. Connects to other destinations; Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 4 Subject: Community Recreation Facility Task Force Update 8. Close to transit (bus and LRT); 9. Redevelopment/blighted site; 10. Adjacent or shared parking opportunities nearby; and 11. Partnerships possible. Using this Criterion, the Task Force recommends that the City Council consider the following sites in this order: 1. The Rec Center /Melrose EDI area (there are a couple of scenarios using both sites to make it work); 2. West of Excelsior and Grand – Bally’s site (note – this property is under contract for redevelopment purposes by a private developer); 3. Southwest of Highway 100 and West 36th Street; 4. Aquila Park; or 5. Stadium Field area by High School. The attached hand out shows a building overlaid on the sites noted above as a means to roughly show how things may fit (or not fit) on each site. The Task Force has listed advantages as well as disadvantages associated with each site on the handout attached. NEXT STEPS: Assuming the Council desires to continue to pursue this project staff would suggest this topic be placed on a future study session agenda or the Councils upcoming workshop for additional discussion. In general, next steps that should be pursued include: • Solidify the program components to be included in a facility(s). • Identify preferred location(s) for further analysis • Discuss financial considerations for constructing and operating such a facility(s) • Undertake further public process on the above three components. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. This topic will be discussed as the project evolves. VISION CONSIDERATION: This topic is directly related to the results of Vision St. Louis Park and the Strategic Direction that “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community” and the related Focus Area of “Exploring creation of a multi-use civic center, including indoor/winter use”. Attachment: Community Recreation Task Force Report Prepared by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Community Recreation Facility Task Force Final Report • City Council Workshop November 13, 2012 Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Community Recreation Facility Task Force Update Page 5 11/13/12 2 Community Recreation Facility Task Force Summary of Process Information and BackgroundInformation and Background Survey and Key Results As part of Vision St. Louis Park and the adopted four strategic directions, an appointed task force is examining the creation of a multi-use civic center. Results from a community survey have helped set priorities for long-term planning of community parks, recreation, and civic facilities. How important is it to add a particular facility among a list of 16 facilities: 1. Trails for walking, biking, rollerblading, etc. 2. Indoor recreation space/gyms for multiple uses 3. Natural open space 4. Lighted athletic fi elds (existing fi elds) 5. Indoor playground (play area, play equipment, etc.) Select exactly three facilities that are most important to add: 1. Trails for walking, biking, rollerblading, etc. 2. Swimming pool - indoor 3. Indoor recreation space/gyms for multiple uses 4. Indoor playground (play area, play equipment, etc.) 5. Natural open space1 In a City Council meeting, Dr. Ellen O’Sullivan, a consultant and former Park and Recreation Director, “noted a recurring theme of a multi-generational use facility and unstructured gathering places to keep folks active year-round.” O’Sullivan also emphasized that “the participants felt that any facility should feel welcoming and comfortable, which is critical to anything that is considered a gathering spot.”2 Task Force Charge • Th ink about what is right for St. Louis Park instead of replicating what other cities have. • Ask what outcomes people want in a recreation facility to make sure it will meet specifi c community needs. Task Force Members Sam Abelson John Basill Rick Beane Jim Beneke Andy Ewald Sophia Flumerfelt Lisa Greene City Staff Cindy Walsh Rick Birno Meg McMonigal 1 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC. Executive Summary, Report of Findings, City of St. Louis Park Community Survey of Future Civic and/or Recreational Facilities Needs and Interest. 2 Council Meeting Minutes, January 17, 2012. John Herbert Laurie Hynes Claudia Johnston-Madison Manuel Jordan Gregg Lindberg Joel Odens Sandy Olevitch Sean Walther Marney Olson Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. Consultant Team Karoline Pierson Melanie Schumacher Erin Slattengren Chuck Souvignier Mary Walters Tom Worthington Shirley Zimmerman Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Community Recreation Facility Task Force Update Page 6 11/13/12 3 Community Recreation Facility Task Force Summary of Process Summary of Meetings Task Force Meeting #1 (with Ellen O’Sullivan) January 23, 2012 • Identify the most common qualities related to ambience and feeling: welcoming, inviting, engaging, energetic, place for youth, inclusive, community pride and connected with nature. • General purpose: community gathering place. • Specifi c amenities: indoor water park/pool, focus on arts, space for older adults, technology and tech-free zones, play space, walking track, cafe, outdoor gathering. Task Force Meeting #2 (with Kathy Schoenbauer) February 8, 2012 • Review survey community recreation results. Task Force Facilities Tour Meeting #3 February 28, 2012 • Look at sample community centers in the metro area. • Establish a common baseline of knowledge and information among task force members. Task Force Meeting #4 March 5, 2012 • Discuss and record impressions from facilities tours. • Determine priorities for a St. Louis Park facility. Task Force Meeting #5 April 9, 2012 • Understand what is off ered by existing facilities in St. Louis Park. • Review priorities for a St. Louis Park facility. • Review the process leading to priorities. • Create an initial program wish list for a St. Louis Park facility. • Imagine an ideal gathering space and bring a photo of it to the next meeting. Task Force Meeting #6 May 7, 2012 • Quantify and refi ne the program. • Review related project examples. Task Force Meeting #7 June 4, 2012 • Review refi ned program. • Review report to SLP City Council. Task Force Mid-Process Presentation to Council June 25, 2012 • Present summary of process. • Confi rm plans for continuing the process. Task Force Meeting #8 July 9, 2012 • Review June 25 presentation to St. Louis Park City Council. • Discuss turf dome as part of this process or as a separate future process. • Revise and rank criteria for site selection. Task Force Meeting #9 September 10, 2012 • Review list of candidate sites from City staff . • Rank candidate sites using site selection criteria generated at Task Force Meeting #8. Task Force Meeting #10 October 1, 2012 • Review fi nal six candidate sites as each relates to agreed-upon building program and parking needs. • Identify advantages and disadvantages of each candidate site. • Determine which candidate sites are suitable for further study. Task Force Final Presentation to Council November 13, 2012 • Report on Community Recreation Facility Task Force process. • Recommend sites for further study. Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Community Recreation Facility Task Force Update Page 7 11/13/12 4 CommunityRecreationFacilityTaskForce WorkingProgram Area SqFt Notes Gym 12,000 120x100;lockersandstorageelsewhere;climbingwallin gym?Futureuses? Pool/waterplayarea 10,500 25yd6Ͳlane+pooldeck+2000SF,morecasual,familyͲ orientedatmosphere Poolmechanical 1,000 Pumps,chemicals,etc.Locateonoutsidewall(deliveryof chemicals,etc.) Lockerrooms 3,200 IncludeM,W,familylockers,showers,toiletsforpool,gym DropͲinchildcare 1,000 Ideallywithdirectoutdoorexit Communityroom2200 Programmablefordifferentages?Meetingroomsonsecond floor?Cateringkitchen? Commons/gathering 3600 Centralareawhereallroomsconnect,flexibleseatingfor100, couldconnecttocommunityroom,fireplace? Coffeeshop/snackbar 1000 Dedicatedwithinthecommons Kids'play/flexarea 4500 Softfloor/largemotorroom TrackͲaround/overgym ͲͲ 10'lanes(2walkers,2joggers)8Ͳ10laps/mile,1mile=5280 feet Fitness/equipment 2200 Howmanyusers?Whatactivities?Morelikethesizeofahotel workͲoutroom,referenceMCTC Flexactivity/workout/class2200 ExerciseareaͲlocatedadjacenttokidsplayarea?Three rooms/spaces Backofhouse 2100 Generalstorage,restrooms,buildingservices/loading Subtotal 45,500 NonͲassignableSF@.3 13,650 Buildingmechanical/electrical,walls,corridors/stairs/elevator Total 59,150 Outdoorspace Tobedetermined Parking 227spaces(percitystaff),approx..68,100SF Community Recreation Facility Task Force Summary of Process Working Program Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Community Recreation Facility Task Force Update Page 8 11/13/12 5 Community Recreation Facility Task Force Summary of Process Graphic Working Program Gym 12,000 SF Swimming Pool & Water Play Area 10,500 SF Running/Walking Track 8 laps/mile Commons/Gathering Space 3,600 SF Coff ee Shop & Support 1,000 SF Drop-in Day Care 1,000 SF Fitness/Equipment Room 2,200 SF Restrooms 500 SF Building Services 500 SF Pool Mechanical 1,000 SF General Storage 1,000 SF Locker Rooms 3,200 SF Kids’ Play Area 4,500 SF Community Room & Offi ce 2,200 SF Flex Activity/Workout/Class 2,200 SF Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Community Recreation Facility Task Force Update Page 9 11/13/12 6 Community Recreation Facility Task Force Summary of Process Site Selection Criteria Candidate Sites 1 Convenient/easytogetto 2 Centraltopopulation 3 Adjacenttocivicgatheringspaces 4 Safetowalkorbiketo(paths,walks) 5 Aesthetics/landscapes 6 Existing/excesspublicland 7 Connectstootherdestinations 8Closetotransit(bus,LRT) 9 Redev./blightedsite 10 Parking 11 Partnerships CommunityRecreationFacilityTaskForce SitesandRankingResults RANKSITETOTAL1 RecCenter/WolfePark 168 2 WestofExcelsior&Grand 121 3 SWofHwy100&36thSt 99 4 AquilaPark 94 4 StadiumFieldArea 94 CarpenterPark 105 NEofHwy100&36thSt 83 SWofMinnetonkaBlvd&LakeSt 62 SEofKnollwoodMall 77 NEofMinnetonkaBlvd&TexasAve 60 MostHolyTrinityChurch 57 Carpenter Park 105 NE of Hwy 100 &36th St 83 SW of Minnetonka Blvd &Lake St 62 SE of Knollwood Mall 77 NE of Minnetonka Blvd &Texas Ave 60 Most Holy Trinity Church 57 Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Community Recreation Facility Task Force Update Page 10 11/13/12 7 Community Recreation Facility Task Force Summary of Process Population Demographics Population by Census Block Population Density by Census Block Legend POPULATION 0 - 30 31 92 Legend Population Density Up to 4 people per acre >4 to 10 people per acre Legend POPULATION 0 - 30 31 - 92 93 - 211 212 - 516 517 - 1112 GEOGRAPHIC CENTER BY POPULATION GEOGRAPHIC CENTER BY POPULATION DENSITY Legend Population Density Up to 4 people per acre >4 to 10 people per acre >10 to 18 people per acre >18 to 30 people per acre >30 to 70 people per acre GEOGRAPHIC CENTER BY POPULATION GEOGRAPHIC CENTER BY POPULATION DENSITY ¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿ ¾¾¿ ¾¾¿¾¾¿ ¾¾¿ ¾¾¿ ¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿ ¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿n¤ n¤ n¤ MINNETONKA BLVD EXC 34TH ST W WALKER ST L AK E ST W ALABAMA AVE SHI GHW AY 7 OXFO R D ST FLORIDA AVE SYOSEMITE AVE SGEORGIA AVE SLI B R A R Y L N 4 1ST ST W WOODD AL E A VLOUISIANA AVE S37TH S T W 35TH S T WGORHAM AVEPA RK GLEN R D KIPLING AVE SBELT LINE BLVD39TH ST W JOPPA AVE S2 8T H ST W NORT H ST ZARTHAN AVE SSIDE AVEDIVISION ST MARYLAND AVE S31ST ST W HAMILTON ST ZINRAN AVE SE DG EBR OO K DR GOODRICH AVE ELL RD1ST ST NW36 1/2 ST W 36TH ST W2ND ST NWUTICA AVE SXENWOOD AVE SWEBSTER AVE SAQUILA LN S32ND ST W M O N T E R E Y D R DOWBROOK RDVALLAC H E R A V E DAKOTA AVE SLYNN AVE S40 TH LN W 29TH ST W 40TH ST WBOONE AVE SWO O D D A L E A V E 30 1/2 ST W B R O W N L O W A V E 34 1/2 ST W RALEIGH AVE SSERVICE RDPA RK CO MMONS DR COLORADO AVE SAQUILA AVE SC A V E L L AVE S35 1/2 ST W M O NI T O R S T BLACKSTONE AVE S32 1/2 ST W EDGEWOOD AVE SWYOMING AVE SW O L F E P KW YT A FT AVE SRE P U B LIC AVEDECATUR LNMONTEREY AVE SCAVELL LN PARK CENTER BLVDPHILLIPS PKWYYUKON AVE S3 3R D ST W MEADOWBROOK BL V DWOODLAND DRDECATUR AVE SMINNEHAHA CI R S MINNEHAHA CIR N MONTEREY PKWYBROOKVIEW DR OAK LE AF D ROAK P A R K V ILL AGE DR TEXA TO N KA AVEENSIGN AVE SAUTO CLUB WAY MERID IANLN LOUISIANA CIR AQUILA CIR SSUNSET RIDGE RD36TH ST W PENNSYLVANIA AVE SVIRGINIA A VE S YOSEMITE AVE S29TH ST W SUMTER AVE S37 TH ST W RALEIG 31ST ST W32ND ST W YUKON AVE SID A H O A V E S 31ST ST W OXFORD ST 39TH XENWOOD AVE S35TH ST W DAKOTA AVE SOTTAWA AVE SSUMTER AVE SSALEM AVE S31ST ST W 29TH ST W MONTEREY AVE SVIRGINIA AVE S33RD ST W RHODE IS LAND AVE S31ST ST W 34TH ST W BOONE AVE SPENNSYLVANIA AVE SUTAH AVE SUTICA AVE SUILA AV E SOREGON AVE SXENWOOD AVE S36TH ST WQUEBEC AVE SFLAG AVE SSALEM AVE SINGLEWOOD AVESXYLON AVE SBLACKSTON35TH ST W 29TH ST WJERSEY AVE SLAKE ST WSUMTER AVE SUTAH AVE SXYLON AVE S31ST ST W KENTUCKYNATCHEZ AVE S28TH ST W 33RD ST W LYNN AVE SCAMBRIDGE STTEXAS AVE SVIRGINIA AVE S37TH ST W WEBSTER AVE S31ST ST W EDGEWOO28T H S WEBSTER AVE S40TH ST W RALEIGH AVE SWYOMING AVE SVIRGINIA AVE SQUENTI N AVE SRBRUNSWICK AVE S36TH ST WVERNON AVE SNATCHEZ AVE S33RD ST W PENNSYLVANIA AVE SAQUILA AVE SOREGON AVE S32ND ST W WO O D D A L E A V E SZARTHAN AVE SHI GH WA Y 7 QUEBEC AVE SCOLORADO AVE SWALKER STYOSEMITE AVE STOLEDO AVE SXYLON AVE SCAVELL AVE SJOPPA AVE SWEBSTER AVE SNEVADA AVE SPRINCETON AVE S37TH SIDAHO AVE SUTAH AVE SHAMPSHIRE AVE SLYNN AVE SQUENTIN AVE SHAMPSHIRE AVE SWOODDALE AV E S BROOKVIEW LN CAMBRIDGE ST ALABAMA AVE SFLAG AVE SRALEIGH AVE SRHODE ISLAND AVE S28TH ST W ³±100 ³±7 ³±7 QR3 QR25 QR5 QR20 QR5 HIGHWAY 100 SSALEM AV33RD ST W 32ND ST W QUEBEC AVE SPRI NCETON AVE SWYOMING AVE S39TH ST WRHODE ISLAND AVE SPRINCETON AVE SBRUNSWICK AVE SHIGHWAY 100 SG E O R G I A A V E YOSEMITE AVE SBRUN S W IC K A V E S 29TH ST W MEADOWBROOK LNEXCELSIOR WAYPARK NIC OLLET BLV D PRINC ETON LNOAK LEA F C TENSIGN AVE STOLEDO AVE SND ST W BOONEAVECOLORADO AVE SVIRGINIA AVE SOTTAWA AVENATCHEZ AVEWEBSTER AVEXENWOOD AVE SDAKOTA AVE S1A Rec Center/Wolfe Park 1B Monterey Drive/Beltline 2 West of Excelsior & Grand 3 Carpenter Park 4 SW of Hwy 100 & 36th St 5 Aquila Park (tie with #6) Sites by Rank 0.5 Miles Legend Top Ranked Sites Lower Ranked Sites ¾¾¿Existing Bus Routes Existing Sidewalks Existing Trailsn¤Future LRT Station Water Roads City Park 6 Stadium Field Area (tie with #5) 7 NE of Hwy 100 & 36th St 8 SE of Knollwood Mall 9 SW of Minnetonka Blvd & Lake St 10 NE of Minnetonka Blvd & Texas Ave 11 Most Holy Trinity Church 4 5 2 3 7 1A 1B 9 8 10 11 6 ¯ October 1, 2012 Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Community Recreation Facility Task Force Update Page 11 11/13/12 8 Community Recreation Facility Task Force Summary of Process Candidate Site 1A: Rec Center/Wolfe Park # of Parcels 1 Site Size 31.7 acres Current Owners City Current Use Park, Rec Center, parking Advantages Disadvantages • City owns property • Environmental issues with site next to Wolfe Park (a potential issue on every site) • Wolfe Park is major open space; Bass Lake is natural preserve • Major utility trunk line runs through Rec Center site • Good central location - connected to Park Commons • Would need to invest in structured parking • Some overfl ow capacity in Melrose Institute parking structure • Displaces existing surface parking • Co-located with Rec Center, pool, and offi ce/operations • Near bike trail • Synergy with existing uses of rinks, pool, and meeting rooms • Opportunity to co-locate pools, adjacency of indoor-outdoor 36th St W Monterey Dr 36th St W Mo n t e r e y D r Wolfe Park Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Community Recreation Facility Task Force Update Page 12 11/13/12 9 Community Recreation Facility Task Force Summary of Process Candidate Site 1B: Rec Center/Wolfe Park + Monterey Dr & Beltline Blvd Mo n t e r e y D r Beltlin e Bl v d # of Parcels 1 Site Size 3.75 acres Current Owners City Current Use Parking, recreation Advantages Disadvantages • City owns property • Lose synergy with Rec Center • Wolfe Park is major open space; Bass Lake is natural preserve • Dangerous pedestrian crossing • Good central location • Visitor confusion: am I at the Rec Center, Community Center, or Melrose? • Some overfl ow capacity in Melrose Institute parking structure • Keeps Rec Center parking intact Mon t e r e y D r 36th St W Beltline BlvdStudy Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Community Recreation Facility Task Force Update Page 13 11/13/12 10 Community Recreation Facility Task Force Summary of Process Candidate Site 2: West of Excelsior & Grand # of Parcels 2 Site Size 1.6 acres Current Owners Private owner, SLP EDA Current Use Vacant fi tness building, vacant lot Excel si o r A v e Park Co m m o n s D r Q u e n t i n A v e Excelsi o r A v e Park C o m m o n s D r Quentin Ave Advantages Disadvantages • Within Park Commons center • Private site would need to be purchased • Existing bus line - well-connected pedestrian environment • Very tight urban site - may have to build some parking underground • Near additional parking supply at Excelsior & Grand • Would require a public/private partnership to provide necessary parking. • Program could be part of a public-private development Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Community Recreation Facility Task Force Update Page 14 11/13/12 11 Community Recreation Facility Task Force Summary of Process Candidate Site 3: SW of Hwy 100 & 36th St Hwy 10036th St W 36th St W Hwy 100 # of Parcels 1 or 2 Site Size 10.7 acres Current Owners Private owners Current Use Big box retail, parking, offi ce, restaurant Advantages Disadvantages • Near bus line and future LRT stop at Wooddale • Private sites/businesses would need to be negotiated/purchased/ relocated • Central location - near Excelsior and Grand • Could require investment in parking • Potential to share parking with Burlington Coat/ME site • 36th St is very busy - pedestrian crossing at Wooddale needs work • High quality pedestrian environment along 36th St • Unattractive location • Emerging new residential development including new senior buildings • Very little green space • Off ers TLC to area in need of it • Closest candidate site to the regional trail system Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Community Recreation Facility Task Force Update Page 15 11/13/12 12 Community Recreation Facility Task Force Summary of Process Candidate Site 4: Aquila Park 33rd S t W Xyl o n A v e S 33rd St W 31st St W Xylon Ave S# of Parcels 1 Site Size 30.1 acres Current Owners City Current Use Park & Rec Advantages Disadvantages • Good trail and pedestrian connections • Steep slopes on south side of park - may need access improvements • Good density of residential, including senior-oriented multi-family • Building sited over 8 tennis courts • City owns land • Would need to move tennis courts and fi nd site suitable to relocate them; courts are in partnership with Benilde-St. Margaret’s • In diff erent part of town from other candidate sites • Not much synergy with other uses • Near park and trail system • Increased traffi c would have big impact on residential area • Fireworks and other events would need to move elsewhere Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Community Recreation Facility Task Force Update Page 16 11/13/12 13 Community Recreation Facility Task Force Summary of Process Candidate Site 5: Stadium Field Area Advantages Disadvantages • Located next to schools and turf fi eld • Several sites and businesses would need to be purchased and relocated • Area subject to redevelopment • Removes a street (Library Lane) - a major school bus route • Near library • Active rail line cannot be moved • Most central of all candidate sites • Near possible freight rail expansion • Requires buying a lot of property, including single family houses • Lack of parking • Potential impacts of Walker Street # of Parcels Up to 21 Site Size 10 acres* Current Owners Private owners, school district, City Current Use Businesses, recreation, parking * excludes streets and alleys Librar y L n Walker StL a k e S t . W Library LnLake St W Walker St Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Community Recreation Facility Task Force Update Page 17 11/13/12 14 Community Recreation Facility Task Force Summary of Process Comparison of Rec Center & Proposed Program 36th St W Mo n t e r e y D r Wolfe Park 1) Rec Center 2) Parking Area 3) Proposed Program • 100,000 SF • 68,100 SF • 59,150 SF 12 3 Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Community Recreation Facility Task Force Update Page 18 Meeting Date: November 13, 2012 Agenda Item #: 3 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS ) RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this study session item is to provide the City Council with an opportunity to review and discuss the larger/big picture comments and themes staff has identified in the Southwest Transitway DEIS. No action of the Council is required at this time. Specific comments on the DEIS document will be brought for discussion at the November 26 study session. The goal is to have the final comments approved by the City Council by December 3 (with December 10 as the backup date) in order to meet the comment period deadline of December 11. The Executive Summary of the DEIS is attached for your review. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Two policies have consistently guided the Council’s direction on Southwest Light Rail Transit planning (Resolutions 10-070 and 11-058): • The City of St. Louis Park strongly supports the implementation of the Southwest Transitway LRT project. • The City of St. Louis Park continues to oppose the rerouting of freight rail traffic from the Kenilworth corridor to St. Louis Park unless the following conditions are clearly met: a. It is established through a very thorough and careful analysis that no other viable route exists; b. There is appropriate mitigation of any and all negative impacts associated with rail rerouting, funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis Park. Potential negative impacts that should be addressed include but are not limited to noise, vibration, odors, traffic congestion and safety, school use and safety, park use and safety; and, circulation/access in the community by vehicle, pedestrian, transit and bicycle; c. Elimination of railroad switching, sorting and blocking operations within the City of St. Louis Park; and funded by some other source than the City of St. Louis Park; d. Removal of the existing “wye” rail tracks in the vicinity of Oxford Street and any other tracks not needed for through train traffic including the rail tracks east of any new interconnections between the East-West CP-TCWR tracks and the North- South CP-MNS tracks; e. Creation of a freight rail single track corridor with significant right-of-way and safety measures incorporated between the track and adjacent properties; f. Creation of a whistle-quiet zone funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis Park throughout the entire north-south MNS corridor. Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) BACKGROUND: On October 12, 2012 the Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was released for public review. The 60 day official comment period on the DEIS runs until December 11, 2012. On September 2, 2011, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) required that the freight rail location be considered as a part of DEIS. The FTA letter states that the project scope for the DEIS must address key items including: “the impacts of relocating the Twin Cities & Western freight line…in the project’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).” WHAT THE DEIS SAYS: The DEIS is over 1000 pages in length plus four volumes of appendices. The twelve chapters of the DEIS address everything from the purpose and description of the proposed project to technical analyses of environmental impacts, costs and everything in between. The vast majority of the material included in the documents is based on the early SWLRT studies and previous work on the potential rerouting of freight rail traffic. In that sense there is very little new information in the DEIS. The purpose of a DEIS is to provide information and analysis needed to plan actions and make decisions. It is expected to explore alternatives and identify one or more preferred alternatives. In the case of the Southwest Transitway DEIS, five alternative combination LRT/freight rail routes were evaluated along with an enhanced bus service and a no-build alternative. The DEIS concluded that LRT alternative 3A, the alternative that located LRT in the Kenilworth corridor and re-located TC&W freight train traffic to the MN&S/BNSF tracks, was the “Environmentally Preferred Alternative.” This location for LRT is consistent with the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) route for SW LRT adopted into the 2030 Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) in 2010 by the Metropolitan Council. However, that action did not address or consider where TC&W freight rail traffic currently operating in Kenilworth corridor would or should be located. In its September 2011 letter to the Met Council, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) required that routing of freight rail traffic be incorporated into the SW Transitway project and DEIS as a condition of the FTA’s funding of the SWLRT project. The SW Transitway DEIS includes re-location of freight trains to the MN&S/BNSF tracks for all the LRT build alternatives except alternative 3A-1, which co-locates freight rail with the SWLRT and the regional trail in the Kenilworth corridor. The location of SWLRT in the 3A-1 alternative is consistent with the LPA. The DEIS concludes that alternative 3A (LRT in Kenilworth corridor and freight rail re-located to the MN&S/BNSF) should be considered the Environmentally Preferred Alternative. The authors of the DEIS base this conclusion on their judgments for how well each of the alternatives meets six project goals. Five of these goals were identified during the multi-year public process that led to the adoption of the LPA into the TPP in 2010. The sixth goal is new, and was not part of the public process. It is “Support economically competitive freight rail system.” It includes two objectives, one, “safe, efficient and effective movement of freight through the region, state and nation;” and two, “continuous flow of freight rail throughout the study area.” The DEIS shows alternatives 3A and 3A-1 to be equal in many regards. Both achieve the basic purposes of constructing a LRT project well; ridership projections are equal, operating costs are estimated to be equal (although it is unclear if there are any freight rail operating cost Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 3 Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) differences), improvements of regional mobility, access to jobs, and improvements to air quality for instance. However, alternative 3A (relocation) was judged to be superior to alternative 3A-1 (colocation). And only alternative 3A is judged to be the Environmentally Preferred Alternative. Many reasons for this conclusion are listed in Chapter 11 and the Executive Summary sections of the DEIS, but the key reason relates to the need to acquire a portion of Cedar Lake Park for right- of-way to accommodate LRT, freight rail and the regional trail in the Kenilworth corridor. The DEIS concludes that acquisition of an estimated .81 acres of Cedar Lake Park disqualifies alternative 3A-1 from consideration as an environmentally preferred alternative (the DEIS does not show where the 4f impacts are). The authors of the DEIS believe this acquisition could not comply with the requirements of Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act of 1966 protecting parkland. That law says that the US Secretary of Transportation cannot approve a project requiring the acquisition of park land unless he can conclude that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the land, and, the action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from such use. The DEIS does not believe that standard can be met for the 3A-1 alternative. Other reasons why alternative 3A-1 is deemed inferior are provided in the DEIS and listed below. 1. Lengthy queues at several at-grade intersections of roadways with freight rail tracks somewhat off-set the benefits of increased transit ridership for the 3A-1 alternative. 2. Local development may be diminished at stations where freight operations are present for the 3A-1 alternative. 3. Alternative 3A-1 does not provide a direct connection to the MN&S from the Bass Lake Spur meaning noisy switching activity on the wye in the Skunk Hollow area of St. Louis Park would continue. 4. “High construction related impacts because of the complex construction staging required to rebuild the freight rail tracks”. 5. Economic development and potential for transit oriented development will be diminished because of the close proximity of freight rail operations to station locations. 6. Pedestrian safety at the Wooddale, Beltline, and 21st Street LRT station would be affected by the need to cross the freight rail track between the LRT station and park and ride facilities. 7. “The economic impact of acquiring over 60 units of primarily high quality, high income multi-family housing by the West Lake Street station makes this alternative [3A-1] inconsistent with state, regional, and local policies and adopted plans.” 8. Retention of freight rail operation in the Kenilworth Corridor will continue to divide neighborhoods while its removal will allow the Southwest Transitway project to bring the areas together and improve community cohesion. In contrast, the DEIS states while the impact of co-locating freight trains with LRT in Kenilworth (alternative 3A-1) are judged to be severe impacts, the impacts of re-locating freight trains to the MN&S/BNSF is judged to be “slight.” A “slight” increase in freight rail traffic on the MN&S is anticipated resulting in only “sporadic” traffic queues at at-grade crossings. All severe noise impacts would be mitigated by a whistle quiet zone. Any negative impacts on water resources in the area of the connection between the MN&S to the BNSF tracks; or encountering hazardous materials along the MN&S route would be outweighed by the benefits of the LRT project. Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 4 Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) The only mitigation indicated for the MN&S route is a whistle quiet zone (WQZ). However implementation of the WQZ could also include pedestrian crossing improvements since part of the process of implementing a WQZ is making other safety improvements equivalent to trains blowing whistles. To improve safety sufficiently to eliminate the need to sound train whistles, other pedestrian safety systems may be installed. Review and analysis of the conclusions reached in the DEIS and described above will be part of the process of drafting comments on the DEIS for the City Council’s consideration at upcoming meetings. There are reasons to question many of these conclusions and the data on which they are based. In many cases there is information contradicting these conclusions even within the DEIS itself. One glaring omission in the conclusions shown in “Evaluation of Alternatives” (page ES-23) is any discussion of the relative cost of construction. Alternative 3A-1 costs more than $122 million more than alternative 3A. Few or no mitigation options are considered for most of the problems identified with the DEIS. Mitigation needs will be part of the comments staff will be preparing for Council review and submission. OVERALL THEMES AND COMMENTS: The Southwest Transitway DEIS is a massive complicated document. Compiling comprehensive comments in an understandable, orderly format is a challenge. What’s more, it is important that the key messages we hope to convey don’t get lost in the sheer volume of issues and facts. To provide clarity and structure to the comments we are attempting to identify the key themes of the message. In addition to the broad themes it is anticipated that a list of specific questions and specific comments will be submitted. The following are the overall themes for comment on the DEIS identified thus far: 1. New goal and the State Rail Plan Rationale § A new goal is introduced - Goal 6 – Support economically competitive freight rail system in Chapter 1 Purpose and Need, which relates to freight rail and the State Rail Plan. § This goal was not adopted through any public process. § The rationale and description for constructing connections to the MN&S tracks and re-locating freight rail to the MN&S has been broadened to be consistent with the new Goal 6. It essentially states that one of the reasons for choosing alternative 3A is that it helps implement the state rail plan, provides opportunities for TC&W trains and possibly other railroads to reach places other than where TC&W trains are going today; yet the DEIS does not anticipate any increase in train traffic on the MN&S or evaluate the impact of trains going north of the BNSF tracks. The potential impact from possible additional train traffic is reason for more robust mitigation along the MN&S route. § All of the alternatives in the DEIS would need additional evaluation with this new goal; previously action was only take on the LRT routes, not freight rail routes. § This DEIS is supposed to be about the SWLRT project not the State Rail Plan; introducing this element is inappropriate for this plan and the DEIS. § The new goal introduces many questions and complications about the impacts of the State Rail Plan; Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 5 Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) § Several other communities are impacted by the introduction of the State Rail Plan and suggestion that TC&W trains will use the Humboldt Yard; those cities that the MNS travels through include: Golden Valley, Crystal, Edina, and Bloomington. § Passenger rail along the MNS is discussed in the State Rail Plan and should be addressed in relation to rerouting freight trains on the MNS. 2. Comparison of freight routing alternatives is incomplete § The DEIS does not evenly evaluate and compare the two LPA alternatives of co- location and re-route for freight rail. Conclusions drawn in the document are not supported by the data in the DEIS. § There is lack of supporting detailed information for conclusions reached on such items as wetlands, floodplains, acquisition of properties, capital costs, and economic impacts among others. § The blatant minimization of the potential impacts of increased freight rail traffic along the MN&S needs to be addressed. § The vulnerability of the small lot, modest homes and public housing in the corridor needs to be addressed. 3. 4f considerations § 4f considerations are noted as the reason 3A (reroute) is a better alternative, however this conclusion misses several items: § Freight rail is now running on park property at this time; it is not included as a current situation. § City park property in St. Louis Park needs to be considered under 4f impacts under the relocation alternative; it was not addressed. § There is not a map showing where 4f properties are, and which ones cannot be overcome, even though this seems to be an argument for the 3A alternative over the 3A-1 alternative. 4. Freight rail routing impacts § Are not adequately addressed in the reroute alternative: § Noise analysis states implementation of whistle quiet zones would eliminate all severe impacts, without further explanation. § A southern connection to the MNS route is not shown, and the removal of the switching wye is also not shown. § Park impacts on local parks are not shown in the 4f analysis. § Construction impacts are shown as “medium” even though it is a major construction project to connect the two freight rail lines. § Are not accurately addressed in co-location alternative: § Analysis does not include current impacts of freight rail in corridor such as noise, vibration and use of parkland. § Construction impacts are shown as “high.” 5. Cost comparison § The total cost in 2012 dollars for relocation to the MNS/BNSF is $122,866,000 more than co-locating freight trains in the Kenilworth corridor. ($1,194,636,000 for relocation vs. $1,071,770,000 for co-location as shown in Table 8.4-1). 6. Evaluation of Alternatives § Construction impacts are shown as “medium” in the relocation alternative vs. being shown as “high” in the co-location alternative, even though relocation of freight would have more construction complexity and cost than co-location. Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 6 Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) § Community Cohesion is shown as “no impact” in the relocation alternative vs. being shown as “slight adverse impact” in the co-location alternative, even though rail would be rerouted near many homes in St. Louis Park neighborhoods as well as the high school and has significant community impacts. § Continuous flow of freight rail throughout the study area is shown as “no” in the relocation alternative vs. being shown as “yes” in the co-location alternative, even though both alternatives do not eliminate the “cumbersome and noisy” switching wye in Skunk Hollow. § Improve mobility goal is shown to “support goal” in relocation alternative vs. being shown as “somewhat support goal” in co-location alternative even though there is no difference in ridership, user benefits, travel times or cost per passenger mile between the alternatives. § Protect the environment goal is shown as “somewhat supports goal” in the relocation alternative vs. being shown as “does not support goal” in co-location alternative even though the data shows more wetland and floodplain impacts, among others. § Preserve and protect the quality of life goal is shown to “support goal” in relocation alternative vs. being shown as “does not support goal” in co-location alternative; it is stated that co-location would “divide neighborhoods” without defining any impacts to St. Louis Park neighborhoods. § Support economic development goal is shown to “support goal” in relocation alternative vs. being shown as “somewhat support goal” in co-location alternative, without explanation. § Support economically competitive freight rail system was not an adopted goal of the light rail project. It is shown as “supports goal” in relocation alternative vs. being shown as “does not support goal” in co-location alternative, even though it begs many more questions about achieving other state rail goals contained in the plan. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND THEMES: The conclusions for rerouting freight rail traffic to the MNS corridor appear to be unsupported in the data provided. It is recommended that the City request in its comments that the responsible agencies: • Fairly and evenly evaluate the two freight rail alternatives in order to make a responsible routing decision; • Truly consider the impacts and costs to make the right decision for the community at- large. NEXT STEPS: The tentative schedule for finalizing comments on the SW DEIS is as follows: November 26th Study Session discussion of proposed specific comments on the Southwest Transitway DEIS December 3rd Finalize comments for submittal by December 11, 2012 FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The City has engaged several consultants to aid in review of the Southwest Transitway DEIS; the costs will be paid for through the Development Fund. Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 7 Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) VISION CONSIDERATION: This item is linked to the City’s Vision Strategic Direction that St. Louis Park is a committed to being a connected and engaged community, including SW LRT. Attachments: EIS Process information from City Attorney Executive Summary, Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director; and, Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor. Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 8 Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) EIS PROCESS • December 11, 2012 – deadline for written comments on DEIS • Review of DEIS comments by Metropolitan Council as lead agency for development of the final EIS • Preparation of final EIS by Metropolitan Council • Preliminary engineering continues during preparation of final EIS. (Final Design activities, property acquisition and contracting cannot occur until the completion of the EIS process) • Final EIS shall respond to DEIS comments. Responses may include the following: 1. Modify alternatives including the proposed action. 2. Develop and evaluate alternatives not previously given serious consideration by the agency. 3. Supplement, improve, or modify its analyses. 4. Make factual corrections. 5. Explain why the comments do not warrant further agency response. • FTA approval and publication of final EIS • Minimum 30 day final EIS comment period • FTA completes and signs a Record of Decision (ROD) no sooner than 30 days after publication of the final EIS. The ROD will present the basis for the decision, summarize any required mitigation measures and document any 4(f) approval relating to park land impacts. • Six month time period to initiate any court action challenging EIS Draft environmental impact statement october 2012 executive summary Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 9 Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement • October 2012 • Executive Summary • ES-1 What is the purpose of this document? The Southwest Transitway project seeks federal funds to help pay for its construction, and as a result, the project must be reviewed under the Na- tional Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) implementing NEPA ensure that information on the social and environmental impacts of any federally funded action is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken. NEPA regulations direct Federal agencies to integrate into their planning and decision-making the natural and social sciences, envi- ronmental amenities and values, and the design arts along with the neces- sary engineering and economic considerations. The objective is to balance infrastructure development, economic prosperity, health and environmental protection, community and neighborhood preservation, and quality of life. In addition to NEPA, the provisions of other statutes, regulations and execu- tive orders affect the decision-making on federally assisted transportation projects. These mandates and considerations cover such concerns as air and water quality, historic preservation, parklands protection, habitat preserva- tion, civil rights and social burdens of transportation investments. FTA uses the NEPA process as the overarching umbrella under which the mandates and considerations of all laws affecting transit project development are con- sidered. This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) discusses (1) the pur- pose and need for the project, (2) the alternatives considered, (3) the im- pacts of these alternatives, and (4) the agencies and persons consulted. The Southwest Transitway is currently included in the 2030 Transportation Policy Plan (2030 TPP) (2009), the region’s long-range transportation plan; Hennepin County’s long-range transportation plan; the Hennepin County Transportation System Plan (TSP); and the comprehensive and transportation plans of the local municipalities in the study area. Who is the project sponsor? FTA is the federal lead agency under NEPA, and Hennepin County Re- gional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) is the state lead agency under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) for development of the Draft EIS.  As of Sept 2, 2011 when the Southwest Transitway proj- ect was accepted into the federal New Starts program, Metropolitan Council became the project sponsor and federal grantee. Metropolitan Council will lead the process for de- velopment of the Final Environmen- tal Impact Statement (Final EIS), pre- liminary engineering, and, should the Southwest Transitway project proceed, final design and construc- tion. executive summary Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 10 ES-2 • Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement • October 2012 • Executive Summary Will the public have an opportunity to comment on the draft eis? Yes. The Draft EIS has been made available to the public through a notice of availability published in the Federal Register and in the local newspapers of general circulation. Written comments on the Draft EIS will be accepted for a 60-day time period from October 12 through December 11, 2012. Com- ments on the Draft EIS may be submitted through email, mail, or in person at one of the public hearings that will be held specifically for that purpose. Pub- lic hearings to receive comments on the Draft EIS are scheduled as follows: tuesday, november 13th Hennepin County Government Center, A-2400 4:00 to 5:00 PM public open house (Public Service Level) 4:30 PM Formal Public Hearing Wednesday, november 14th St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard 5:00 to 6:00 PM public open house 6:00 PM Formal Public Hearing thursday, november 29th, Eden Prairie City Hall, 8080 Mitchell Road 5:00 to 6:00 PM public open house 6:00 PM Formal Public Hearing the address to which written comments should be sent is: Hennepin County Housing, Community Works & Transit 701 Fourth Avenue South, Ste 400 Minneapolis, MN 55415 or swcorridor@co.hennepin.mn.us A summary of public involvement activities can be found in Chapter 12 of this Draft EIS. What happens after the close of the comment period? Following the close of the comment period, FTA and the project sponsor will consider all comments submitted and will respond to those comments in the Final EIS. Where can i find a copy of the draft eis? The Draft EIS and supporting Technical Memoranda and Reports are avail- able on the project website http://www.southwesttransitway.org/. Hard cop- ies of the Draft EIS may be found in HCRRA’s and Metropolitan Council’s offices and in public libraries and city halls in Minneapolis, St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Edina, Minnetonka, and Eden Prairie. What is the proposed action? The proposed action, the Southwest Transitway, is the construction and operation of a15-mile light rail tran- sit (LRT) line in the Minneapolis/St. Paul region, connecting downtown Minneapolis to the cities of St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Edina, Minnetonka, and Eden Prairie. Depending on the alternative being evaluated, this ac- tion also includes either: • The rerouting of existing Twin Cities & Western Railroad Com- pany (TC&W) freight rail service from the Canadian Pacific’s (CP) Bass Lake Spur and Hennepin County Regional Railroad Au- thority’s (HCRRA) Cedar Lake (Kenilworth Corridor) to the MN&S Subdivision and BNSF Railway Company’s Wayzata Subdivision • The co-location of LRT and TC&W freight rail service on reconstructed freight rail tracks on the CP’s Bass Lake Spur and HCRRA’s Cedar Lake (Kenilworth Corridor) (See Figure ES.1). Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 11 Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement • October 2012 • Executive Summary • ES-3 Map Location Shady Oak Lake Lake Calhoun Lake Harriet Lake of the Isles Cedar Lake ) Bryant Lake L )Target FieldRoyalston4th Street8th Street12th StreetHawthorneHarmonFranklin28th StreetLyndaleUptownPenn21st StreetWest LakeBeltlineWooddaleLouisianaBlakeHopkinsShady OakRowlandHighway 62OpusCity WestGolden TriangleEden Prairie Town CenterSouthwestMitchellHighway 5VanWhiteSee Inset Hopkins Plymouth Bloomington Minneapolis Edina Golden Va lley Eden Prairie Minnetonka Richfield St LouisSt Louis ParkPark Data: MnDOT, DNR, MetCouncil012 Miles Path: \\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\HennCty\177565\map_docs\DEIS\EX_SUMM\FigureES-1_Segments.mxd Date: 10/1/2012Legend Segment FRR Segment 1 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment A Segment C-1 (Nicollet Mall) At-Grade, 12th Street; At-Grade, 11th Street Segment C-1 Tunnel Segment C-2 Tunnel Segment C-2A Tunnel (Blaisdell Avenue) Segment C-2B (1st Avenue) Segment C-2B Tunnel Station Park & Ride Station Northstar Commuter Rail Hiawatha Light Rail Lake of the Isles Cedar Lake TargetFieldRoyalstonVan White4th St.8th Street12th StreetHawthorneHarmonFranklin28th StreetLyndaleUptownPenn21st StreetWestLakeMinneapolis Inset MINNESOTA 62 MINNESOTA 7 MINNESOTA 5 MINNESOTA 100 MINNESOTA 55 MINNESOTA 55 394 494 35W 94 62 COUNTY 169 212 N FRR 1 4 A 3 A C-1 C-1 C-2 C-2A C-2B figure es.1. builD alternative segments Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 12 ES-4 • Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement • October 2012 • Executive Summary This Draft EIS evaluates the No Build, Enhanced Bus, and five Build Alterna- tives. The alternatives are described below and maps are provided to show their routes and station locations. This Executive Summary presents the major elements and findings of the evaluation of potential impacts of the No Build, Enhanced Bus, and the Build Alternatives. It also includes a preliminary Section 4(f) Evaluation; a com- parative evaluation of the alternatives; and a summary of the public involve- ment, agency coordination, and consultation activities conducted during the preparation of this Draft EIS. What is the purpose and need for the project? The purposes for enhancing transit service in the Southwest Transitway study area can be summarized as: • The Southwest Transitway will improve access and mo- bility to the jobs and activity centers in the Minneapolis Cen- tral Business District (CBD), as well as along the entire length of the corridor for reverse-com- mute trips to the expanding suburban employment centers. • The Southwest Transitway will provide a competitive, cost- effective travel option that will attract choice riders to the transit system. The competitive and reliable travel time for the Southwest Transitway is attrib- uted to the diagonal nature of the line compared to the north- south/east-west orientation of the roadway network, and to the increasing levels of congestion of the roadway network. • The Southwest Transitway would be part of the region’s system of transitways integrat- ed to support regional transpor- tation efficiency. The Southwest Transitway has been identified by the Metropolitan Council since the late 1990s as warrant- ing a high-level of transit invest- ment to respond to increasing travel demand in a highly con- gested area of the region. Due to congestion levels on the roadway network, the speed/ use limitations of the shoulder bus operations, and capacity constraints in downtown Min- neapolis, a bus option is limited in its ability to adequately serve the travel demand and provide reliable travel times. The transportation issues facing the Southwest Transitway study area il- lustrate the need for improved mo- bility, accessibility, and system link- ages to the activity centers in the study area through high capacity transit service. The Southwest Tran- sitway is one of several transit cor- ridors identified in the Metropolitan Council’s 2030 Transportation Policy Plan (2030 TPP) as being in need of enhanced transit service. The South- west Transitway study area contin- ues to increase in population and employment with limited additional traffic capacity on existing streets and highways resulting in increased travel time, delays, and air pollution. Portions of the Southwest Transit- way study area are already densely developed. New development and redevelopment occurring in the study area are expected to generate increases in travel demand. Three primary factors make the Southwest Transitway Corridor im- portant for people who live and work in the southwest metropolitan area: 1) declining mobility, 2) limited competitive, reliable transit options for choice riders and people who rely on public transportation includ- ing reverse commute riders, and 3) the need to develop and maintain a balanced and economically com- petitive multimodal freight system. Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 13 Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement • October 2012 • Executive Summary • ES-5 What alternatives were considered in the draft eis? l no build alternative The No Build Alternative is required by the NEPA/MEPA processes and includes all existing and commit- ted transportation infrastructure, facilities, and services contained in the region’s fiscally constrained and federally approved transportation plan, the Metropolitan Council’s 2030 TPP. l enhanced bus alternative The Enhanced Bus alternative (Fig- ure ES.2) carried forward from the Southwest Transitway Alternatives Analysis (AA) and scoping was re- fined into Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative for the purpose of the FTA project de- velopment process. This alternative is designed to be the “best that can be done” to improve transit service and mobility without major capital investments. The Enhanced Bus Al- ternative includes the same high- way and roadway network improve- ments contained in the No Build Alternative, and two new limited- stop bus routes providing bi-direc- tional service between Eden Prairie and downtown Minneapolis, with stops in Minnetonka, Hopkins, and St. Louis Park. The new limited-stop routes are referred to as Limited Stop Route “A” and Limited Stop Route  “B,” and are represented along with the existing express bus routes provided by Metro Transit and SouthWest Transit using I394, I35W, Trunk Highway (TH) 169, and TH 100 from Eden Prairie to down- town Minneapolis in Figure ES.2. l lrt 1a Alternative LRT  1A (Figure  ES.3) is proposed to operate between TH 5 in Eden Prairie and downtown Minneapolis, providing service to Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Hopkins, St. Louis Park, and Minneapolis. This alternative includes reloca- tion of the existing freight rail ser- vice operating on the Bass Lake Spur and the Cedar Lake Junction between just east of Louisiana Av- enue in St. Louis Park and Penn Av- enue in Minneapolis to the MN&S line in St. Louis Park, as described in more detail in Section 2.3.4.1 of this Draft EIS. The freight rail relo- cation will result in the cessation of freight rail service on this section of the Bass Lake Spur and the HCRRA Cedar Lake Junction (Kenilworth Corridor). This alternative would operate from TH 5 on the HCRRA-owned right-of- way through Eden Prairie, Minneton- ka, Hopkins and St. Louis Park, and then along the Kenilworth Corridor through Minneapolis to Royalston Avenue then past the downtown Target Field Station using an exten- sion of the Hiawatha LRT tracks on 5th  Street. Stations are proposed at TH  5, TH  62, Rowland Road, Shady Oak Road, Downtown Hop- kins, Blake Road, Louisiana Avenue, Wooddale Avenue, Beltline Boule- vard, West Lake Street, 21st Street, Penn Avenue, Van White Boulevard, and Royalston Avenue. l lrt 3a (locally preferred alternative) Alternative LRT  3A (LPA) (Fig- ure  ES.4) travels between Mitchell Road in Eden Prairie and downtown Minneapolis, providing service to Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Hopkins, Edina, St. Louis Park, and Minne- apolis. Like LRT 1A, this alternative includes relocation of the existing freight rail service operating on the Bass Lake Spur and the Cedar Lake Junction between just east of Louisiana Av- enue in St. Louis Park and Penn Av- enue in Minneapolis to the MN&S line in St. Louis Park. The freight rail relocation will result in the cessation of freight rail service on this sec- tion of the Bass Lake Spur and the HCRRA Cedar Lake Junction (Ke- nilworth Corridor). This alternative would operate from TH 5 and Mitchell Road on new right- of way (ROW) along Technology Drive through the Golden Triangle/ Opus areas to the HCRRA property, through St. Louis Park and Hopkins, then along the Kenilworth Corridor through Minneapolis to Royalston Avenue, then past the downtown Target Field Station using an exten- sion of the Hiawatha LRT tracks on 5th  Street. Stations are proposed at Mitchell Road, Southwest Sta- tion, Eden Prairie Town Center, Golden Triangle, City West, Opus, Shady Oak Road, downtown Hop- kins, Blake Road, Louisiana Avenue, Wooddale Avenue, Beltline Boule- Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 14 ES-6 • Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement • October 2012 • Executive Summary vard, West Lake Street, 21st Street, Penn Avenue, Van White Boulevard, and Royalston Avenue. l lrt 3c-1 Alternative LRT 3C-1 (Nicollet Mall) (Figure ES.5) travels between Mitch- ell Road in Eden Prairie and down- town Minneapolis, providing service to Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Hop- kins, Edina, St. Louis Park, and Min- neapolis. Like LRT 1A, this alternative includes relocation of the existing freight rail service operating on the Bass Lake Spur and the Cedar Lake Junction between just east of Louisiana Av- enue in St. Louis Park and Penn Av- enue in Minneapolis to the MN&S line in St. Louis Park. The freight rail relocation will result in the cessation of freight rail service on this sec- tion of the Bass Lake Spur and the HCRRA Cedar Lake Junction (Ke- nilworth Corridor). This alternative would operate from TH  5 and Mitchell Road on new ROW along Technology Drive through the Golden Triangle/ Opus areas to the HCRRA prop- erty through Hopkins and St. Louis Park, then to the Midtown corridor through Minneapolis, to Nicollet Av- enue (tunnel from Franklin Avenue to 28th  Street) then Nicollet Mall. Stations are proposed at Mitchell Road, Southwest Station, Eden Prai- rie Town Center, Golden Triangle, City West, Opus, Shady Oak Road, downtown Hopkins, Blake Road, Louisiana Avenue, Wooddale Av- enue, Beltline Boulevard, West Lake Street, Hennepin Avenue (Uptown), Lyndale Avenue, 28th Street, Frank- lin Avenue, 12th Street, 8th Street, and 4th Street. l lrt 3c-2 Alternative LRT 3C-2 (11th/12th Street) (Figure ES.6) travels between Mitchell Road in Eden Prairie and downtown Minneapolis, providing service to Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Hopkins, Edina, St. Louis Park, and Minneapolis. Like LRT 1A, this alternative includes relocation of the existing freight rail service operating on the Bass Lake Spur and the Cedar Lake Junction between just east of Louisiana Av- enue in St. Louis Park and Penn Av- enue in Minneapolis to the MN&S line in St. Louis Park. The freight rail relocation will result in the cessation of freight rail service on this sec- tion of the Bass Lake Spur and the HCRRA Cedar Lake Junction (Ke- nilworth Corridor). Alternative LRT 3C-2 (11th/12th Street) would operate on the same alignment as LRT 3C-1 (Nicollet Mall) between Eden Prairie and the West Lake Station in Minneapolis. At the Midtown Corridor in the vicinity of Nicollet Avenue, the alignment would travel either under Nicollet Avenue, Blaisdell Avenue (C2B), or Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 15 Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement • October 2012 • Executive Summary • ES-7 1st  Avenue (C2A) in a tunnel be- tween the Midtown Corridor and Franklin Avenue. North of Franklin Avenue, it would operate on-street to the vicinity of 11th/12th Street where it would turn west onto 11th  Street between Nicollet Mall and Royalston Avenue. At Royalston the alternative would use the same routing as the LRT 1A and LRT 3A alternatives, which interline with the Hiawatha/Central Corridor LRT lines on 5th Street. Stations are pro- posed at Mitchell Road, Southwest Station, Eden Prairie Town Center, Golden Triangle, City West, Opus, Shady Oak Road, downtown Hop- kins, Blake Road, Louisiana Avenue, Wooddale Avenue, Beltline Boule- vard, West Lake Street, Hennepin Avenue (Uptown), Lyndale Avenue, 28th Street and either Blaisdell Av- enue or 1st  Avenue, Franklin Av- enue and either Blaisdell Avenue or 1st Avenue, 12th Street/Nicollet Mall, 11th  Street/Hawthorne Av- enue, 12th Street/Harmon Avenue, and Royalston Avenue. Alternative LRT 3C-2 (11th/12th Street) proposes to use either a tunnel under Nicollet Avenue, with optional routes under Blaisdell or 1st Avenue, between the Midtown Corridor and Franklin Avenue. For the Blaisdell Avenue option, the LRT would exit the tunnel at Blais- dell and Franklin and transition across the Plymouth Congregation- al Church property to enter center- running operations on Nicollet Av- enue. The LRT would operate in the center of Nicollet Avenue to 12th Street. For the 1st Avenue option, the LRT would exit the tunnel north of Franklin and operate center-run- ning on 1st Avenue to 16th Street where it would transition diagonally across the City of Minneapolis me- ter farm entering Nicollet Avenue at 15th Street for center-running oper- ations to 12th Street. At 12th Street under all options the LRT would operate as a one-way pair on 11th and 12th Street, rejoining as a two- way configuration on 12th Street at Glenwood, then operating on Roy- alston Avenue with a short tunnel under 7th Street and continuing on the Hiawatha/Central LRT tracks on 5th Street in downtown Minneapo- lis. l LRT 3A-1 (Co-location Alternative) Alternative LRT 3A1 (co-location al- ternative)1 (Figure ES.7) travels be- tween Mitchell Road in Eden Prairie and downtown Minneapolis, pro- viding service to Eden Prairie, Min- netonka, Hopkins, Edina, St. Louis Park, and Minneapolis. This alterna- tive would operate from TH 5 and Mitchell Road on new ROW through the Opus/Golden Triangle areas along Technology Drive to the HCRRA property, through St. Louis Park and Hopkins, then along the Kenilworth Corridor through Min- neapolis to Royalston Avenue, then past the downtown Target Field Sta- tion using an extension of the Hi- awatha LRT tracks on 5th Street. From just east of the proposed Loui- siana Avenue LRT station and the proposed Penn Avenue Station, the Southwest LRT, freight rail, and commuter bike trails (Cedar Lake LRT Trail and the Kenilworth Trail) would be co-located as requested by the City of St. Louis Park in their September 2008 letter. The exist- ing freight tracks along the CP Bass Lake Spur and the HCRRA Cedar Lake Junction (locally referred to as the Kenilworth tracks) would need to be reconstructed to meet BNSF design standards for clearance re- quirements. An LRT structure is proposed be- tween the planned Louisiana Av- enue station and the Wooddale Avenue station to accommodate the LRT’s transition from placement on HCRRA owned property to the north of the CP Bass Lake Spur to placement south of the CP Bass Lake Spur prior to crossing Wood- dale Avenue at-grade. Stations are proposed at Mitchell Road, Southwest Station, Eden Prai- rie Town Center, Golden Triangle, City West, Opus, Shady Oak Road, downtown Hopkins, Blake Road, Louisiana Avenue, Wooddale Av- enue, Beltline Boulevard, West Lake Street, 21st  Street, Penn Avenue, Van White Boulevard, and Royalston Avenue. Stations from Louisiana Av- enue to Penn Avenue would have slightly different locations than Al- ternative LRT  3A because a larger footprint would be needed for the co-location of freight rail, LRT, and commuter bike trails. 1. Please see Section 2.1.2.1 of this Draft EIS for why LRT 3A-1 (co-location alternative) is included in this Draft EIS. Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 16 ES-8 • Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement • October 2012 • Executive Summaryfigure es.2. enhanceD bus alternative(tsm / baseline alternative)figure es.3. builD alternative lrt 1aMap LocationMinnetonka BlvdBaker Rd50th St.Lyndale AveShadyOakLakeLakeCalhounLakeHarrietLakeof theIslesCedarLakeValley View RdShady O ak R d BryantLakeFrance AveL46Hennepin AveMitchellSouthwestFlying CloudTH 212/Shady OakBrenShady OakHopkinsTH 169ExcelsiorBlakeTexasLouisianaWooddaleSt LouisParkHopkinsPlymouthBloomingtonMinneapolisCrystalEdinaGoldenValleyEdenPrairieMinnetonkaRichfield012MilesLegendBus Stop LocationBus Stop with Park & RideRoute A Limited Stop (New)Route B Limited Stop (New)SouthWest Express Bus via I-394 (Existing)SouthWest Express Bus via I-35W (Existing)Hiawatha Light RailNorthstar Commuter RailMunicipal Boundary\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\HennCty\177565\map_docs\DEIS\EX_SUMM\FigureES-2_BusAlt.mxd6/18/12MINNESOTA62MINNESOTA7MINNESOTA100MINNESOTA5539449449435W9462COUNTY169212NMap LocationMinnetonka BlvdBlake RdBaker Rd50th St.Lyndale AveShadyOakLakeLakeCalhounLakeHarrietLakeof theIslesCedarLakeValley View RdShady Oak Rd BryantLakeFrance AveL46Hennepin AveHopkinsPlymouthBloomingtonMinneapolisCrystalEdinaGoldenValleyEdenPrairieMinnetonkaRichfieldSt LouisParkWest Lake21st StreetPennBeltlineWooddaleLouisianaBlakeShady OakHopkinsRowlandHighway 62Highway 5Target FieldRoyalstonVan White012MilesLegendStationPark & Ride StationLRT 1AHiawatha Light RailNorthstar Commuter RailFreight Rail RelocationRailroadMunicipal BoundaryPath: \\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\HennCty\177565\map_docs\DEIS\EX_SUMM\FigureES-3_1A.mxd Date: 10/1/2012NMINNESOTA62MINNESOTA7MINNESOTA5MINNESOTA100MINNESOTA5539449449435W9462COUNTY169212Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 17 Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement • October 2012 • Executive Summary • ES-9figure es.5. builD alternative lrt 3c-1figure es.4. builD alternative lrt 3aMap LocationMinnetonka BlvdBlake RdBaker Rd50th St.Lyndale AveShadyOakLakeLakeCalhounLakeHarrietLakeof theIslesCedarLakeValley View RdShady Oak Rd BryantLakeFrance AveL46Hennepin AveHopkinsPlymouthBloomingtonMinneapolisCrystalEdinaGoldenValleyEdenPrairieMinnetonkaRichfieldSt LouisParkWest Lake21st StreetPennBeltlineWooddaleLouisianaBlakeShady OakHopkinsOpusCity WestGolden TriangleEden Prairie Town CenterSouthwestMitchellTarget FieldRoyalstonVan White012MilesLegendStationPark & Ride StationLRT 3AHiawatha Light RailNorthstar Commuter RailMunicipal BoundaryFreight Rail RelocationRailroadPath: \\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\HennCty\177565\map_docs\DEIS\EX_SUMM\FigureES-4_3A.mxd Date: 10/1/2012NMINNESOTA62MINNESOTA7MINNESOTA100MINNESOTA5539449449435W9462COUNTY169212Map LocationMinnetonka BlvdBlake RdBaker Rd50th St.Lyndale AveShadyOakLakeLakeCalhounLakeHarrietLakeof theIslesCedarLake)Valley View RdShady O ak Rd BryantLakeFrance Ave)Hennepin AveHopkinsPlymouthBloomingtonMinneapolisCrystalEdinaGoldenValleyEdenPrairieMinnetonkaRichfieldSt LouisParkWest LakeBeltlineWooddaleLouisianaBlakeShady OakHopkinsOpusCity WestGolden TriangleEden Prairie Town CenterSouthwestMitchell4th Street8th Street12th StreetFranklin28th StreetUptownLyndale012MilesLegendStationPark & Ride StationLRT 3C-1Hiawatha Light RailNorthstar Commuter RailMunicipal BoundaryFreight Rail RelocationRailroadPath: \\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\HennCty\177565\map_docs\DEIS\EX_SUMM\FigureES-5_3C-1.mxd Date: 10/1/2012MINNESOTA62MINNESOTA7MINNESOTA100MINNESOTA5539449449435W9462COUNTY169212NStudy Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 18 ES-10 • Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement • October 2012 • Executive Summaryfigure es.7. builD alternative lrt 3a-1figure es.6. builD alternative lrt 3c-2Map LocationMinnetonka BlvdBlake RdBaker Rd50th St.Lyndale AveShadyOakLakeLakeCalhounLakeHarrietLakeof theIslesCedarLakeValley View RdShady Oak Rd BryantLakeFrance AveL46Hennepin AveUptownLyndale28th StreetFranklin12th StreetHawthorneTarget FieldHarmonRoyalstonHopkinsPlymouthBloomingtonMinneapolisCrystalEdinaGoldenValleyEdenPrairieMinnetonkaRichfieldSt LouisParkWest LakeBeltlineWooddaleLouisianaBlakeShady OakHopkinsOpusCity WestGolden TriangleEden Prairie Town CenterSouthwestMitchell012MilesPath: \\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\HennCty\177565\map_docs\DEIS\EX_SUMM\FigureES-6_3C-2.mxd Date: 10/1/2012LegendStationPark & Ride StationLRT 3C-2Hiawatha Light RailNorthstar Commuter RailMunicipal BoundaryFreight Rail RelocationRailroadMINNESOTA62MINNESOTA7MINNESOTA5MINNESOTA100MINNESOTA5539449449435W9462COUNTY169212NMap LocationMinnetonka BlvdBlake RdBaker Rd50th St.Lyndale AveShadyOakLakeLakeCalhounLakeHarrietLakeof theIslesCedarLakeValley View RdShady O ak R d BryantLakeFrance AveL46Hennepin AveHopkinsPlymouthBloomingtonMinneapolisCrystalEdinaGoldenValleyEdenPrairieMinnetonkaRichfieldSt LouisParkWest Lake21st StreetPennBeltlineWooddaleLouisianaBlakeShady OakHopkinsOpusCity WestGolden TriangleEden Prairie Town CenterSouthwestMitchellTarget FieldRoyalstonVan White012MilesLegendStationPark & Ride StationFreight Rail Co-locationLRT 3A-1Hiawatha Light RailNorthstar Commuter RailMunicipal BoundaryPath: \\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\HennCty\177565\map_docs\DEIS\EX_SUMM\FigureES-7_3A-1.mxd Date: 10/1/2012MINNESOTA62MINNESOTA7MINNESOTA100MINNESOTA5539449449435W9462COUNTY169212NStudy Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 19 Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement • October 2012 • Executive Summary • ES-11 What potential impacts of the alternatives have been explored? All transportation projects have the potential to cause direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to natural and human environments. The Build Alterna- tives are anticipated to have beneficial impacts related to increased mobility and improved access to activity centers in the Southwest Transitway corridor, with potential adverse impacts related primarily to acquisitions and displace- ments, historic and archeological resources, noise and vibration, construction impacts, impacts to low-income and minority populations, and disturbance of hazardous materials. Findings of the impacts analysis are summarized in Table ES.1. Given the number of historic re- sources in the study area, the Build Alternatives could result in adverse effects to historic properties and dis- tricts. Continued analysis of historic properties and districts through the ongoing consultation process, in ac- cordance with Section  106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and potential modifications to the design of the project during Pre- liminary Engineering, may result in refinement of the potential effects conclusions. Any changes or re- finements in the extent of impacts to historic properties will be taken into account during selection of a preferred alternative and will be re- ported in the Final EIS. Mitigation of impacts to historic resources is feasible, in some cases through refinement of elements of the project, such as LRT station lo- cations and/or design. For adverse effects to historic resources, FTA, in consultation with the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and other Section 106 con- sulting parties, will develop mea- sures and responsibilities to mini- mize or mitigate adverse effects. These mitigation measures will be documented in a Section 106 Agreement. LRT noise impacts are expected to be “severe” in a number of residen- tial locations for all of the alterna- tives. The highest number of severe noise impacts is anticipated for Al- ternative LRT 1A (up to 358 residen- tial locations with up to 587 units). Many of the impacts are due to low to medium existing ambient noise levels, residential neighbor- hoods close to the alignment, and high anticipated speeds of or light rail vehicle-mounted audible warn- ing signal (bell) use at some stations and crossings. Use of these warning signals is required for safe operation of the LRT system, but, this does not exclude mitigation options for these impacts. Noise impacts will be ad- dressed through design during Pre- liminary Engineering and with quiet zones along MN&S freight rail sec- tion. Under build alternatives LRT 1A, LRT  3A (LPA), LRT 3C-1 (Nicol- let Mall), and LRT 3C-2 (11th/12th Street) TC&W freight activity which currently follows portions of the Ke- nilworth Corridor would be relocat- ed. TC&W freight rail operations cur- rently operating in the Kenilworth Corridor in St. Louis Park and Minne- apolis would be relocated to the CP MN&S Spur and BNSF Wayzata Sub- division in St. Louis Park. The severe noise impacts in the corridor are due to the freight locomotive horn noise at highway-rail grade-crossings. The implementation of quiet zones at all grade-crossings would eliminate se- vere noise impacts throughout the corridor by removing the freight lo- comotive horn noise. Vibration impacts from LRT are also expected at some locations. The highest number of residential units Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 20 ES-12 • Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement • October 2012 • Executive Summary expected to be affected by vibration are those that would be adjacent to Alternatives LRT 3C1 (Nicollet Mall) and LRT  3C2 (11th/12th Street), where densities are high and build- ings are close to the proposed align- ment. Vibration impacts will be ad- dressed through design and the use of some vibration dampening LRT elements during Preliminary Engi- neering. Acquisitions/displacements would be necessary for all of the Build Alternatives—some acquisitions would be very small areas needed to expand the ROW, but others would involve entire parcels of land that would necessitate relocating a resi- dent or business. Based on concep- tual engineering, the range would be from 65  property acquisitions (LRT 1A) up to 384 property acqui- sitions [LRT 3C2 (11th/12th Street)]. See Table ES.1 for the numbers of acquisitions needed for each alter- native. Mitigation for acquisitions and relocations will be addressed through Preliminary Engineering when some property acquisitions may be avoided or minimized, and by compliance with federal and state laws such as the Uniform Relo- cation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.), or the Uniform Act. The Uniform Act requires that property owners be paid fair market value for their land and buildings, and that they be assisted in finding replacement business sites or dwellings. Reloca- tion benefits may be available to displaced businesses and non-profit organizations for certain relocation activities. Construction for all of the Build Al- ternatives is likely to include tem- porary impacts such as noise, fugi- tive dust, traffic detours and delays, and impaired access. Alternatives LRT  3A1 (co-location), LRT  3C1 (Nicollet Mall), and LRT  3C2 (11th/12th Street) potentially would have “high” construction impacts. These potential impacts would be addressed through best manage- ment practices (BMPs) and the de- velopment of construction mitiga- tion plans. Hazardous and regulated materials may be encountered during con- struction of any of the Build Alter- natives because sites where these materials have been released are known to exist along the proposed ROW. These areas include the sites of former and existing gasoline Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 21 Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement • October 2012 • Executive Summary • ES-13 stations and areas with industrial uses. The number of known sites for each alternative are present- ed in Table ES.1 and range from 98  sites [LRT  3A-1(co-location al- ternative)] to 195  sites [LRT  3C2 (11th/12th Street)]. All clean-up ac- tivity would be conducted with prior Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) approval and in accordance with the approved Site Safety and Health Plan and would be continu- ously monitored by qualified inspec- tors. In addition to contaminated soil and groundwater, the potential exists for structures on acquired lands to contain asbestos, lead paint, or other hazardous materials. It is also likely that unknown sites might be encountered during con- struction. A Construction Contin- gency Plan would be prepared prior to the start of construction to ac- count for the discovery of unknown contamination. Contaminated ma- terial removal and disposal would be in accordance with this plan. A final report would be prepared and submitted to the MPCA document- ing all removal and disposal activity. As evidenced by the Census data, environmental justice (EJ) popula- tions (low-income and minorities) are present within the project study area. Low-income populations are defined as households with in- comes below the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines. In accordance with the USDOT’s updated environ- mental justice order as published in the Federal Register (Vol. 77, No. 91, May 10, 2012), “minority” means a person who is Black, Hispanic or Latino, Asian American, American Indian or Alaskan Native, or Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (full definition is available in Chapter 10 of this Draft EIS). Disproportion- ate impacts to EJ populations could occur with two of the Build Alterna- tives: LRT 3C1 (Nicollet Mall) and LRT  3C2 (11th/12th  Street) where property acquisitions for ROW, com- munity cohesion impacts, construc- tion effects, and traffic could be disproportionately high or adverse for low-income block groups. In the event acquisitions and displace- ments do occur, all displaced resi- dents (regardless of socioeconomic characteristic) will receive relocation assistance as mandated by the Uni- form Relocation and Real Property Assistance Act of 1970. This Act, as amended, requires that replacement housing must be “decent, safe, and sanitary,” and be functionally equivalent in the number of rooms and living space, location, and gen- eral improvements. With respect to community cohesion, construction effects, and traffic impacts, mitiga- tion measures would be equally ap- plied to both environmental justice and non-environmental justice com- munities. Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 22 ES-14 • Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement • October 2012 • Executive Summary Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement • October 2012 • Executive Summary • ES-15 goal and evaluation measure no build enhanced bus lrt 1a lrt 3a (lpa) lrt 3a-1 (co-location)# lrt 3c-1 (nicollet mall) lrt 3c-2 (11th/12th street) goal 1: improve mobility Number of transit trips using the project (daily boardings)N/A 13,000 24,850 28,700 28,700 24,550 28,850 User benefits in hours of travel time savings N/A 2492 (compared to No Build) 4995 (compared to Enhanced Bus) 6726 (compared to Enhanced Bus) 6726 (compared to Enhanced Bus) 5657 (compared to Enhanced Bus) 6654 (compared to Enhanced Bus) l traffic impacts Number of Intersections in 2030 at LOS E/F (AM/PM)0/1 0/1 0/1 2/5 2/5 2/5 2/5 Maximum queue lengths (in vehicles) at freight rail at-grade crossings 20 20 78 78 179 78 78 goal 2: provide a cost-effective, efficient travel option Total System Cost per Passenger Mile (2012 dollars)N/A N/A $211.34 $210.94 $210.94 $213.02 $211.90 End to End Travel Times (minutes)N/A 50/35 26 31.5 31.5 39.5 40.8 goal 3: protect the environment l cultural resources Architecture/ History individual properties None None 16 16 14 26 23–26 Architecture/ History historic districts None None 7 7 7 6 8-11 Archeological survey areas 0 0 29 44 41 36 37 Parklands (long-term in acres)0 0 0.002 long-term 0.227 long-term 1.12 long-term 0.32 long-term 0.32 long-term l section 4(f) Properties potentially used permanently (acres)0 0 1 property, and 1 historic channel (0.002) (diminimus) 1 property and 1 historic channel (0.227) (diminimus) 4 properties (including 0.81 acres of Cedar Lake Park) and 1 historic channel (1.120) 3 properties, 3 historic bridges, 1 district, and 1 historic channel(0.032) (diminimus) 3 properties, 3 historic bridges, 1 district, and 1 historic channel (0.032) (diminimus) Properties potentially impacted temporarily†0 0 0.076 acre parkland 0.016 acre parkland 0.016 acre parkland 0.45 acre parkland 0.45 acre parkland table es.1. alternative performance summary (continueD on next page) Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 23 ES-16 • Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement • October 2012 • Executive Summary Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement • October 2012 • Executive Summary • ES-17 goal and evaluation measure no build enhanced bus lrt 1a lrt 3a (lpa) lrt 3a-1 (co-location)# lrt 3c-1 (nicollet mall) lrt 3c-2 (11th/12th street) l Water resources Wetlands impact (acres)N/A N/A Approx. 2.8 Approx. 2.9 Approx. 0.9 Approx. 2.3 Approx. 2.3 Floodplain impact (acres)N/A N/A Approx. 3.83 Approx. 3.19 Approx. 1.19 Approx. 3.19 Approx. 3.19 Biota and Habitat Native habitat impact (acres)N/A N/A 1.13 0.95 1.05 0.94 0.94 Air Quality impact Higher emissions due to increased traffic congestion Higher emissions due to increased traffic congestion Modest improvements to air quality Modest improvements to air quality Modest improvements to air quality Modest improvements to air quality Modest improvements to air quality Noise – Number of parcels with potential severe residential impacts (with use of quiet zones for the FRR Segment) N/A N/A 358 201 267 262 302 Potential Vibration impacts (Units)N/A N/A 258 (370)151 (492)150 (491)105 (584)106 (585) Hazardous/Regulated Materials (number of sites)N/A N/A 116 115 98 161 195 Construction Impacts N/A N/A Medium Medium High High High goal 4: preserve and protect the quality of life in the study area and the region Community Cohesion None No impact No impact No impact Slight adverse impact Slight adverse impact Slight adverse impact l property acquisitions Full and partial parcels 0 0 65 125 175 384 364 to 384 Environmental Justice No change to existing conditions. Minority, low income, and transit dependent populations would experience marginal service improvements. Minority, low income, and transit dependent populations would be served, no disproportionately adverse effects anticipated. Minority, low income, and transit dependent populations would be served, no disproportionately adverse effects anticipated. Minority, low income, and transit dependent populations would be served, no disproportionately adverse effects anticipated. Minority, low income, and transit dependent populations would be served. Disproportionately high and adverse effects are anticipated associated with: Acquisitions and displacements Community Cohesion Construction Effects Traffic Minority, low income, and transit dependent populations would be served. Disproportionately high and adverse effects are anticipated associated with: Acquisitions and displacements Community Cohesion Construction Effects Traffic table es.1. alternative performance summary (continueD) (continueD on next page) Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 24 ES-18 • Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement • October 2012 • Executive Summary Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement • October 2012 • Executive Summary • ES-19 lined in the land use plans in the Southwest Transitway study area. The No Build Alternative would be inconsistent with local and regional comprehensive plans. It would not improve mobility, provide a cost- effective efficient travel option, or support economic development and an economically competitive freight rail system. Therefore, the No Build Alternative is not recommended as the preferred alternative for the Southwest Transitway project. l enhanced bus alternative Like the No Build Alternative, the En- hanced Bus Alternative would also avoid potential disruption to neigh- borhoods, commercial districts, and historic areas in the corridor. By def- inition, the Enhanced Bus Alterna- tive is a low capital cost alternative that provides the best transit service to the corridor without a major cap- ital investment. The Enhanced Bus Alternative would not adequately support the goals and objectives of the Southwest Transitway. The En- hanced Bus Alternative would only marginally improve the existing con- ditions. Again, the Enhanced Bus Alternative would be inconsistent with local and regional comprehen- sive plans. It would only marginally improve mobility, and it would not provide an efficient travel option, or support economic development and an economically competitive freight rail system. Therefore, the Enhanced Bus Alternative is not recommended as the preferred alternative for the Southwest Transitway project. What was the result of the evaluation of alternatives? The evaluation of alternatives con- siders the extent to which each al- ternative satisfies the purpose and need for the proposed transporta- tion improvement. Therefore, the evaluation measures used to com- pare alternatives reflect the project’s Purpose and Need Statement. While the Build Alternatives’ trans- portation benefits would vary some- what, each would provide transit improvements that would not occur with the No Build and Enhanced Bus Alternatives. Each of the Build Alter- natives would have a positive im- pact on transit ridership by improv- ing access to existing and planned attractions and development in the study area. Table ES2 presents a summary of the evaluation of the No Build, En- hanced Bus, and Build Alternatives for the Southwest Transitway proj- ect. Each alternative was evaluated against the project’s goals that were derived from the project’s Purpose and Need Statement. l no build alternative Although the No Build Alterna- tive would avoid potential disrup- tion to neighborhoods, commercial districts, and historic areas in the corridor, the No Build Alternative would not adequately support the goals and objectives of the South- west Transitway. The No Build Alter- native would maintain the existing conditions and future changes as outlined in future transportation system plans with the exception of the Southwest Transitway project, and the development trends as out- goal and evaluation measure no build enhanced bus lrt 1a lrt 3a (lpa) lrt 3a-1 (co-location)# lrt 3c-1 (nicollet mall) lrt 3c-2 (11th/12th street) goal 5: support economic development l land use Consistent with Comprehensive Plans No No No Ye s No No No Compatible with planned development No No No Yes No Ye s Yes Economic Effects None No substantial change Beneficial effects Beneficial effects Beneficial effects may be diminished at stations where freight operations continue Beneficial effects Beneficial effects Development Effects Existing development trends would continue Existing development trends would continue Localized development surrounding alignment and station areas Localized development surrounding alignment and station areas Localized development may be diminished at stations where freight operations continue Localized development surrounding alignment and station areas Localized development surrounding alignment and station areas goal 6: support economically competitive freight rail system Safe, efficient, and effective movement of freight throughout the region, state and nation Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Continuous flow of freight rail throughout the study area No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes table es.1. alternative performance summary (continueD) Source: HDR Engineering, Inc., 2012 ^The freight rail relocation effects are included in this table for LRT 1A, LRT 3A (LPA), LRT 3C-1, and LRT 3C-2 because the freight rail reloca- tion is a part of each of these Build Alternatives. #Please see Section 2.1.2.1 of this Draft EIS for why LRT 3A-1 (co-location alternative) is included in this Draft EIS. †Temporary impacts have not been calculated for the Segment FRR or Segment A for the co-location alternative. These impacts will be de- termined during Preliminary Engineering and reported in the Final EIS. Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 25 ES-20 • Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement • October 2012 • Executive Summary l lrt 1a LRT 1A would introduce new ele- ments to the Southwest Transitway study area resulting in environmen- tal impacts as presented in this Draft EIS. These changes, however, would result in benefits that could not be achieved without the associ- ated impacts to the environment in comparison to the No Build and En- hanced Bus Alternatives. LRT 1A provides TC&W a safe, ef- ficient and economical connection to St. Paul thereby preserving an ef- ficient freight transportation system for the Twin Cities area. The evaluation of the alternatives shows LRT 1A is a viable alterna- tive that is second only to LRT 3A (LPA). Although LRT 1A satisfies the Purpose and Need Statement of the Southwest Transitway, its anticipat- ed ability to support the improved mobility and economic develop- ment goals is inferior to LRT 3A (LPA). LRT 1A has the lowest travel time and the lowest capital cost of the Build Alternatives. However, the projected ridership for LRT1A is one of the lowest of the Build Alterna- tives, causing LRT 1A to not be a cost effective alternative. Contribut- ing to its low ridership is its lack of compatibility with the study area’s comprehensive plans. LRT 1A trav- els through lower density develop- ments that are not intended to be- come denser over time as outlined in approved comprehensive plans. Therefore, LRT 1A is not recom- mended as the environmentally pre- ferred alternative for the Southwest Transitway project. l lrt 3a (lpa) LRT 3A (LPA) best meets the South- west Transitway project’s Purpose and Need Statement as expressed by the goals of improving mobility, providing a cost-effective and ef- ficient travel option, preserving the environment, protecting quality of life, supporting economic develop- ment, and developing and main- taining a balanced and economically competitive multimodal freight sys- tem. LRT 3A (LPA) also minimizes construction related impacts. LRT 3A (LPA) would introduce new elements to the Southwest Transit- way study area resulting in environ- mental impacts as presented in this Draft EIS. These changes, however, would result in benefits that could not be achieved without the asso- ciated impacts to the environment in comparison to the No Build and Enhanced Bus Alternatives. The overall benefits derived from LRT 3A (LPA)—including increased tran- sit ridership and enhanced mobil- ity—outweigh the potential adverse environmental impacts. Specifically, the LRT 3A (LPA) will: • Improve access and mobility to the jobs and activity centers in the Minneapolis CBD, as well as along the length of the corridor for reverse-commute trips to the expanding suburban employ- ment centers. • Provide a competitive, cost-ef- fective travel option that will at- tract choice riders to the transit system. The competitive travel time for LRT 3A (LPA) is attrib- uted to the diagonal nature of the line compared to the north- south/east-west orientation of the roadway network and to the increasing levels of congestion of the roadway network. • Provide a direct connection be- tween the CP Bass Lake Spur and the CP MN&S Spur and be- tween the MN&S Spur and the BNSF Wayzata Subdivision that would allow faster and more ef- ficient train movements thereby allowing TC&W to continue to function as an efficient freight transportation service with a safe, efficient and economical connection to St. Paul. This alternative is preferred because it provides the ability of the TC&W to continue to function as an effi- cient freight transportation service and a viable privately held economic enterprise with a safe, efficient and economical connection to St. Paul. Therefore, LRT 3A (LPA) is recom- mended as the environmentally pre- ferred alternative for the Southwest Transitway project. l lrt 3a-1 (co-location alternative) Because LRT 3A-1 (co-location alter- native) is identical to LRT 3A (LPA) in the transit service it would pro- vide it partially meets the South- west Transitway project’s Purpose and Need Statement as expressed by the goals of improving mobility and providing a cost-effective and efficient travel option. Other goals such as preserving the environment, protecting quality of life, and devel- oping and maintaining a balanced and economically competitive multi- modal freight system would not be adequately met by LRT 3A-1 (co-lo- cation alternative). In addition, LRT 3A-1 (co-location alternative) has high construction related impacts because of the complex construc- tion staging required to rebuild the freight rail tracks. Like the other Build Alternatives, LRT 3A-1 (co-location alternative) would introduce new elements to Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 26 Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement • October 2012 • Executive Summary • ES-21 the Southwest Transitway study area resulting in environmental impacts as presented in this Draft EIS. These changes would result in benefits that could not be achieved without the associated impacts to the environment in comparison to the No Build and Enhanced Bus Al- ternatives. However, two issues as- sociated with LRT 3A-1 (co-location alternative) would diminish the ben- efits of the project. They include: • The necessity to acquire Cedar Lake Park property owned by the Minneapolis Parks and Rec- reation Board • Failure to provide a direct con- nection between the CP Bass Lake Spur and the CP MN&S which would satisfy the need for the safe, efficient and eco- nomical connection to St. Paul The use of park property is signifi- cant. Section 4(f) of the U.S. Depart- ment of Transportation Act of 1966, codified at 49 U.S.C. § 303 and 23 U.S.C. § 138 prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from approving a project that requires the use of pub- licly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and wa- terfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance, or land of an his- toric site of national, state, or local significance (as determined by the federal, state, or local officials hav- ing jurisdiction over the resource), unless the agency can demonstrate that: • There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the land; and • The action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from such use. The acquisition of 0.81 acres of Ce- dar Lake Park needed to co-locate the freight rail tracks that is associ- ated with LRT 3A-1 would consti- tute a Section 4(f) use. Because this Draft EIS has presented other feasi- ble and prudent alternatives to LRT 3A-1 (co-location), this alternative cannot be recommended as the en- vironmentally preferred alternative. l lrt 3c-1 LRT 3C-1 (Nicollet Mall) would pro- vide service which partially meets the Southwest Transitway project’s Purpose and Need Statement as expressed by the goals of improv- ing mobility, supporting economic development, and supporting an economically competitive freight rail system. Other goals such as pro- viding a cost-effective and efficient travel option, preserving the envi- ronment, and protecting the qual- ity of life in the study area would not be adequately met by LRT 3C-1 (Nicollet Mall). Like the other Build Alternatives, LRT 3C-1 (Nicollet Mall) would introduce new elements to the Southwest Transitway study area resulting in environmental impacts as present- ed in this Draft EIS. These changes would result in benefits that could not be achieved without the associ- ated impacts to the environment in comparison to the No Build and En- hanced Bus Alternatives. However, some impacts associated with LRT 3C-1 (Nicollet Mall) would diminish the overall benefits of the South- west Transitway project. LRT 3C-1 (Nicollet Mall) has the sec- ond highest capital cost with lowest ridership which makes this alterna- tive less cost effective. This alterna- tive is not compatible with approved comprehensive plans, and it has high construction related impacts because of the extensive in-street and tunnel construction. LRT 3C-1 (Nicollet Mall) also would cause disproportionately high or adverse effects on low income and Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 27 ES-22 • Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement • October 2012 • Executive Summary minority populations. These impacts could be avoided by choosing an- other of the Build Alternatives as the environmentally preferred alter- native. l lrt 3c-2 LRT 3C-2 (11th/12th Street) would provide service which partially meets the Southwest Transitway project’s Purpose and Need Statement as expressed by the goals of improv- ing mobility, supporting economic development, and supporting an economically competitive freight rail system. Other goals such as pro- viding a cost-effective and efficient travel option, preserving the envi- ronment, and protecting the qual- ity of life in the study area would not be adequately met by LRT 3C-2 (11th/12th Street). Like the other Build Alternatives, LRT 3C-2 (11th/12th  Street) would in- troduce new elements to the South- west Transitway study area resulting in environmental impacts as present- ed in this Draft EIS. These changes would result in benefits that could not be achieved without the asso- ciated impacts to the environment in comparison to the No Build and Enhanced Bus Alternatives. How- ever, some impacts associated with LRT 3C-2 (11th/12th Street) would diminish the overall benefits of the Southwest Transitway project. Although LRT 3C-2 (11th/12th Street) has the highest projected ridership, it also has the highest capital cost which makes this alternative less cost effective. This alternative is not compatible with approved compre- hensive plans, and it has high con- struction related impacts because of the extensive in-street and tunnel construction. LRT 3C-2 (11th/12th  Street) also would cause disproportionately high and adverse effects on low income and minority populations. These im- pacts could be avoided by choosing another of the Build Alternatives as the environmentally preferred alter- native. l environmentally preferred alternative At the conclusion of the LPA selec- tion process, the LRT 3A (LPA) alter- native was determined to be cost competitive, easier to implement, and in best alignment with overall Metro area transit planning. There- fore, LRT 3A (LPA) was recommend- ed for selection as the LPA because it best met the Southwest Transit- way project’s Purpose and Need Statement as expressed by the goals of improving mobility, providing a cost-effective and efficient travel option, preserving the environment, protecting quality of life, supporting economic development, and devel- oping and maintaining a balanced and economically competitive mul- timodal freight system. LRT 3A (LPA) will introduce a new, premium transit service in the Southwest Transitway study area. The most beneficial effects from building the Southwest Transitway improvements would be improved accessibility and travel times to re- gional activity centers. Because the LPA will be a permanent invest- ment, this new transit service has the potential to positively influence economic development in the study area consistent with community plans. In addition, LRT 3A (LPA) im- proves the regional freight rail net- work consistent with the Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan (State of Minnesota, 2010). This Draft EIS describes the trans- portation and environmental im- pacts associated with the construc- tion and operation of the Southwest Transitway project. The effects of the No Build, Enhanced Bus, and Build Alternatives were evaluated and compared across a range of subject areas related to both natu- ral and man-made environments. This evaluation did not reveal any substantive issues that would al- ter the LPA decision. LRT 3A (LPA) meets the purpose and need of the Southwest Transitway project as defined in Chapter 1 and shown in Table 11.2-1, and is recommended as the environmentally preferred al- ternative for the Southwest Transit project. The environmentally preferred al- ternative is the alternative that will cause the least damage to the bio- logical and physical environment and that best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources. The public and other agencies reviewing this Draft EIS can assist the lead agency to de- velop and determine environmen- tally preferable alternatives by pro- viding their views in comments on this Draft EIS. Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 28 Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement • October 2012 • Executive Summary • ES-23 Does not support goal Somewhat supports goal supports goal no build enhanced bus lrt 1a lrt 3a (lpa) lrt 3a-1 (co- location) lrt 3c-1 (nicollet mall) lrt 3c-2 (11th/12th street) goal 1: improve mobility goal 2: provide a cost-effective, efficient travel option goal 3: protect the environment goal 4: preserve and protect the quality of life in the study area and the region goal 5: support economic development goal 6: support economically competitive freight rail system overall performance table es.2. evaluation of alternatives What are the next steps? Copies of the Draft EIS will be dis- tributed to appropriate local, re- gional, state, and Federal agencies, as well as the public for their review and comment. Public comment will play a role in informing decision makers prior to selecting a preferred alternative and the preparation of the Final EIS. Throughout the plan- ning and environmental process, lo- cal elected officials have been and will continue to be kept apprised of project status through public, ad- visory committee and stakeholder meetings and individual briefings. These elected officials will have the opportunity to provide input to the decision-making process as unre- solved issues are addressed. The major next steps that will be un- dertaken and addressed in the Final EIS include: • Selection of an Operations and Maintenance Facility site • Completion of appropriate ar- cheological surveying • Determination of adverse ef- fects to Section 106 properties • Completion of Section 4(f) Anal- ysis • Completion of environmental site assessments. Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 29 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: November 13, 2012 Written Report: 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Administrative Penalties Hearing Officer Appointments RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This report is intended to provide Council with an update on the appointments of hearing officers for the City’s administrative penalties program. Formal approval of these appointments is currently expected to be brought to Council next Monday, November 19. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council approve the staff recommendation of appointing attorneys Marc Berris, James Gurovitsch, Dale Hansen, and Patricia Hughes as hearing officers in the administrative penalties program? SUMMARY: On August 20, 2012, the City Council passed a code amendment establishing the administrative penalties program. The program provides a mechanism for code enforcement that results in a citation being issued, which may be contested. The process for appeal allows a resident that receives an administrative citation to request a hearing to determine whether the code violation occurred. The new code language provides for attorneys who are admitted to practice law in the State of Minnesota and are not residents of St. Louis Park to be hired as hearing officers. The hearing officer positions were advertised in the Minnesota Lawyer publication and applications were received over a period of two weeks. An interview panel was commissioned, and of the seven applications, the panel determined that attorneys Marc Berris, James Gurovitsch, Dale Hansen, and Patricia Hughes would best serve the City in this capacity. They meet the requirements of the position and are the staff recommendation to the City Council for appointment as hearing officers in the administrative penalties program. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Hearing officers will be compensated at $150 per session or half day, as needed. The funds to cover this compensation will be derived from the fees generated by the administrative penalties program. The administrative penalty process is intended to respectfully resolve code violations in a manner that reduces staff time and ensures all fines are paid. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Resumes of the Recommended Appointees Prepared by: Ray French, Administrative Services Intern Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Title: Administrative Penalties Hearing Officer Appointments DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: On August 20, 2012, the City Council passed a code amendment establishing the administrative penalties program. The program provides a mechanism for code enforcement that results in a citation being issued, which may be contested. The process for appeal expands on the current process and will be similar to other administrative hearings. Unlike other processes in which the City Manager or designee hears the appeal, the new process requires a hearing officer, that is not a City staff person, to issue the final decision regarding whether the code violation occurred. The City Clerk’s Office will maintain the list of Hearing Officers. The new code requires that the hearing officers be attorneys admitted to practice law in the State of Minnesota and that do not live in the City of St. Louis Park. The continuing appointment process will be conducted on an as-needed basis, so the Hearing Officers will serve until they either withdraw, or are removed from the list by the City Council. This means staff will initiate the process if: 1. The case load is consistently high and more Hearing Officers are needed. 2. Hearing Officers withdraw their names from the list. 3. The City determines a Hearing Officer can no longer fulfill his/her commitment. This may be the result of an inability to schedule a hearing with this Hearing Officer, or the Hearing Officer does not appear to perform in an unbiased manner. PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The City Clerk’s Office advertised for hearing officers in the Minnesota Lawyer publication. The advertisement ran for one week and applications were accepted for two weeks. Seven applications were received. A panel consisting of Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, Ann Boettcher, Inspection Services Manager, and Ray French, Administrative Services Intern interviewed all seven candidates. The panel determined that attorneys Marc Berris, James Gurovitsch, Dale Hansen, and Patricia Hughes would best serve the city as hearing officers, and they meet the basic requirements of the program. Their resumes follow this discussion. Each has direct experience either as hearing officers for another City’s similar program or significant experience in an administrative hearing setting. We are confident that each will be able to conduct fair and impartial hearings, and provide and excellent service to the residents and City staff. NEXT STEPS: Formal approval of these appointments is currently expected to be brought to Council next Monday, November 19. If the Council approves the appointment of these four hearing officers, they will be called upon on a rotating basis to serve as a hearing officer when an appeal of an administrative citation is requested. Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 4) Title: Administrative Penalties Hearing Officer AppointmentsPage 3 Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 4) Title: Administrative Penalties Hearing Officer AppointmentsPage 4 Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 4) Title: Administrative Penalties Hearing Officer AppointmentsPage 5 Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 4) Title: Administrative Penalties Hearing Officer AppointmentsPage 6 Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 4) Title: Administrative Penalties Hearing Officer AppointmentsPage 7 Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 4) Title: Administrative Penalties Hearing Officer AppointmentsPage 8 Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 4) Title: Administrative Penalties Hearing Officer AppointmentsPage 9 Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 4) Title: Administrative Penalties Hearing Officer AppointmentsPage 10 Study Session Meeting of November 13, 2012 (Item No. 4) Title: Administrative Penalties Hearing Officer AppointmentsPage 11