Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021/08/23 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA AUG. 23, 2021 The St. Louis Park City Council is meeting in person in accordance with the most recent COVID- 19 guidelines. Members of the public may attend in person at city hall, 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. The meeting may also be viewed live via webstream at bit.ly/watchslpcouncil and on local cable (Comcast SD channel 17/HD channel 859). Visit bit.ly/slpccagendas to view the agenda. Members of the public who want to address the city council during the special city council meeting about items on the consent agenda may attend the meeting in person or call the number noted below next to the corresponding item. Call 952.562.2886 when the meeting starts and follow instructions provided. 6:25 p.m. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1. Call to order 1a. Roll call 2. Approval of items on consent calendar Recommended action: Motion to approve agenda as presented and items listed on the consent calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from agenda, or move items from consent calendar to regular agenda for discussion.) 2a. Adopt Resolution certifying the environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) as an adequate examination of the environmental impacts and accepting the record of decision, declaring no need for an environmental impact statement for the Beltline Station Development project. (Requires 4 affirmative votes.) 2b. Approve second reading and adopt Ordinance amending chapters 6, 8, and 14 pertaining to building readiness for broadband, parking area safety, and public safety radio communications amplification and approve summary ordinance for publication. 3. Adjournment 6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION – council chambers Discussion items 1. 6:30 p.m. Neighborhood-focused commercial activity in public parks 2. 7:00 p.m. 2022 budget: info on CIP, debt, long range financial planning and preliminary levy request 3. 8:30 p.m. Future study session agenda planning and prioritization 8:35 p.m. Communications/updates (verbal) 8:40 p.m. Adjourn Written reports 4. July 2021 monthly financial report 5. Business terms for redevelopment contract with Opus Development Company, LLC – Beltline Residences 6. Climate Investment Fund proposed 2022 budget and policy The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city bulletin board in the lobby of city hall and on the text display on civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website. If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call 952-924-2525. Meeting: Special city council Meeting date: August 23, 2021 Consent agenda item: 2a Executive summary Title: Beltline Station Development environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution certifying the environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) as an adequate examination of the environmental impacts and accepting the record of decision, declaring no need for an environmental impact statement for the Beltline Station Development project. (Requires 4 affirmative votes.) Policy consideration: Do the findings of fact and record of decision satisfy the requirements for making a negative declaration regarding the need for an environmental impact statement (EIS)? Summary: Staff requests adoption of findings regarding the EAW for the Beltline Station Development, located south of CSAH 25 and east of Beltline Blvd. The city council approved a resolution authorizing the distribution of the EAW for public review and comment on June 21, 2021. The EAW examined the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. Projects determined to have the potential for significant environmental effects must do further environmental review, in the form of an environmental impact statement (EIS). The city received comments from six agencies (the State Historic Preservation Office, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and Minnesota Department of Transportation) and three others, including CenterPoint Energy, Friends of Bass Lake and Nancy Rose. The comments and responses are included in the attached findings of fact and record of decision document (Exhibit A to the Resolution). Responses will be sent to the individual commenters following the city council’s record of decision in accordance with Minnesota Rules. Review of the EAW is complete. City staff find that the Beltline Station Development does not have the potential for significant environmental effects and does not warrant an EIS. Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. Supporting documents: Discussion Resolution Findings of fact and record of decision (Exhibit A to Resolution) Beltline Station Development EAW Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, senior planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning manager Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Page 2 Title: Beltline Station Development environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Discussion Background: The city council received a written report on June 14, 2021 regarding the proposed Beltline Station Development and the need for an EAW. On June 21, 2021, the city council received a staff report and approved a resolution authorizing the distribution of the EAW for public review and comment on July 6, 2021. The EAW analyzed the impacts of the Beltline Station Development project, which consists of three previously developed but currently vacant parcels that include paved and gravel parking lots and existing right-of-way surrounded by manicured lawn, wooded area, and wetland. The site is located south of CSAH 25 and east of Beltline Blvd. The project will redevelop the existing parcels into a mixed-use, transit-oriented residential and commercial development. The development consists of one new mixed-use building with 20,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space and approximately 159 multi-family housing units above, two new multi- family buildings creating 242 new units, and a parking ramp that will include up to 560 parking spaces and 1,800 square feet of ground floor commercial space. In total, the development will create 401 multi-family units and 21,800 square feet of commercial space. The EAW examined the potential for environmental impacts of the proposed project including: a detailed project description, review of required permits, and analysis of land use and zoning; geology, soils, topography; water resources; contamination and hazardous materials; ecological resources; historic properties; visual effects; air emissions; noise; and transportation. The city received comments from six agencies that are summarized below: •The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) identified a nearby historic resource, the Peavey-Haglin Experimental Concrete Grain Elevator, which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and is also a National Historic Landmark. SHPO concluded that neither this nor any other known or suspected historic or archaeological properties in the area will be affected by this project. •The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) comments pertain to the agency’s authority to regulate wetlands and water quality associated with stormwater discharge within the site. •The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District’s (MCWD) comments request clarification regarding existing and proposed cover types within the site and identified scenarios that would trigger the district’s stormwater management rules. The MCWD also requested a wetland replacement plan to offset any impacts to the wetland within the proposed development. •The Metropolitan Council comments pertain to permits for sanitary sewer connections, transportation analysis zones (TAZ), street network modifications, wastewater, and water resources. They also specified design requirements regarding transit and pedestrian infrastructure. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Page 3 Title: Beltline Station Development environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision •The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) comments pertain to water appropriation permits and stormwater mitigation. The DNR also clarified soil information within the EAW and requested agency correspondence should be included within the EAW. •The Minnesota Department of Transportation’s (MnDOT) comment requested additional traffic study on Highway 7 and Highway 100. The city received comments from three others that are summarized below: •Nancy Rose noted a technical error in that the Bass Lake identified in the EAW is incorrectly numbered 270098, the number of Bass Lake in Plymouth, MN, when it should be 270015, the number for the Bass Lake in St. Louis Park. •Friends of Bass Lake requested more information in the EAW about climate adaption and resilience, cover type, and greenhouse gas emissions/carbon footprint. •CenterPoint Energy does not have any objections or issues at this time. The full comments and responses are included in the attached findings of fact and record of decision document (Exhibit A to the Resolution). Responses will be sent to the individual commenters following the city council’s record of decision in accordance with Minnesota Rules. Present considerations: Staff recommends adoption of findings regarding the Beltline Station Development EAW, record of decision, and a negative declaration regarding the need for an EIS. The new material that has not been available for city council review previously is contained in the findings of fact and record of decision document. It includes all the EAW comments received and the responses to those comments. None of the regulatory agency comments indicated the need for an EIS. Next steps: If the attached resolution is approved, staff will circulate the Resolution and EAW findings of fact and Record of Decision for signatures and distribute the findings per Minnesota Rules to the EQB distribution list, surrounding jurisdictions and individual commenters. It is anticipated that the planning commission and city council will review formal planning and zoning applications in fall 2021. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Page 4 Title: Beltline Station Development environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Resolution No. 21-____ Approving record of decision and the negative declaration of need for an environmental impact statement for the Beltline Station Development South of CSAH 25 near Beltline Boulevard Whereas, Sherman Associates (“Proposer”) proposes to redevelop 3 parcels in St. Louis Park to construct 401 new residential units and 21,800 square feet of commercial space to create Beltline Station Development; and Whereas, the project crosses the threshold of a mandatory environmental assessment worksheet (“EAW”) by having a total of more than 375 attached units in a mixed residential and commercial development per Minnesota Rules, part 4410.4300, subpart 32; and Whereas, the EAW was prepared by Kimley-Horn on behalf of the Proposer, who submitted completed data portions of the EAW to the City of St. Louis Park consistent with Minnesota Rules, part 4410.1400; and Whereas, the EAW was prepared using the form approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) for EAWs in accordance with Minnesota Rules, part 4410.1300; and Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park submitted a copy of the EAW to all public agencies on the EAW distribution list and published EAW availability in the EQB Monitor on July 6, 2021, in accordance with applicable state laws, rules, and regulations; and Whereas, the EAW comment period lasted from July 6, 2021 to August 5, 2021, and six (6) regulatory agencies and three (3) members of the public submitted written comments during the comment period; and Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park acknowledges the comments received from the State Historic Preservation Office, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Nancy Rose, Friends of Bass Lake and Center Point Energy; and Whereas, city staff reviewed the proposed record of decision and finds it to be consistent with the evidence submitted to the city and the applicable statutes and regulations, to the best of their knowledge, and recommends the City Council approve the findings of fact and record of decision dated August 2021 and determine that no environmental impact statement (“EIS”) is necessary, reasonable or warranted with respect to the Project under the circumstances; and Whereas, the City Council desires to make findings of fact and a record of decision that no EIS is required with respect to the Project (“Negative Declaration”). Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Page 5 Title: Beltline Station Development environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Now therefore be it resolved that the City Council does hereby: 1.Adopt and approve the findings of fact and record of decision for the Beltline Station Development environmental assessment worksheet in the form which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and hereby makes the findings of fact and conclusions which are contained therein; and 2.Find and determine that, based upon the findings of fact and record of decision, no environmental impact statement is required for the Project pursuant to the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act or Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200 to 4410.6500. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council August 23, 2021 Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Page 6 Title: Beltline Station Development environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision EXHIBIT A BELTLINE STATION DEVELOPMENT, ST. LOUIS PARK Findings of Fact and Record of Decision City of St. Louis Park August 2021 Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Page 7 Title: Beltline Station Development environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision 1.Administrative Background Sherman Associates Development, LLC is proposing to redevelop an approximately 7-acre site south of CSAH 25 and east of Beltline Blvd in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. The mixed-use, transit- oriented development is located immediately north of the Southwest LRT Beltline Blvd. Station, and will include one mixed-use building and two residential buildings with a total of 403 multi- family units and up to 21,800 square feet of ground floor commercial. The proposal also includes a parking structure, parking within each building, and surface parking. The City of St. Louis Park is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for this project. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) has been prepared in accordance with Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410. The EAW was mandatory per Minnesota Rules, part 4410.4300, subpart 32: Mixed residential and industrial-commercial projects. The EAW was filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and circulated for review and comment to the required distribution list. A notice of availability was published in the EQB Monitor on July 6, 2021. A notice was also published in the Sun Sailor newspaper. This notice included a description of the project, information on where copies of the EAW were available, and invited the public to provide comments. The EAW was made available electronically on the City of St. Louis Park’s website at https://www.stlouispark.org/government/departments-divisions/community- development/development-projects/beltline-development and in hard copy at the following locations: •St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 •St. Louis Park Library, 3240 Library Lane, St. Louis Park, MN 55426 The EAW comment period extended from July 6 to August 5, 2021. Written comments were received from six agencies. Three written comments were received from the public. All comments received were considered in determining the potential for significant environmental impacts. Based on the information in the record, which is composed of the EAW for the proposed project, the comments submitted during the public comment period, the responses to comments, and other supporting documents, the City of St. Louis Park makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Page 8 Title: Beltline Station Development environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision 2.Findings of Fact 2.1 Project Description Sherman Associates Development, LLC is proposing to redevelop an approximately 7-acre site south of CSAH 25 and east of Beltline Blvd in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. The Beltline Station Development consists of three previously developed but currently vacant parcels that include paved and gravel parking lots, and existing right-of-way surrounded by manicured lawn, wooded area, and wetland. All previous buildings and parking areas have been demolished by the City of St. Louis Park and Southwest LRT construction contractors. The mixed-use, transit-oriented development will be located immediately north of the Southwest LRT Beltline Blvd. Station, and will include one mixed-use building and two residential buildings with a total of 403 multi-family units and up to 21,800 square feet of ground floor commercial. The project will consist of four buildings: •Parking Ramp/Retail: Located in the southwest corner of the site will be a 4-story parking structure with 560 parking spaces, including 268 spaces for park-and-ride purposes, and 1,800 square feet of ground floor commercial. •Building 1: Located in the northwest corner of the site will be a 7-story, mixed-use building with approximately 20,000 square feet of ground floor grocery, approximately 159 units of multi-family housing above, and below grade parking. •Building 2: Located in the northeast corner of the site will be a 4-story, residential building with approximately 84 units of affordable multi-family housing with below grade parking. •Building 3: Located in the southeast corner of the site will be a 5-story residential building with approximately 160 units of market-rate, multi-family housing with below grade parking. Construction will be conducted over two phases. Phase 1 is anticipated to begin in 2021 and includes Buildings 1 and 3 and the parking ramp. Phase 2 includes Building 2 and construction is anticipated to begin by the summer of 2022. 2.2 Corrections to the EAW or Changes to the Project since the EAW was Published There have been no changes to the proposed project design since the EAW was published. 2.3 Agency and Public Comments on the EAW During the comment period, the City of St. Louis Park received three written comments from the public and six written comments from the following agencies: •Nancy Rose •Friends of Bass Lake Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Page 9 Title: Beltline Station Development environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision •Center Point Energy •State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) •Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) •Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) •Metropolitan Council •Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) •Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Consistent with state environmental rules, responses have been prepared below for all substantive comments received during the comment period. Original comments in their entirety are included in Appendix A. 1)State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), August 2, 2021 Comment: “According to our records, the Peavey-Haglin Experimental Concrete Grain Elevator, which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and is also a National Historic Landmark, is located west of the proposed development on the Nordic Ware property. Based on our review of the project information, we conclude that the historic property will not be affected by the proposed development. We have also reviewed the proposed project in regard to impacts to archaeological resources and we do not believe that an archaeological survey is warranted for this project. Therefore, based on information that is available to us at this time, we conclude that there are no properties listed in the National or State Registers of Historic Places and no known or suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by this project.” Response: Comment noted. 2)Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), August 3, 2021 Comment: “Please note that the 401 Water Quality Certification becomes an enforceable component of the associated federal license or permit – issued under either Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The scope of a Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification is limited to assuring that a discharge from a federally licensed or permitted activity will comply with water quality requirements. Revisions to the Section 401 rule became effective in September 2020, and now require applicants to request a pre-filing meeting from the certifying agency at least 30 days prior to submitting a 401 Water Quality Certification request. The MPCA is the certifying authority in the State of Minnesota.” Response: Thank you for your comment. An MPCA 401 Water Quality Certification has been added to the Permits and Approvals table in Section 2.4.3 and Section 8 of the EAW. Comment: “Also, please keep in mind that in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, the Project should include the MPCA as a regulator of all surface waters as defined by Minn. Stat. § 115.01, subd. 22. Waters of the state. "Waters of the state" means all streams, Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Page 10 Title: Beltline Station Development environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision lakes, ponds, marshes, watercourses, waterways, wells, springs, reservoirs, aquifers, irrigation systems, drainage systems and all other bodies or accumulations of water, surface or underground, natural or artificial, public or private, which are contained within, flow through, or border upon the state or any portion thereof. Even though there may be surface waters that are determined to be USACE non-jurisdictional, or exempt from the Wetlands Conservation Act, all surface waters are regulated by the MPCA and any surface water impact needs to be described in the application and may require mitigation.” Response: Comment noted. Comment: “Because the Project includes redevelopment of existing impervious areas, these areas should be included with the total water quality volume accounted for in the stormwater management plan as required by the City’s MS4 Permit, unless the area has existing stormwater management that complies with the current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System General Construction Stormwater permit.” Response: As noted in Section 10 of the EAW, an NPDES permit is required because the project will disturb more than one acre of land. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared. All unpaved areas disturbed during construction will be revegetated in accordance with the standard NPDES permit requirements. Comment: “The EAW indicates plans to utilize an existing regional pond in a nearby park for stormwater discharges from the site. It should be noted that the existing regional stormwater pond cannot be used for stormwater treatment if it was wetland that did not go through the wetland mitigation process and must also comply with current stormwater management requirements.” Response: Comment noted. The stormwater management plans for the development will meet the stormwater management requirements of the City of St. Louis Park and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Comment: “The EAW also discusses use of biofiltration gardens and underground pipe detention and not infiltration due to site contamination. If infiltration is prohibited, consider other methods of volume reduction, such as water reuse. The Project proposer also is strongly encouraged to include trees in the site design to help absorb stormwater and improve energy efficiency of buildings. A green roof can also help reduce stormwater runoff and reduce energy use.” Response: The project proposer will consider methods of volume reduction such as the use of a green roof as design advances. Comment: “If the site has the ability to discharge stormwater to the impaired waters that have construction related impairments within 1 mile of the site, additional Best Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Page 11 Title: Beltline Station Development environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Management Practices are required during construction. These include providing temporary ponding for 5 acres draining to one location on the Project and stabilizing inactively worked soils within seven days. Please direct questions regarding CSW Permit requirements to Roberta Getman at 507-206-2629 or at roberta.getman@state.mn.us.” Response: Comment noted. Comment: “As indicated in the EAW, the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment identified issues of concern on the proposed Project site. These issues have the potential to cause contamination to soils and groundwater. Project proposers/ developers considering construction on or near contaminated properties should begin working early in their planning process with the MPCA’s Brownfields Program to receive necessary technical assistance in managing contamination. For some properties, special construction might be needed to prevent the further spreading of the contamination and/or prevent vapors from entering buildings or utility corridors. Because this is a residential development, the MPCA recommends the Project proposer conduct a Phase II Environmental Investigation to assess the presence of contamination prior to starting construction activities. State law requires that persons properly manage contaminated soil and water they uncover or disturb - even if they are not the party responsible for the contamination. The MPCA’s Brownfields Program can provide necessary technical assistance in managing contamination. Information regarding the Brownfields Program can be found at: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/waste/brownfields. If contamination is encountered during development activities, it must be reported immediately to the State duty officer at 651-649-5451 or 800-422-0798. Response: The project proposer will conduct a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment prior to construction and will work with MPCA regarding contamination and cleanup of the project site as the site is redeveloped. If contamination is encountered, the State Duty Officer will be contacted. 3)Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), August 3, 2021 Comment: “1. On page 29 of the EAW it states that, ‘The Project will contribute to the urban tree canopy, reduce impervious surface on the project site, and provide multi- modal connections, which is consistent with relevant polices identified in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.’ a. The table on page 7 shows impervious surface increasing from 2.8 acres to 5.4 acres and wood/forested areas decreasing from 1.3 to 0.0 acres. There is conflicting information regarding the impervious surface and tree cover on-site, please clarify the amount of hardcover and urban tree canopy included a part of the project.” Response: There will be additional vegetation planted as part of the project; however, the sentence on page 29 of the EAW should be revised to state that the project will increase impervious surface on the site. The proposed development will meet the stormwater management requirements of the City of St. Louis Park and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The specific Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Page 12 Title: Beltline Station Development environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision amounts of hardcover and urban tree canopy will be determined at a later date as the site design advances. Comment: “The District’s Stormwater Management Rules is triggered for the redevelopment of impervious surface. Depending on the amount of impervious surface proposed compared to the existing, one of the following treatment scenarios will apply: If a decrease or no change in impervious surface is proposed: Site Size Site Disturbance Impervious Surface Reduction Requirements >1 acre - ≤ 5 acres ≥ 40% site disturbance 10% reduction in impervious surface None 0-9% reduction in impervious surface Volume control required for site’s impervious surface If an increase of impervious surface is proposed: Site Size Site Disturbance Requirements Treatment Scope >1 acre ≥ 40% site disturbance Phosphorus Control, Rate Control and Volume control Entire site’s impervious surface Response: Comment noted. The proposed project will comply with the MCWD’s stormwater management rules. Comment: “According to MCWD’s records, the MCWD approved a wetland delineation Boundary & Type determination for this parcel in December of 2020. Since decisions issued by MCWD are valid for 5 years, the current Notice of Decision (MCWD WCA NOD #W19-35) is still valid. It appears that one wetland will be impacted as a result of the proposed development. If that is the case, a replacement plan to offset impacts will be required to be provided for District review.” Response: Comment noted. The purchase of wetland banking credits is discussed within Section 11 of the EAW. 4)Metropolitan Council, August 4, 2021 Comment: “The development location is a very small part of Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) #1394. TAZ forecast allocations for 2040 have been prepared by the City and are included in the City’s comprehensive plan. The City expects that TAZ #1394 will gain +924 households, +1700 population, and +445 jobs during 2020-2040. At this time, the forecast and TAZ allocation are adequate. Should other planned developments exceed that forecast, then Council staff would recommend increasing the forecast allocation for TAZ #1394.” Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Page 13 Title: Beltline Station Development environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Response: Comment noted. The City will continue to monitor growth and will coordinate with the Metropolitan Council regarding the TAZ forecasts for the area if any modifications are needed. Comment: “Metropolitan Council Dual Forcemain Interceptors (8041) are within the County Road 25 (Highway 7) right-of way, north of the proposed development. The interceptors were built in 2015 and are 24-inch PVC Pipes. There are specific processes that must be followed before encroachment on our property. Before encroachment on our property an Encroachment Agreement will be required. To obtain an Encroachment Agreement Application, contact Tim Wedin, Interceptor Engineering Assistant Manager (651-602-4571) at the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services. To assess the potential impacts to our interceptor system, prior to initiating this project, preliminary plans should be sent to Tim Wedin, Interceptor Engineering Assistant Manager (651- 602-4571) at the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services. It is the Council’s understanding that the developer has already contacted the MCES regarding the relocation of the Metropolitan Council Dual Forcemain Interceptors and should continue the discussion regarding the relocation as the project continues.” Response: The developer will continue to coordinate with MCES regarding the dual forcemain interceptors. Comment: “The Metropolitan Disposal System has adequate capacity for this project location.” Response: Comment noted. Comment: “The EAW asks proposers to identify measures (e.g., traffic operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to minimize or mitigate vehicle-related emissions. The City’s comprehensive plan includes the climate action plan strategy: ‘Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by encouraging residents and businesses to replace existing vehicles with more fuel-efficient models, including electric vehicles (EVs), and by expanding EV charging infrastructure.’ The Council recommends that City and developer consider the integration of EV charging infrastructure (or EV- ready infrastructure) to support this strategy and to serve some portion of the parking spaces throughout the development. Guidance can be found in the Great Plains Institute’s ‘Becoming Electric Vehicle Ready’ guideline document (https://www.driveelectricmn.org/becoming-ev-ready/).” Response: Comment noted. The City requires EV and EV ready infrastructure in all new and reconstructed parking. Comment: “The developer is responsible to continue to honor the commitments made during the right-of-way acquisition process with the Metropolitan Council. This includes, but is not limited to, maintaining access along the frontage road to General Office Products until the intersection at Lynn Avenue/CSAH 25 is complete and the Backage Road is completed to Monterrey Avenue from Lynn Avenue. Coordination with the Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Page 14 Title: Beltline Station Development environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Metropolitan Council’s contractors is required for construction of both projects, including, but not limited to, the Backage Road, Monterey Avenue, underground utilities, communications, signage, cameras, bus shelters, etcetera.” Response: Comment noted. The project proposer will continue to coordinate with the Metropolitan Council’s contractors during construction of this project. Comment: “Any costs associated with any future modifications at the Beltline Boulevard/Backage Road and Monterey/CSAH 25 intersections, or the alignment of the Backage Road, shall not be the responsibility of the Metropolitan Council.” Response: Comment noted. Comment: “The Metropolitan Council has reviewed the ¾ turning movements at the modified Beltline Boulevard/Backage Road intersection as proposed and has found no detrimental impacts to traffic operations as long as westbound left turning movements to southbound Beltline Boulevard are prohibited with a curb or median.” Response: Comment noted. Comment: “The Metropolitan Council requires that the bus bay along the proposed modifications to the Backage Road have 120 feet of straight curb. Please note that the developer will be responsible for the street lighting, sidewalk, landscaping, and concrete pad and electrical conduit re-routing for the bus shelter.” Response: The bus bay will be designed in accordance with Metropolitan Council requirements. Coordination between the City, Developer and Metropolitan Council will continue through design and construction of the Beltline Station Development. Comment: “The Metropolitan Council requires that stair/elevator remain at the southwest corner of the parking structure and that the north-south pedestrian crosswalk at the Backage Road be minimized as much as possible.” Response: Vertical circulation will be designed in accordance with Metropolitan Council requirements. Coordination between the City, Developer and Metropolitan Council will continue through design and construction of the Beltline Station Development. 5)Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), August 5, 2021 Comment: “1. Page 11, Soil and Topography. Please note that an Erosion Hazard Rating of “Not Rated” means that there is not enough information to make a determination regarding soil erodibility, not that “erosion is unlikely.” In general, urban soils are more prone to erosion because of previous disturbance and compaction, and we are pleased that a SWPPP will be prepared for the site.” Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Page 15 Title: Beltline Station Development environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Response: Comment noted. This clarification has been added to the EAW and erosion control specifications will be addressed through permitting. Comment: “Page 14, Stormwater. The planned increase in impervious surfaces will also increase the amount of road salt used in the project area. Chloride released into local lakes and streams does not break down, and instead accumulates in the environment, potentially reaching levels that are toxic to aquatic wildlife and plants. Consider promoting local business and city participation in the Smart Salting Training offered through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. There are a variety of classes available for road applicators, sidewalk applicators, and property managers. More information and resources can be found at this website. Many winter maintenance staff who have attended the Smart Salting training — both from cities and counties and from private companies — have used their knowledge to reduce salt use and save money for their organizations. We also encourage cities and counties to provide public outreach to reduce the overuse of chloride. Here are some educational resources for residents as well as a sample ordinance regarding chloride use.” Response: The developer will look for methods to minimize chloride use and improve treatment of stormwater runoff to minimize potential impacts to downstream waters. The project will comply with all City, watershed district, county, and state rules for stormwater management, and chloride use will be addressed in the Stormwater Management Plan that will be reviewed by the City for compliance. Comment: “3. Page 15, Water Appropriation. Please be aware that if underground parking or facilities require sump pumping of groundwater in volumes that exceed 10,000 gallons of water per day or one million gallons per year, a DNR Water Appropriation Permit would be required.” Response: Comment noted. As discussed in Section 11 of the EAW, a DNR Water Appropriation Permit may be needed and will be obtained by the developer/permit holder if dewatering above these volumes is required. Comment: “4. Page 20, Rare Species. We appreciate that native pollinator-friendly vegetation will be used in landscaping and stormwater retention ponds, and that trees will be planted throughout the parking lot to reduce the urban heat island effect.” Response: Comment noted. The project proposer will work with the City to complete a landscaping plan that incorporates these elements. Comment: “Appendices. Please note that agency correspondence should be included in the EAW appendices. It is unclear if the proposer requested concurrence from DNR regarding their NHIS query.” Response: The proposer requested NHIS concurrence from the DNR on May 4, 2021. The comment letter received from the DNR on the EAW is attached in this Finding of Fact. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Page 16 Title: Beltline Station Development environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision 6)Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), August 5, 2021 Comment: “MnDOT strongly recommends that Saint Louis Park require the developer to conduct a Traffic Impact Study-showing particularly how the development will impact nearby MN highways 7 & 100. Due to the proximity of the Beltline development to the MN 100/MN 7 interchange ramps, there’s a chance that traffic on CR25 could backup to the highway ramps and thus impact operations on both State highways. The developer needs to show that this won’t be the case based on the project traffic operations in this area.” Response: Thank you for your comment. The traffic impact study included the northbound Highway 100 ramp. The distance between the northbound Highway 100 ramp and the project site provides approximately 1,550 feet of storage area between the two signals and the projected queues do not reach this distance. The eastbound and westbound directions of CSAH 25 are anticipated to operate acceptably and the longest eastbound queues along CSAH 25 in the build analysis scenarios would be around 500-550 feet, while the interchange is approximately 1,550 feet away. Therefore, queuing along CSAH 25 is not anticipated to impact the interchange or ramp operations. More details related to queues is available in the appendix of the traffic impact study in Attachment D of the EAW. 7)Nancy Rose, August 5, 2021 Comment: “I note a technical error in Table 5, page 12 of the EAW. Bass Lake in St. Louis Park is number 270015. The Bass Lake numbered 270098 is located in the City of Plymouth, MN.” Response: Comment noted. Table 5 in Section 11 of the EAW should have stated the correct assessment ID number for Bass Lake in St. Louis Park, which is 270015. 8)Friends of Bass Lake Comment: “We would like to know about the climate consequences that the project will create. The existing law governing environmental review requires that a project's climate impacts be considered and the need for inclusion of that data has been upheld in legal actions. The report guideline utilized in the Beltline project review is not specific about climate data required, but the Environmental Quality Board is now updating that form to specify how those impacts are quantified and reported. That proposed format could be a guide to adding climate effects for this EAW. We request that the EAW be expanded to include several proposed sections: Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Page 17 Title: Beltline Station Development environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision 7. Climate Adaptation and Resilience 8. Cover type 18. Greenhouse gas emissions / carbon footprint” Response: Thank you for your comment. The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board is considering changes to the Environmental Review Program to address climate change; however, these changes have not yet been implemented and guidance on how to evaluate a specific site or individual project’s effect on climate change has not been finalized. The proposed development will incorporate elements of sustainability as described in Section 20 of the EAW. Project-specific sustainability elements include providing green infrastructure and landscaping that will increase native vegetation and pollinator habitats and energy efficiency with performance functionality to achieve sustainable conservation and ongoing reduction of the project’s carbon footprint. Additionally, the project proposer has developed solar arrays in the metro area to provide renewable energy to reduce the carbon footprint of new development. 9)CenterPoint Energy, June 30, 2021 Comment: “CenterPoint Energy has no objection or issues related to the Proposed Beltline Station Development EAW Distribution.” Response: Comment noted. 2.4 Decision Regarding Need for an Environmental Impact Statement The City of St. Louis Park finds that the analysis completed for the EAW and the additional information considered in this document of findings of fact and conclusions are adequate to determine whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects based on consideration of the four criteria identified in Minnesota Rules, part 4410, subpart 7. 2.4.1 Type, Extent and Reversibility of Impacts The City of St. Louis Park finds that the analysis completed for the EAW is adequate to determine whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW described the type and extent of impacts to the natural and built environment anticipated to result from the proposed project. Based on the EAW analysis and mitigation commitments, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in substantial impacts. Below is a summary of the findings regarding the potential environmental impacts of the project are as follows: •Land Use – The project will be compatible with nearby land uses and land uses planned in anticipation of the opening of the Southwest Light Rail Transit. A portion of the project is already guided for transit-oriented development (TOD). •Soils and Topography – Soil borings indicate the site is suitable for development. Gentle slopes will result in relatively low erosion potential during construction. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Page 18 Title: Beltline Station Development environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision •Water Resources – There is only one surface water, a wetland, located in the project area. The wetland impact is anticipated to be permanent, resulting from roadway/parking lot fill or building development. Wetland impacts will be tracked and replaced at a minimum of 2:1 replacement ratio with wetland replacement in accordance with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requirements. It is anticipated that wetland bank credits will be used for replacement of the wetland impacts. The proposed project activities and planned land uses are believed to pose a low threat to bedrock aquifers that supply the City’s drinking water wells. •Wastewater - The City and regional wastewater system have the capacity to accept and treat the proposed wastewater from the project. •Water - The City’s water system can adequately serve the project. •Stormwater Management - Stormwater management will be designed to meet the City and MCWD requirements. Stormwater discharges from the project will be cleaner than current water discharges and rates will be at or below existing discharge rates. During construction of the proposed development, best management practices of temporary stormwater management will be implemented. •Wildlife and Habitat - One wetland will be impacted by the proposed development and may displace fish, wildlife, and plant communities within or nearby the wetland. It is not anticipated that rare features that will be impacted. The proposed development includes landscaping, parks, and stormwater retention areas that can provide habitat for wildlife and plant communities. This area will include a blend of biodiverse, native, drought-tolerant plant species that could provide pollinator habitat. •Historic Resources - There are no known historic resources on site. No impacts to historic resources are anticipated as part of this development. •Visual – The project will be visually similar to buildings in the surrounding area. •Air – Emissions will be typical of residential/commercial development. •Noise – Noise levels will be typical of residential/commercial development. •Transportation – The traffic and parking study concluded that there is expected to be minimal impact from the proposed project on the local and regional transportation system. Additional sidewalk connections will improve non-motorized transportation. •Light Rail Station – The site is noted to be adjacent to a Southwest LRT light rail station. The Beltline Station development will complement the transit functions in and around the site. 2.4.2 Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects Cumulative effects result from the incremental impact of the proposed project when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. No cumulative potential effects are anticipated for this project. Overall, the project fits within the existing neighborhood. Given that the site has been previously developed and provides limited wildlife habitat, impacts are limited. The project can be served by existing utilities and transportation infrastructure. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Page 19 Title: Beltline Station Development environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision 2.4.3 Extent to which the Environmental Effects are Subject to Mitigation by the Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority The mitigation of environmental impacts will be designed and implemented in coordination with regulatory agencies and will be subject to the plan approval and permitting process. Permits and approvals that have been obtained or may be required prior to project construction are shown below: Unit of Government Type of Application Status Local Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Stormwater Management Permit To be applied for Erosion Control Permit To be applied for WCA Replacement Plan Approval To be applied for, if needed City of St. Louis Park Preliminary and Final Plat To be applied for Comprehensive Plan Amendment To be applied for Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development To be applied for Right-of-way Vacation To be applied for Building Permits To be applied for Demolition Permits To be applied for Public Right-of-Way permit To be applied for Sewer and Water Permit To be applied for Erosion Control Permit To be applied for Dewatering Permit To be applied for Regional Metropolitan Council Notification of intent to perform a demolition To be applied for Construction Site Stormwater Permit To be applied for Sewer Connection Permit To be applied for Southwest LRT Project Office Coordination for access modification To be applied for Hennepin County ROW Vacation To be applied for Work in ROW Permits To be applied for Driveway Modification To be applied for State Minnesota Department of Health Notification of Asbestos Related Work To be applied for Water Extension Permit To be applied for Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Notification of intent to perform a demolition To be applied for Construction Site Stormwater Permit To be applied for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit To be applied for Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Page 20 Title: Beltline Station Development environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Unit of Government Type of Application Status 401 Water Quality Certification To be applied for, if needed Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Water Appropriation Permit To be applied for Minnesota Department of Transportation Driveway access permits and utility permits To be applied for Federal US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit To be applied for, if needed 2.4.4 Extent to which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result of Other Environmental Studies The City of St. Louis Park has previous multi-use development experience, and similar projects have been designed and constructed throughout the county. Design and construction staff are familiar with the project area. No problems are anticipated that city staff has not encountered or successfully solved previously in similar projects in or near the project area. The City finds that the environmental effects of the project can be anticipated and controlled as a result of environmental review and experience on similar projects. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Page 21 Title: Beltline Station Development environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision 3. Conclusions 1.All requirements for environmental review of the proposed project have been met. 2.The EAW and the permit development processes related to the project have generated information that is adequate to determine whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. 3.Areas where potential environmental effects have been identified will be addressed during the final design of the project. Mitigation will be provided where impacts are expected to result from project construction, operation, or maintenance. Mitigation measures are incorporated into project design and have been or will be coordinated with state and federal agencies during the permit process. 4.Based on the criteria in Minnesota Rules, part 4410.1700, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. 5.An environmental impact statement is not required for the proposed project. For the City of St. Louis Park _____________________________________________ ___________________________________________ Jake Spano, Mayor Kim Keller, City Manager Beltline Station Development Attachment A Comments Received Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 22 From:nrose34021@aol.com To:Jennifer Monson Cc:donwon19@hotmail.com Subject:Sherman EAW Date:Thursday, August 5, 2021 1:48:46 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Jennifer, I note a technical error in Table 5, page 12 of the EAW. Bass Lake in St. Louis Park is number 270015. The Bass Lake numbered 270098 is located in the City of Plymouth, MN. Nancy Rose Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 23 FRIST\DS iy QF BASS ii LAKs Friends of Bass Lake - Board of Directors Don Weirens President Nancy Rose - Vice President John Snyder- Treasurer Susan Sackrison - Secretary Adam Maier Joelyn Malone Elisabeth White Doug White To: Jennifer Monson, City of St. Louis Park From: Friends of Bass Lake re: Sherman development EAW Dear Jennifer, Thanks for providing directions to the EAW for the Belt Line Development project. We would like to know about the climate consequences that the project will create. The existing law governing environmental review requires that a project's climate impacts be considered and the need for inclusion of that data has been upheld in legal actions. The report guideline utilized in the Beltline project review is not specific about climate data required, but the Environmental Quality Board is now updating that form to specify how those impacts are quantified and reported. That proposed format could be a guide to adding climate effects for this EAW. We request that the EAW be expanded to include several proposed sections: 7. Climate Adaptation and Resilience 8. Cover type 18. Greenhouse gas emissions / carbon footprint Council actions that may be counter to St. Louis Park's Climate goals should be known and evaluated before they are approved. Don Weirens, President 3401 Huntington Avenue South Saint Louis Park, MN 55416 763-354-8325 donwon19@hotmail.com www.FriendsofBassL.ake.con [] Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 24 E Q B P acket - 10 /Y' MINNesorA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD Date: July 21, 2021 To: Environmental Review Implementation Subcommittee From: lnteragency Climate Technical Team Environmental Quality Board Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Department of Health Department of Natural Resources Pollution Control Agency Department of Transportation Metropolitan Council Denise Wilson, Katrina Hapka, Erik Cedarleaf Dahl, Giuseppe Tumminello Stephan Roos Louise Miltich James Kelly, Kristin Raab, and David Bell Kate Fairman Melissa Kuskie, Peter Ciborowski, Laura Millberg Deb Moynihan, Peter Wasko, Jeff Meeks, Katherine Lind Eric Wojchik RE: Final recommendations for integrating climate related information into Minnesota Environmental Policy Act Program requirements At the December 2020 Environmental Review Implementation Subcommittee (ERIS) meeting, the lnteragency Climate Technical Team (ICTT) presented draft recommendations for integrating climate related information into Minnesota Environmental Policy Act Program. Since then, ICTT members have been working to get feedback from anyone impacted by the draft recommendations. This memo offers an overview of the engagement process, summarizes feedback received and provides a summary of the technical assessment of the draft recommendations. In addition, the memo discusses changes ICTT made to the draft recommendations and presents ICTT's final recommendations. Attached to the memo are: • A summary of the project background and timeline (Appendix A) ➔• Draft, reivsed EAW form (Appendix B) • Guidance documents (Appendix C) • A technical analysis of the draft recommendations (Appendix D) Engagement and feedback overview The ICCT began their work in December 2019 with a public listening session and concluded with an extensive engagement process on the draft recommendations for Environmental Review Program changes presented to ERIS members. From January through May of 2021, ICTT members offered multiple opportunities for anyone interested in providing feedback on the draft recommendations to submit comments. Environmental Quality Board (EQB) staff engaged Barr Engineering to assist with carrying out the engagement efforts and to apply their Environmental Review Program experience and technical Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 25 E Q B P acket - 22 7 . C li m ate A d a p tatio n an d R e sili e n c e : a. Describe the climate trends in the general location of the project (see guidance: Climate Adaptation and Resilience) and how climate change is anticipated to affect that location during the life of the project. b. For each Resource Category in the table below: Describe how the project's proposed activities and how the project's design will interact with those climate trends. Describe proposed adaptations to address the project effects identified. Resource Climate Considerations Project Information Adaptations Category (example text provided below is to be replaced with project- specific information) Project Design For example, aspects of the Climate change risks building and vulnerabilities architecture/materials identified include: choices and site design that may negatively affect urban heat island conditions in the area considering changing climate zones, temperature trends, and potential for extended heat waves Land Use For example, any critical Climate change risks facilities (i.e. facilities and vulnerabilities necessary for public health identified include: and safety, those storing hazardous materials, or those with housing occupants who may be insufficiently mobile) that are proposed in floodplain areas and other areas identified as at risk for localized flooding; describe the risk potential considering changing precipitation and event intensity Water Resources Address in item 12 Address in item 12 Address in item 12 Contamination/ For example, how current Climate change risks Hazardous Minnesota climate trends and vulnerabilities Materials/Wastes and anticipated climate identified include: change in the general location of the project may influence the potential environmental effects of generation/use/storage of 13 Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 26 E Q B P acket - 23 Resource Climate Considerations Project Information Adaptations Category (example text provided below is to be replaced with project- specific information) hazardous waste and materials Fish, wildlife, Address in item 14. Address in item 14. Address in item 14. plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources (rare features) 8. Cover types: Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development: Cover Types Before After (acres) (acres) Wetlands and shallow lakes (<2 meters deep) Deep lakes (>2 meters deep) Wooded/forest Rivers and/streams Brush/Grassland Cropland Livestock rangeland/pastureland Lawn/la ndsca ping Green infrastructure TOTAL {from table below) Impervious surface Stormwater Pond (wet sedimentation basin) Other (describe) TOTAL Green Infrastructure* Before After (acreage] (acreage] Constructed infiltration systems (infiltration basins/infiltration trenches/ rainwater gardens/bioretention areas without underdrains/swales with impermeable check dams) Constructed tree trenches and tree boxes 14 Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 27 E Q B P a c k e t - 2 4 Constructed wetlands Constructed green roofs Constructed permeable pavements Other (describe) T O T A L* T ree s Percent Nu m b er Percent tree canopy removed or number of mature trees removed during development Number of new trees planted 9 . Pe rm its and ap p ro va ls re q u ire d : list all known local, state and federal permits, approvals, certifications and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. All of these final decisions are prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410.3100. U n it of G o ve rn m en t Type of A pplicatio n Status Cumulative potential effects may be considered and addressed in response to individual EAW Item Nos. 19-1810-20, or the RGU can address all cumulative potential effects in response to EAW Item No. 1922. If addressing cumulative effect under individual items, make sure to include information requested in EAW Item N o . 49 21 . 10 . Land use : a. Describe: i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including parks and open space, cemeteries, trails, prime or unique farmlands. ii. Plans. Describe planned land use as identified in comprehensive plan (if available) and any other applicable plan for land use, water, or resources management by a local, regional, state, or federal agency. iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc. 15 Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 28 E Q B P acket - 29 17. Air: a. Stationary source emissions - Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any hazardous air pollutants, criteria pollutants. Discuss effects to air quality including any sensitive receptors, human health or applicable regulatory criteria. Include a discussion of any methods used assess the project's effect on air quality and the results of that assessment. Identify pollution control equipment and other measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from stationary source emissions. b. Vehicle emissions - Describe the effect of the project's traffic generation on air emissions. Discuss the project's vehicle-related emissions effect on air quality. Identify measures (e.g. traffic operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to minimize or mitigate vehicle-related emissions. c. Dust and odors - Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of dust and odors generated during project construction and operation. (Fugitive dust may be discussed under item 17a). Discuss the effect of dust and odors in the vicinity of the project including nearby sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of dust and odors. 18. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions/Carbon Footprint a. GHG Quantification: For all proposed projects, provide quantification and discussion of project GHG emissions. Include additional rows in the tables as necessary to provide project-specific emission sources. Describe the methods used to quantify emissions. If calculation methods are not readily available to quantify GHG emissions for a source, describe the process used to come to that conclusion and any GHG emission sources not included in the total calculation. The following tables are examples; other layouts are acceptable for providing GHG quantification results Construction Emissions Scope Type of Emission Project-related COe Calculation method(s) Emission Sub-type Emissions (tons/year) Scope 1 Combustion Mobile Equipment Scope 1 Land Use Conversion Scope 1 Land Use Carbon Sink TOTAL Operational Emissions Scope Type of Emission Existing Project- Total CO,e Calculation Emission Sub-type facility related Emissions method(s) COe COe (tons/year) Emissions Emissions (tons/year) (tons/year) Scope 1 Combustion Mobile Equipment 20 Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 29 E Q B P a c k e t - 3 0 Sco p e T yp e of Em issio n Existing Project - Total CO e Calculation Em issio n Sub-type fa cili ty related Em issio ns m ethod(s) C O e CO e (tons/year) Em issio ns Em issio ns (to ns/year) (tons/year) Scope 1 Combustion Stationary Equipment Scope 1 Combustion Area Scope 1 Non- Stationary Combustion Equipment Scope 1 Land Use Carbon Sink Scope 2 Off-site Grid-based Electricity Scope 2 Off-site Steam Not Production applicable Scope 3 Off-site Waste Area Management T O TA L b. GHG Assessment i. Describe and quantify reductions from planned mitigation, if proposed for the project's GHG emissions. ii. Quantify the proposed projects predicted net lifetime GHG emissions (total tons/#of years) and how those predicted emissions may affect achievement of the Minnesota Next Generation Energy Act goals and/or other more stringent state or local GHG reduction goals. 19 . N o ise Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated during project construction and operation. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the project including 1) existing noise levels/sources in the area, 2) nearby sensitive receptors, 3) conformance to state noise standards, and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of noise. 20 . T ran sp o rt atio n a. Describe traffic-related aspects of project construction and operation. Include: 1) existing and proposed additional parking spaces, 2) estimated total average daily traffic generated, 3) estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence, 4) indicate source of trip generation rates used in the estimates, and 5) availability of transit and/or other alternative transportation modes. b. Discuss the effect on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project's impact on the regional transportation system. If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total daily trips exceeds 2,500, a traffic im pact study m ust be prepared as part of the EA W. Use the format and procedures described in the Minnesota Department of Transportation's Access Management Manual, Chapter 5 (available at: http://www.dot.state.m n.us/accessm anagement/resources.html) or a similar local guidance, 21 Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 30 700 West Linden Ave PO Box 1165 Minneapolis, MN 55440-1165 June 30, 2021 Jennifer Monson, AICP Senior Planner 5005 Minnetonka BLVD St. Louis Park, MN 55416 952-928-2841 RE: Proposed Beltline Station Development EAW Distribtion Dear Jennifer Monson: CenterPoint Energy has no objection or issues related to the Proposed Beltline Station Development EAW Distribtion. Thank you for the advance notice. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 612-321-5381. Respectfully, CENTERPOINT ENERGY Chuck Mayers, SRWA Right of Way Agent III charle.mayers@centerPointenergy.com PC: Kevin J. Busscher, C&M Supervisor, CenterPoint Energy Robert A. Meyer, C&M Advance Foreperson, CenterPoint Energy Thomas Haider, Senior Engineer Gas, CenterPoint Energy Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 31 MINNESOTA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 50 Sherburne Avenue ▪ Administration Building 203 ▪ Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 ▪651-201-3287 mn.gov/admin/shpo ▪ mnshpo@state.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND SERVICE PROVIDER August 2, 2021 Jennifer Monson, Senior Planner City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. St. Louis Park, MN 55416 RE: EAW – Beltline Station Development Redevelop an approximately 7-acre site south of CSAH 25 and east of Beltline Blvd T28 R24 S6, St. Louis Park, Hennepin County SHPO Number: 2021-2425 Dear Jennifer Monson: Thank you for providing this office with a copy of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the above- referenced project. According to the EAW, a developer is proposing to redevelop an approximately 7-acre site south of CSAH 25 and east of Beltline Boulevard in St. Louis Park. The proposed development will include one mixed-use building and two residential buildings with a total of 403 multi-family units and up to 21,800 square feet of ground floor commercial. The proposal also includes a parking structure, parking within each building, and surface parking. According to our records, the Peavey-Haglin Experimental Concrete Grain Elevator , which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and is also a National Historic Landmark, is located west of the proposed development on the Nordic Ware property. Based on our review of the project information, we conclude that the historic property will not be affected by the proposed development. We have also reviewed the proposed project in regard to impacts to archaeological resources and we do not believe that an archaeological survey is warranted for this project. Therefore, based on information that is available to us at this time, we conclude that there are no properties listed in the National or State Registers of Historic Places and no known or suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by this project. Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36 CFR § 800. If this project is considered for federal financial assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, then review and consultation with our office will need to be initiated by the lead federal agency. Be advised that comments and recommendations provided by our office for this state-level review may differ from findings and determinations made by the federal agency as part of review and consultation under Section 106. Please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson, Environmental Review Specialist, at kelly.graggjohnson@state.mn.us if you have any questions regarding our review of this project. Sincerely, Sarah J. Beimers Environmental Review Program Manager Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 32 August 3, 2021 Jennifer Monson Senior Planner City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416 RE: Beltline Station Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet Dear Jennifer Monson: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Beltline Station Development project (Project) in the City of St. Louis Park (City), Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Project consists of a 7 acre mixed use development. Regarding matters for which the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has regulatory responsibility or other interests, the MPCA staff has the following comments for your consideration. Permits and Approvals (Item 8) This section of the EAW includes the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 permit and therefore must include the MPCA 401 Water Quality Certification. Please note that the 401 Water Quality Certification becomes an enforceable component of the associated federal license or permit – issued under either Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The scope of a Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification is limited to assuring that a discharge from a federally licensed or permitted activity will comply with water quality requirements. Revisions to the Section 401 rule became effective in September 2020, and now require applicants to request a pre-filing meeting from the certifying agency at least 30 days prior to submitting a 401 Water Quality Certification request. The MPCA is the certifying authority in the State of Minnesota. Also, please keep in mind that in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, the Project should include the MPCA as a regulator of all surface waters as defined by Minn. Stat. § 115.01, subd. 22. Waters of the state. "Waters of the state" means all streams, lakes, ponds, marshes, watercourses, waterways, wells, springs, reservoirs, aquifers, irrigation systems, drainage systems and all other bodies or accumulations of water, surface or underground, natural or artificial, public or private, which are contained within, flow through, or border upon the state or any portion thereof. Even though there may be surface waters that are determined to be USACE non-jurisdictional, or exempt from the Wetlands Conservation Act, all surface waters are regulated by the MPCA and any surface water impact needs to be described in the application and may require mitigation. For further information about the 401 Water Quality Certification process, please contact Bill Wilde at 651-757-2825 or at william.wilde@state.mn.us. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 33 Jennifer Monson Page 2 August 3, 2021 Water Resources (Item 11) •Because the Project includes redevelopment of existing impervious areas, these areas should be included with the total water quality volume accounted for in the stormwater management plan as required by the City’s MS4 Permit, unless the area has existing stormwater management that complies with the current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System General Construction Stormwater permit. •The EAW indicates plans to utilize an existing regional pond in a nearby park for stormwater discharges from the site. It should be noted that the existing regional stormwater pond cannot be used for stormwater treatment if it was wetland that did not go through the wetland mitigation process and must also comply with current stormwater management requirements. •The EAW also discusses use of biofiltration gardens and underground pipe detention and not infiltration due to site contamination. If infiltration is prohibited, consider other methods of volume reduction, such as water reuse. The Project proposer also is strongly encouraged to include trees in the site design to help absorb stormwater and improve energy efficiency of buildings. A green roof can also help reduce stormwater runoff and reduce energy use. •If the site has the ability to discharge stormwater to the impaired waters that have construction- related impairments within 1 mile of the site, additional Best Management Practices are required during construction. These include providing temporary ponding for 5 acres draining to one location on the Project and stabilizing inactively worked soils within seven days. Please direct questions regarding CSW Permit requirements to Roberta Getman at 507-206-2629 or at roberta.getman@state.mn.us. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes As indicated in the EAW, the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment identified issues of concern on the proposed Project site. These issues have the potential to cause contamination to soils and groundwater. Project proposers/developers considering construction on or near contaminated properties should begin working early in their planning process with the MPCA’s Brownfields Program to receive necessary technical assistance in managing contamination. For some properties, special construction might be needed to prevent the further spreading of the contamination and/or prevent vapors from entering buildings or utility corridors. Because this is a residential development, the MPCA recommends the Project proposer conduct a Phase II Environmental Investigation to assess the presence of contamination prior to starting construction activities. State law requires that persons properly manage contaminated soil and water they uncover or disturb - even if they are not the party responsible for the contamination. The MPCA’s Brownfields Program can provide necessary technical assistance in managing contamination. Information regarding the Brownfields Program can be found at: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/waste/brownfields. If contamination is encountered during development activities, it must be reported immediately to the State duty officer at 651-649-5451 or 800-422-0798. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 34 Jennifer Monson Page 3 August 3, 2021 We appreciate the opportunity to review this Project. Please provide your specific responses to our comments and notice of decision on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement. Please be aware that this letter does not constitute approval by the MPCA of any or all elements of the Project for the purpose of pending or future permit action(s) by the MPCA. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Project proposer to secure any required permits and to comply with any requisite permit conditions. If you have any questions concerning our review of this EAW, please contact me by email at karen.kromar@state.mn.us or by telephone at 651-757-2508. Sincerely, Karen Kromar This document has been electronically signed. Karen Kromar Project Manager Environmental Review Unit Resource Management and Assistance Division KK/WW/RG:vs cc: Dan Card, MPCA, St. Paul Bill Wilde, MPCA, St. Paul Roberta Getman, MPCA, Rochester Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 35 August 03, 2021 TO: City of St. Louis Park, Jennifer Monson FROM: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Abigail Ernst RE: Beltline Station Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet Dear Ms. Monson, The Minnehaha Creek District is writing to provide comments on the Beltline Station Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Staff have reviewed the relevant documents and would like to flag the following items: 1.On page 29 of the EAW it states that, “The Project will contribute to the urban tree canopy, reduce impervious surface on the project site, and provide multi-modal connections, which is consistent with relevant polices identified in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.” a.The table on page 7 shows impervious surface increasing from 2.8 acres to 5.4 acres and wood/forested areas decreasing from 1.3 to 0.0 acres. There is conflicting information regarding the impervious surface and tree cover on-site, please clarify the amount of hardcover and urban tree canopy included a part of the project. The District looks forward to working with the City of St. Louis Park as plans for this development progress. From a preliminary review, the project will trigger Stormwater Management rules, and the Wetland Conservation Act. Additional information for each rule trigger can be found below. Stormwater Management: The District’s Stormwater Management Rules is triggered for the redevelopment of impervious surface. Depending on the amount of impervious surface proposed compared to the existing, one of the following treatment scenarios will apply: If a decrease or no change in impervious surface is proposed: Site Size Site Disturbance Impervious Surface Reduction Requirements >1 acre - ≤ 5 acres ≥ 40% site disturbance 10% reduction in impervious surface None 0-9% reduction in impervious surface Volume control required for site’s impervious surface Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 36 If an increase of impervious surface is proposed: Site Size Site Disturbance Requirements Treatment Scope >1 acre ≥ 40% site disturbance Phosphorus Control, Rate Control and Volume control Entire site’s impervious surface WCA: According to MCWD’s records, the MCWD approved a wetland delineation Boundary & Type determination for this parcel in December of 2021. Since decisions issued by MCWD are valid for 5 years, the current Notice of Decision (MCWD WCA NOD #W19-35) is still valid. It appears that one wetland will be impacted as a result of the proposed development. If that is the case, a replacement plan to offset impacts will be required to be provided for District review. Please let me know if you have any questions by emailing me at aernst@minnehahacreek.org. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Abigail Ernst Permitting Technician Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 37 August 4, 2021 Jennifer Monson, Senior Planner City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416 RE: City of St. Louis Park - Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) – Beltline Station Development Metropolitan Council Review No. 22583-1 Metropolitan Council District No. 6 D ear Ms. Monson: The Metropolitan Council received the EAW for the Beltline Station Development in St. Louis Park on June 29, 2021. The proposed project is located immediately north of the METRO Green Line Beltline Boulevard Station southeast of the intersection of Beltline Boulevard and County Road 25. The proposed development of seven acres will include 403 housing units in three structures, 84 of which will be affordable. The project will also include 21,800 square feet of retail space and a 560-space parking structure, 268 spaces of which will be dedicated to park-and -ride for transit users. The Metropolitan Council and the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority entered into a cooperative agreement for construction of the parking structure, which will be partly funded by a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant for the park-and -ride. The staff review finds that the EAW is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and does not raise major issues of consistency with Council policies. An EIS is not necessary for regional purposes. We offer the following comments for your consideration. Item 9. Land Use (Todd Graham, 651-602 -1322) The development location is a very small part of Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) #1394. TAZ forecast allocations for 2040 have been prepared by the City and are included in the City’s comprehensive plan. The City expects TAZ that #1394 will gain +924 households, +1700 population, and +445 jobs during 2020-2040. At this time, the forecast and TAZ allocation are adequate. Should other planned developments exceed that forecast, then Council staff would recommend increasing the forecast allocation for TAZ #1394. Item 11. Water Resources - Wastewater (Roger Janzig, roger.janzig@metc.state.mn.us) Metropolitan Council Dual Forcemain Interceptors (8041) are within the County Road 25 (Highway 7) right-of way, north of the proposed development. The interceptors were built in 2015 and are 24-inch PVC Pipes. There are specific processes that must be followed before encroachment on our property. Before encroachment on our property an Encroachment Agreement will be required. To obtain an Encroachment Agreement Application, contact Tim Wedin, Interceptor Engineering Assistant Manager (651-602 -4571) at the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services. To assess the potential impacts to our interceptor system, Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 38 Page - 2 | August 4, 2021 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL prior to initiating this project, preliminary plans should be sent to Tim Wedin, Interceptor Engineering Assistant Manager (651-602 -4571) at the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services It is the Council’s understanding that the developer has already contacted the MCES regarding the relocation of the Metropolitan Council Dual Forcemain Interceptors and should continue the discussion regarding the relocation as the project continues. The Metropolitan Disposal System has adequate capacity for this project location. I tem 15. Air – Vehicle Emissions (Cameran Bailey, 651-602-1212) The EAW asks proposers to identify measures (e.g., traffic operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to minimize or mitigate vehicle-related emissions. The City’s comprehensive plan includes the climate action plan strategy: “Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by encouraging residents and businesses to replace existing vehicles with more fuel-efficient models, including electric vehicles (EVs), and by expanding EV charging infrastructure.” The Council recommends that City and developer consider the integration of EV charging infrastructure (or EV-ready infrastructure ) to support this strategy and to serve some portion of the parking spaces throughout the development. Guidance can be found in the Great Plains Institute’s “Becoming Electric Vehicle Ready” guideline document (https://www.driveelectricmn.org/becoming-ev -ready/). I tem 18. Transportation (Steve Mahowald, 612-349-7775 The developer is responsible to continue to honor the commitments made during the right-of - way acquisition process with the Metropolitan Council. This includes, but is not limited to, maintaining access along the frontage road to General Office Products until the intersection at Lynn Avenue/CSAH 25 is complete and the Backage Road is completed to Monterrey Avenue from Lynn Avenue. Coordination with the Metropolitan Council’s contractors is required for construction of both projects, including, but not limited to, the Backage Road, Monterey Avenue, underground utilities, communications, signage, cameras, bus shelters, etcetera. Any costs associated with any future modifications at the Beltline Boulevard/Backage Road and Monterey/CSAH 25 intersections, or the alignment of the Backage Road , shall not be the responsibility of the Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council has reviewed the ¾ turning movements at the modified Beltline Boulevard/Backage Road intersection as proposed and has found no detrimental impacts to traffic operations as long as westbound left turning movements to southbound Beltline Boulevard are prohibited with a curb or median. The Metropolitan Council requires that the bus bay along the proposed modifications to the Backage Road have 120 feet of straight curb. Please note that the developer will be responsible for the street lighting, sidewalk, landscaping, and concrete pad and electrical conduit re-routing for the bus shelter. The Metropolitan Council requires that stair/elevator remain at the southwest corner of the parking structure and that the north-south pedestrian crosswalk at the Backage Road be minimized as much as possible. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 39 Page - 3 | August 4, 2021 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL This concludes the Council’s review of the EAW. The Council will not take formal action on the EAW. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Michael Larson, Principal Reviewer, at 651-602-1407 or via email at michael.larson@metc.state.mn.us. Sincerely, Angela R. Torres, AICP, Manager Local Planning Assistance CC: Tod Sherman, Development Reviews Coordinator, MnDOT - Metro Division Lynnea Atlas-Ingebretson, Metropolitan Council District 6 Michael Larson, AICP, Sector Representative / Principal Reviewer Reviews Coordinator N:\CommDev\LPA\Communities\St. Louis Park\Letters\St. Louis Park 2021 EAW Beltline Station 22583-1.docx Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 40 From:Collins, Melissa (DNR) To:Jennifer Monson Cc:wanderson@sherman-associates.com Subject:Beltline Station Development - DNR Comments Date:Thursday, August 5, 2021 3:42:10 PM Attachments:image003.png image004.png image005.png image002.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Jennifer Monson, Thank you for the opportunity to review the Beltline Station Development EAW. The DNR respectfully submits the following comments for your consideration: 1.Page 11, Soil and Topography. Please note that an Erosion Hazard Rating of “Not Rated” means that there is not enough information to make a determination regarding soil erodibility, not that “erosion is unlikely.” In general, urban soils are more prone to erosion because of previous disturbance and compaction, and we are pleased that a SWPPP will be prepared for the site. 2.Page 14, Stormwater. The planned increase in impervious surfaces will also increase the amount of road salt used in the project area. Chloride released into local lakes and streams does not break down, and instead accumulates in the environment, potentially reaching levels that are toxic to aquatic wildlife and plants. Consider promoting local business and city participation in the Smart Salting Training offered through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. There are a variety of classes available for road applicators, sidewalk applicators, and property managers. More information and resources can be found at this website. Many winter maintenance staff who have attended the Smart Salting training — both from cities and counties and from private companies — have used their knowledge to reduce salt use and save money for their organizations. We also encourage cities and counties to provide public outreach to reduce the overuse of chloride. Here are some educational resources for residents as well as a sample ordinance regarding chloride use. 3.Page 15, Water Appropriation. Please be aware that if underground parking or facilities require sump pumping of groundwater in volumes that exceed 10,000 gallons of water per day or one million gallons per year, a DNR Water Appropriation Permit would be required. 4.Page 20, Rare Species. We appreciate that native pollinator-friendly vegetation will be used in landscaping and stormwater retention ponds, and that trees will be planted throughout the parking lot to reduce the urban heat island effect. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 41 5.Appendices. Please note that agency correspondence should be included in the EAW appendices. It is unclear if the proposer requested concurrence from DNR regarding their NHIS query. Thank you again for the opportunity to review this document, and please let me know if you have any questions regarding these comments. A confirmation of receipt would be most appreciated. Thank you, Melissa Collins Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist | Ecological and Water Resources Pronouns: She/her Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 Phone: 651-259-5755 Email: melissa.collins@state.mn.us mndnr.gov Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 42 Beltline Station Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet August 2021 Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 43 Beltline Station Development i August 2021 Table of Contents 1.Project Title ................................................................................................................................................. 3 2.Proposer ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 3.RGU .............................................................................................................................................................. 3 4.Reason for EAW Preparation .................................................................................................................. 3 5.Project Location ........................................................................................................................................ 4 6.Project Description.................................................................................................................................... 4 7.Cover Types ............................................................................................................................................... 7 8.Permits and Approvals Required ........................................................................................................... 7 9.Land Use ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 10.Geology, Soils, and Topography/Land Forms ............................................................................... 10 11.Water Resources ................................................................................................................................. 11 12.Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes ............................................................................... 16 13.Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare Features) ....... 18 14.Historic Properties ................................................................................................................................ 21 15.Visual ..................................................................................................................................................... 21 16.Air ........................................................................................................................................................... 21 17.Noise ...................................................................................................................................................... 23 18.Transportation ...................................................................................................................................... 23 19.Cumulative Potential Effects ............................................................................................................ 28 20.Other Potential Environmental Effects ............................................................................................ 29 RGU Certification ............................................................................................................................................. 30 List of Tables Table 1: Project Magnitude ............................................................................................................................. 5 Table 2: Cover Types......................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 3: Permits and Approvals Required .................................................................................................... 7 Table 4: Soil Types Within Project Limits ....................................................................................................... 11 Table 5: Impaired Waters within One Mile of the Construction Limits ................................................... 12 Table 6: State-Listed Species Within 1-Mile of Project Limits .................................................................... 19 Table 8: Vehicle Trip Generation Summary ................................................................................................ 25 Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 44 Beltline Station Development ii August 2021 List of Figures Figure 1: Site Map ............................................................................................................................................ 32 Figure 2: County Map ..................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 3: USGS Map ......................................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 4: Existing Zoning .................................................................................................................................. 35 Figure 5: Future Land Use ............................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 6: Water Resources ............................................................................................................................. 37 Figure 7: Wellhead Protection, Drinking Water Supply Management Area, and Wells Sites ........... 38 Attachments Attachment A: Site Plan Attachment B: Wetland Delineation Attachment C: SHPO Database Information Attachment D: Traffic Analysis Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 45 Beltline Station Development 3 August 2021 July 2013 Version Environmental Assessment Worksheet This Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and EAW Guidelines are available at the Environmental Quality Board’s website at: http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm. The EAW form provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW Guidelines provide additional detail and resources for completing the EAW form. Cumulative potential effects can either be addressed under each applicable EAW Item, or can be addressed collectively under EAW Item 19. Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation, and the need for an EIS. 1.Project Title Beltline Station Development 2.Proposer Proposer: Sherman Associates Contact Person: Will Anderson Title: Senior Developer Address: 233 Park Ave City, State, ZIP: Minneapolis, MN, 55413 Phone: 612-604-0866 Email: wanderson@sherman-associates.com 3.RGU RGU: City of St. Louis Park Contact Person: Jennifer Monson Title: Senior Planner Address: 5005 Minnetonka Blvd City, State, ZIP: St. Louis Park, MN, 55416 Phone: 952-928-2841 Email: jmonson@stlouispark.org 4.Reason for EAW Preparation Check one: Required: Discretionary: ☐EIS Scoping ☐Citizen petition Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 46 Beltline Station Development 4 August 2021 ☒Mandatory EAW ☐RGU discretion ☐Proposer initiated If EAW or EIS is mandatory, give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s): Mn Rule 4410.4300, Subpart 32 (Mixed residential and industrial-commercial projects) 5.Project Location County: Hennepin City/Township: St. Louis Park PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range): Section 6, Township 28N, Range 24W Watershed (81 major watershed scale): Mississippi River - Twin Cities GPS Coordinates: 44°56'41.3"N 93°20'21.4"W Tax Parcel Number: 0602824240046; 0602824130003; 0602824120091 At a minimum, attach each of the following to the EAW: •County map showing the general location of the project (See Figure 2) •US Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (See Figure 3) •Site plans showing all significant project and natural features. Pre-construction site plan and post-construction site plan. (See Figure 1 and Attachment A) 6.Project Description a.Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor (approximately 50 words). Sherman Associates Development, LLC is proposing to redevelop an approximately 7- acre site south of CSAH 25 and east of Beltline Blvd in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. The mixed-use, transit-oriented development is located immediately north of the Southwest LRT Beltline Blvd. Station, and will include one mixed -use building and two residential buildings with a total of 403 multi -family units and up to 21,800 square feet of ground floor commercial. The proposal also includes a parking structure, parking within each building, and surface parking. b.Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction, including infrastructure needs. If the project is an expansion, include a description of the existing facility. Emphasize 1) construction and operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes; 2) modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes; 3) significant demolition, removal, or remodeling of existing structures; and 4) timing and duration of construction activities. A mixed -use redevelopment is proposed on an approximately 7-acre site south of CSAH 25 and east of Beltline Blvd in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. See Figure 2 for project location. The project is anticipated to consist of four buildings: 1.Parking Ramp/Retail. Located in the southwest corner of the site, this area will consist of a 4-story, a parking structure with 560 parking spaces that includes 268 spaces for park and ride purposes, and 1,800 square feet of ground floor commercial. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 47 Beltline Station Development 5 August 2021 2.Building 1. Located in the northwest corner of the site, this area will consist of a 7- story, mixed-use building with approximately 20,000 square feet of ground floor grocery, approximately 159 units of multi-family housing above, and below grade parking. 3.Building 2. Located in the northeast corner of the site, this area will consist of a 4- story, residential building with approximately 84 units of affordable multi -family housing with below grade parking. 4.Building 3. Located in the south east corner of the site, this area will consist of a 5- story residential building with approximately 160 units of market-rate, multi-family housing with below grade parking. Vehicular access to the development will be from Beltline Blvd on the western side of the development and County State Aid Highway (CSAH ) 25 from the north via new connections at Monterey Drive and Lynn Ave, all of which are being constructed as part of the Southwest LRT project. Pedestrian and bicycle access to the site will be achieved through crosswalks at the Beltline Blvd and CSAH 25 intersection, as well as from the Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail, which runs parallel to the south side of the site. The project will be installing a multi-use trail and sidewalks along CSAH 25 and Beltline Blvd, a mixed - use trail along the backage road from Beltline Blvd, and sidewalks along the new Monterey Dr. connection. As part of the METRO Southwest LRT Extension (also known as Green Line Extension) Beltline Station is being constructed just south of the development, allowing easy light rail access to and from the site. There are several utilities running through the site, including stormwater pipes and a Metropolitan Council force sewer main. Portions of these utilities are expected to be relocated as part of the redevelopment. All other utilities are available to serve the site, unless otherwise noted. In anticipation of development at the site, all existing buildings including one former commercial and one former light industrial building have been demolished. Excavation has also begun on portions of the site due to construction for the Beltline Blvd Station and a multi -use trail bridge being constructed over Beltline Blvd as part of the Southwest LRT project. Construction will be conducted over two phases. Phase 1 is anticipated to begin in 2021 and includes buildings 1, 3, and the parking ramp. Phase 2 includes building 2 and constructed is anticipated to begin by the summer of 2022. c.Project magnitude Table 1: Project Magnitude Measure Magnitude Total Project Acreage 7 Linear Project Length N/A Number and Type of Residential Units 403 multi-family units Commercial Building Area (square feet) 21,800 Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 48 Beltline Station Development 6 August 2021 Measure Magnitude Structure Height(s) Parking ramp: 4 stories Building 1: 7 stories Building 2: 4 stores Building 3: 5 stories d. Explain the project purpose. If the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries. The purpose of this project is to redevelop three existing commercial and industrial parcels into a mixed -use, transit-oriented residential and commercial development. The City of St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (EDA) owns portions of the site and has a preliminary development contract with Sherman Associates to redevelop the site. In 2014, the EDA applied for a federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant for a structured parking ramp to be located immediately north of the Southwest LRT Beltline Blvd Station platform in lieu of a large parking lot. The EDA was subsequently awarded a $6.4 million grant through the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) CMAQ program that is regionally administered by the Metropolitan Council. The EDA and Sherman Associates entered into a Preliminary Development Agreement (PDA) on February 5, 2018 in which the parties pledged to work cooperatively together toward a mutually acceptable mixed-use, mixed income, transit-oriented development plan for the Beltline Blvd Station Site. Sherman Associates then purchased the 4725 Highway 7 property for the future park and ride in February 2019. On October 21, 2019, the EDA approved a Subrecipient Agreement with the Metropolitan Council which specified the terms under which the CMAQ funds would be disbursed to the EDA. On November 2, 2020, the EDA entered into a Cooperative Construction Agreement with the Metropolitan Council under which the EDA committed to constructing a multi -level parking structure on the 4725 Highway 7 property just prior to the start of revenue service. The parking facility would serve the larger mixed -use, transit- oriented development on the site. Those additional stalls would need to be funded locally outside of the CMAQ grant. The parties, including the City of St. Louis Park, Sherman Associates, Metropolitan Council, and Hennepin County have been working collaboratively on a joint development vision for the site. The redevelopment will provide community benefits, including more housing opportunities through mixed income and affordable housing and a grocery store accessible by transit. e. Are future stages of this development, including development on any other property, planned or likely to happen? ☐ Yes ☒ No If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline, and plans for environmental review. Not applicable. f. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? ☐ Yes ☒ No Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 49 Beltline Station Development 7 August 2021 If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline, and past environmental review. Not applicable. 7.Cover Types Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development. Table 2: Cover Types Cover Type Before (Acres) After (Acres) Wetlands 0.26 0.0 Deep Water/Streams 0.0 0.0 Wooded/Forest 1.3 0.0 Lawn/Landscaping 2.5 1.6 Impervious Surface 2.8 5.4 Other (describe) 0.0 0.0 Total 7.0 7.0 8.Permits and Approvals Required List all known local, state, and federal permits, approvals, certifications, and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans, and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing, and infrastructure. All of these final decisions are prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410.3100. Table 3: Permits and Approvals Required Unit of Government Type of Application Status Local Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Stormwater Management Permit To be applied for Erosion Control Permit To be applied for WCA Replacement Plan Approval To be applied for, if needed City of St. Louis Park Comprehensive Plan Amendment To be applied for Preliminary and Final Plat To be applied for Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development To be applied for Right -of-way Vacation To be applied for Building Permits To be applied for Demolition Permits To be applied for Public Right-of-Way permit To be applied for Sewer and Water Permit To be applied for Erosion Control Permit To be applied for Dewatering Permit To be applied for Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 50 Beltline Station Development 8 August 2021 Unit of Government Type of Application Status Regional Metropolitan Council Notification of intent to perform a demolition To be applied for Construction Site Stormwater Permit To be applied for Sewer Connection Permit To be applied for Southwest LRT Project Office Coordination for access modification To be applied for Hennepin County ROW Vacation To be applied for Work in ROW Permits To be applied for Driveway Modification To be applied for State Minnesota Department of Health Notification of Asbestos Related Work To be applied for Water Extension Permit To be applied for Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Notification of intent to perform a demolition To be applied for Construction Site Stormwater Permit To be applied for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit To be applied for 401 Water Quality Certification To be applied for, if needed Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Water Appropriation Permit To be applied for Minnesota Department of Transportation Driveway access permits and utility permits To be applied for Federal US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit To be applied for, if needed 9.Land Use a.Describe: i.Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including parks, trails, and prime or unique farmlands. Existing Land Use The site consists of three previously developed but currently vacant parcels that include paved and gravel parking lots, and existing ROW surrounded by manicured lawn, wooded area, and wetlands. All previous buildings and parking areas have been demolished by the City of St. Louis Park and Southwest LRT construction contractors. The l and use adjacent and nearby is mainly industrial, business park, and high- and low-density residential.1 1 City of St. Louis Park Existing Land Use Map, 2017. Available at: https://www.stlouispark.org/home/showpublisheddocument/15304/637110593130700000#page=4 Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 51 Beltline Station Development 9 August 2021 Parkland and Trails There are no parklands or trails within the project limits; however, the Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail runs parallel to the south side of the site (see Figure 5). Carpenter Park is less than a quarter-mile northwest of the project site and Bass Lake Preserve is 0.3 miles to the southeast (see Figure 6). Prime and Unique Farmlands There are no prime or unique farmlands within the project site as it is located within an urban area. ii.Planned land use as identified in comprehensive plans (if available) and any other applicable plan for land use, water, or resource management by a local, regional, state, or federal agency. According to the City of St. Louis Park 2040 Future Land Use Map (see Figure 5), the planned land use for the site is transit-oriented development and right-of-way. As per the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan, the transit-oriented development land use designation allows a mix of uses including commercial, office, residential, civic, and parks/open space. The uses must be oriented toward the transitway stations along the planned Southwest LRT extension. The goal of this designation is to create pedestrian-scale developments within a ten- minute walk of a transitway station. The focus of the designation is on block sizes, lot sizes, and building forms that create a pedestrian-rich environment, rather than a specific mix of uses. It is expected that residential uses will make up approximately 75 to 85 percent of uses; the remaining 15 to 25 percent will likely be commercial, office, and other similar uses. The net residential density range allowed is 50 to 125 units per acre. The transit-oriented development designation will assist the City to achieve th e Livable Community Principles that are part of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and the goals within Thrive MSP 2040. Thrive MSP 20402 is the Metropolitan Council’s future vision for the region and includes policy plans on transportation, housing, water resources, and regional parks. The City of St. Louis Park is identified as an urban center, which includes the largest, most centrally located, and most economically diverse cities in the region. Urban centers are expected to plan for continued population growth and increased redevelopment densities. iii.Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc. Current Zoning The existing zoning of the site is I-G (General Industrial). The City intends to rezone the property to a planned unit development to accommodate the proposed development, and to bring the sites into conformance with the 2040 Future Land Use transit-oriented development designation. It is anticipated that the planned 2 Thrive MSP 2040. Available at: https://metrocouncil.org/Planning/Publications-And -Resources/Thrive-MSP- 2040-Plan-(1)/ThriveMSP2040.aspx Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 52 Beltline Station Development 10 August 2021 unit development will have a mix of commercial and residential uses with conveni ent multi-modal connections via major roadways and the future Beltline transit station. Overlay Districts The project site is not located within any land use or zoning overlay districts. The project site is not located within a shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic river, critical area, or agricultural preserve. b.Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9a above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects. Existing nearby land uses include transit-oriented development, low to medium density residential, commercial, and light industrial uses. The project proposes transit-oriented, mixed-use residential and commercial uses and focuses accessibility of the site to the nearby future LRT station. This is compatible with the future land use identified in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which allows a mix of uses such as commercial, office, residential, civic, and parks/open space. The proposed project is compatible with and supports existing and future land uses for the area. c.Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential incompatibility as discussed in Item 9b above. Not applicable. 10. Geology, Soils, and Topography/Land Forms a.Geology – Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any susceptible geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst conditions. Discuss any limitations of these features for the project and any effects the project could have on these features. Identify any project designs or mitigation measures to address effects to geologic features. According to the Geologic Atlas of Hennepin County3, the bedrock geology of the project site consists of Platteville Formation and Glenwood Formation (Lake Ordovician). The Platteville Formation is typically between 25 to 30 feet thick and composed of tan to gray limestone and dolostone. The Glenwood Formation, between 3 to 7 feet thick, is a grayish-green to brownish-gray, calcareous, sandy, and phosphatic shale. The surficial geology consists of Pleistocene-age Grantsburg sublobe till deposits, which are typically loam-textured till, ranging from loamy sand to clay. They can be oxidizing gray to yellow-brown in color and are commonly banded with reddish-brown Superior lobe till or sand. There are no known sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst features present within or near project limits. b.Soils and Topography – Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications and descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site 3 Geological Atlas of Hennepin County. Available at: https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/200919 Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 53 Beltline Station Development 11 August 2021 conditions relating to erosion potential, soil stability, or other soil limitations, such as steep slopes or highly permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or grading. Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between construction and operational activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after project construction to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections, or other measures. Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be addressed in response to Item 11.b.ii. According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey4, there are two soil types within the site. Due to the location of the site and the classification of the soil, the soil type is not rated for an erosion hazard rating, meaning that there is not enough information to make a determination regarding soil erodibility. Details on the soil types found within the project limits are included in Table 4. Table 4: Soil Types Within Project Limits Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Erosion Hazard Rating Percent of Project Limits U1A Urban land—Udorthents, wet substratum, complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes Not rated 92.2% U4A Urban land—Udipsamments (cut and fill land) complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes Not rated 7.8% The bedrock topography varies from 826 to 850 feet in elevation across the site. The proposed project would require approximately 47,000 cubic yards of excavation. A NPDES permit is required because the project will disturb more than one acre of land. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared. All unpaved areas disturbed during construction will be revegetated in accordance with the standard NPDES permit requirements. In areas with steep slopes, special consideration will be given to prevent erosion during construction, such as erosion control blankets, along with vegetation establishment to permanently stabilize side slopes and any areas impacted as a result of construction. Note: For silica sand projects, the EAW must include a hydrogeologic investigation assessing the potential groundwater and surface water effects and geologic conditions that could create an increased risk of potentially significant effects on groundwater and surface water. Descriptions of water resources and potential effects from the project in EAW Item 11 must be consistent with the geology, soils, and topography/land forms and potential effects described in EAW Item 10. 11. Water Resources a.Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site below. 4 Web Soil Survey. Available at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 54 Beltline Station Development 12 August 2021 i.Surface Water – lakes , streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial ditches. Include any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake, wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource value water. Include water quality impairments or special designations listed on the current MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List that are within one mile of the project. Include DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any. There is only one surface water, a wetland, located in the project area. Aquatic resources within the construction limits were delineated using a routine Level 2 delineation method.5 A wetland delineation was completed (Kimley-Horn 2019) for all wetland boundaries as shown in Attachment B. There are multiple regulatory agencies with potential regulatory authority in the study area, specifically the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), via Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), via the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA); however, the wetland is not anticipated to be regulated by either. The USACE may not take jurisdiction over the wetland due to its isolated nature and the MCWD may not regulate the wetland due to the history of disturbance on the study area. Final regulatory status will be determined when permit application are prepared. Several of the DNR Public Water Basins within one mile of the project site are on the MPCA’s 303d 2020 Impaired Waters list (see Table 5 and Figure 6)6. Table 5: Impaired Waters within One Mile of the Construction Limits Waterbody Assessment Unit Impaired Cause Bass Lake 27-0015-00 Nutrient/eutrophication biological indicators Cedar Lake 27-0039-00 Mercury in fish tissue Bde Mka Ska 27-0031-00 Mercury in fish tissue; Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) in fish tissue Twin Lakes 27-0656-00 Nutrient/eutrophication biological indicators ii.Groundwater – aquifers, springs, and seeps. Include 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project is within a MDH well protection area; and 3) identification of any onsite and/or nearby wells, including unique numbers and well logs, if available. If there are no wells known on site or nearby, explain the methodology used to determine this. 5 Level 2 delineation methodology outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987) along with the Midwest regional supplement (USACE, 2012). More information available at http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Regulatory-Program-and-Permits/reg_supp/ 6 More information related to impaired waters is available at https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/minnesotas-impaired-waters-list Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 55 Beltline Station Development 13 August 2021 A review of nearby well records via the Minnesota DNR’s Water-Table Elevation and Depth to Water table data (Minnesota Hydrogeology Atlas series HG-03)7, the depth to groundwater varies from 0 to 20 feet across the project site. The project site is within the St. Louis Park Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) and St. Louis Park Wellhead Protection Area (WPA) and adjacent to the Edina DWSMA and Edina WPA (See Figure 7). Based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed by Braun Intertec for the site in 2013, there may be a well on the site. If wells are encountered during construction, they will be sealed in accordance with current Minnesota Department of Health regulations. b.Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or mitigate the effects below. i.Wastewater – For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities, and composition of all sanitary, municipal/domestic, and industrial wastewaters projected or treated at the site. 1)If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water and waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal wastewater infrastructure. Based on the Metropolitan Council’s Sewer Available Charge determination standards for the proposed improvements with the proposed uses (see site plan in Attachment A), the additional wastewater flows are projected to be approximately 114,258 gallons per day (GPD). Wastewater is expected to be equivalent to domestic strength wastewater. In the event a specific user would have wastewater stronger than domestic strength wastewater, a pretreatment facility would be required to be installed. The sanitary sewer service will be provided by the City of St. Louis Park. The existing system currently has the capacity to handle the increase in wastewater generated by this type of development based on coordination and discussions with the Public Works Department. It is connected to Metropolitan Council’s Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant in Saint Paul, MN. Currently, the plant has a maximum capacity of 314 million gallons per day. During the month of April 2021, the plant had an average flow of 168 million gallons per day, which results in an excess capacity of around 146 million gallons per day.8 A sewer line will be stubbed off of the existing sanitary main on-site and provide connections to the proposed additions. The proposed buildings will be connected to this main line. Manholes will be provided every 200 feet to provide access to the main line on the site for serviceability and monitoring. Dual Metropolitan Council sanitary forcemains 7 Available at https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/groundwater_section/mapping/mha/hg03_plate2.pdf 8 Available at: https://metrocouncil.org/Wastewater-Water/Services/Industrial-Waste/IWPP - Pubs/Sewer_Expansion_Appl_Data-pdf.aspx Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 56 Beltline Station Development 14 August 2021 in the northern portion of the Site will need to be relocated to allow for development. All sanitary sewers are located outside the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) required setbacks from a well. No on -site wells have been identified; however, if any wells are encountered, they will be properly sealed per the MDH code prior to construction of the proposed development . 2)If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment system (SSTS), describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for such a system. Not applicable. 3)If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment methods, discharge points, and proposed effluent limitations to mitigation impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges. Not applicable. ii.Stormwater – Describe the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior to and post construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss any environmental effects from stormwater discharges. Describe stormwater pollution prevention plans including temporary and permanent runoff controls and potential BMP site locations to manage or treat stormwater runoff. Identify specific erosion control, sedimentation control, or stabilization measures to address soil limitations during and after project construction. The Regional stormwater treatment and detention BMPs constructed in Carpenter Park (northwest corner of Beltline Boulevard (Ottawa Ave S.) and CSAH 25) were sized to account for the stormwater treatment requirements of this site. Rate control requirements still apply, and thus a combination of above ground stormwater biofiltration gardens, along with underground pipe detention are proposed. Filtration and pipe attenuation will be more desirable on this site as opposed to infiltration due to site contamination as is further described in Response 12a. Development must meet the stormwater management requirements of the City of St. Louis Park and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. A 66” reinforced concrete pipe (RCP ) storm sewer currently transverses the Site flowing from north to south ultimately discharging into Bass Lake. A separate project by the City of St. Louis Park is underway, evaluating improvement and/or relocation of the existing 66” RCP storm sewer. The site development will discharge to said 66” RCP storm sewer, maintaining general existing drainage patterns. iii.Water Appropriation – Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use, Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 57 Beltline Station Development 15 August 2021 and purpose of the water use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required. Describe any well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water supply, identify the wells to be used as a water source and any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal water infrastructure. Discuss environmental effects from water appropriation, including an assessment of the water resources available for appropriation. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water appropriation. Construction dewatering may be required for the redevelopment of the project site. Construction activities related to dewatering will include discharging to temporary stormwater BMPs. Any temporary dewatering will require a DNR Temporary Water Appropriations General Permit 1997-005 if less than 50 million gallons per year and less than one year in duration. It is anticipated that the temporary dewatering would only occur during utility installation and potential construction of building footings. Water appropriation for new wells or an increase in authorized volume is not anticipated for the project as the City’s current system can accommodate the development. No wells have been identified within the project site; therefore, no well abandonment is anticipated. iv.Surface Waters 1)Wetlands – Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland features, such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, and vegetative removal. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of wetlands, including the anticipated effects that any proposed wetland alterations may have to the host watershed. Identify measures to avoid (e.g., available alternatives that were considered), minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to wetlands. Discuss whether any required compensatory wetland mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will occur in the same minor or major watershed, and identify those probable locations. One 0.26-acre wetland, located in the southwest corner of the proposed development, will be impacted by the proposed development. The wetland impact is anticipated to be permanent, resulting from roadway/parking lot fill or building development. The wetland stormwater functions will be replaced as part of the proposed stormwater management. Specifically, runoff from the site will be routed to the regional stormwater treatment and detention BMPs constructed in Carpenter Park (northwest corner of Beltline Boulevard (Ottawa Ave S.) and CSAH 25). If the USACE or MCWD determine the wetland is regulated, w etland impacts will be replaced at a minimum of 2:1 replacement ratio with wetland replacement in accordance with CWA and/or WCA requirements. It is anticipated that wetland bank credits would be used for replacement of the wetland impacts. Mitigation plans would be submitted to MCWD and/or USACE prior to the final acceptance of the project. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 58 Beltline Station Development 16 August 2021 2)Other surface waters – Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to surface water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels, county/judicial ditches) such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, diking, stream diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant removal, and riparian alteration. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of water features. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to surface water features, including in-water Best Management Practices that are proposed to avoid or minimize turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the water features. Discuss how the project will change the number or type of watercraft on any water body, including current and projected watercraft usage. No lakes, streams, or ponds are located within the site. Therefore, no impacts to any surface water features are anticipated. 12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes a.Pre-project Site Conditions – Describe existing contamination or potential environmental hazards on or in close proximity to the project site, such as soil or groundwater contamination, abandoned dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks, and hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Discuss any potential environmental effects from pre-project site conditions that would be caused or exacerbated by project construction and operation. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from existing contamination or potential environmental hazards. Include development of a Contingency Plan or Response Action Plan. There is potential for contamination within the project site. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed by Braun Intertec for the site in 2013. The site has previously been used for a machine shop, manufacturing, and automotive repair purposes since 1946. The past and current operations at the site included processes that have involved the use of heavy metals, organic solvents, hazardous substances and petroleum products. At the time of the ESA, the site was occupied by Vision Bank . This building was demolished in 2020 and the parking lot was removed. Currently, the only significant existing infrastructure within the project site is the CSAH 25 frontage road. The potential environmental hazards identified in the Phase I ESA for the Beltline Station Development project site are as follows: •One approximately 300-gallon diesel fuel aboveground storage tank (AST) used as the fuel source for a back -up generator was located in a concrete block storage building near the southwest corner of the site. The AST appeared to be in good condition and no significant staining was noted beneath or surrounding the AST. Beneath and surrounding the back-up generator that the AST was connected to; however, significant staining was noted. Based on this observation, the significant staining from the back-up generator connected to a diesel fuel AST is considered a recognized environmental condition. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 59 Beltline Station Development 17 August 2021 •Three air compressors were located at the site, two in the basement of the site building and one in the building addition containing the back-up generator. Significant staining was noted on the flooring beneath these compressors. Based on these observations, the staining observed is considered a recognized environmental condition. •Minor dumping of several electronic monitors were observed on the wooded southeast corner of the site. The potential exists that buried materials are present at the site that require management as solid or hazardous waste. •Historical records suggest that the site was in a topographic low and may have been a wetland and/or may have been connected to Bass Lake located south of the site. If fill soils are encountered during redevelopment, which could include demolition debris and other wastes, additional evaluation of the fill soils might be required for management and disposal purposes. •Based on a historical review, a well is or may be located at the site. If the well is no longer planned to be used, we recommend that the well be properly abandoned in accordance with Minnesota Department of Health regulations. The project proposer will conduct a Phase II ESA prior to construction. If any contamination is identified during the pre-demolition survey, an Abatement Plan and Response Action Plan (RAP) will be developed that outlines the safe handling and disposal of the identified contamination and hazardous materials found on the project site. b.Project Related Generation/Storage of Solid Wastes – Describe solid wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from solid waste handling, storage, and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of solid waste including source reduction and recycling. All solid wastes generated by construction of the proposed project would be disposed of properly in a permitted, licensed solid waste facility. Construction of the proposed development will generate construction-related waste materials such as wood, packaging, excess materials, and other wastes, which will either be recycled or disposed of in proper facilities in accordance with state regulations and guidelines. Hazardous waste products are not anticipated to be produced or stored within the proposed development. c.Project Related Use/Storage of Hazardous Materials – Describe chemicals/hazardous materials used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project including method of storage. Indicate the number, location, and size of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum or other materials. Discuss potential environmental effects from accidental spills or releases of hazardous materials. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from the use/storage of chemicals/hazardous materials including source reduction and recycling. Include development of a spill prevention plan. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 60 Beltline Station Development 18 August 2021 No above ground or underground storage tanks have been identified within the project boundary. A fuel tank for an emergency generator is anticipated as part of the proposed development. Any hazardous waste materials used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project will be disposed of in the manner specified by local or state regulation or by the manufacturer. A spill prevention plan will be developed, and proper spill prevention controls will be in place for any vehicle refueling or maintenance that occurs on site during construction. d.Project Related Generation/Storage of Hazardous Wastes – Describe hazardous wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage, and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of hazardous wastes including source reduction and recycling. The previous buildings and associated parking lots have already been removed by the city and the Southwest LRT project. It is not anticipated for there to be unregulated fill that has been previously placed on the site. If it is encountered, an Abatement Plan would be prepared by the contractor to address removal and proper disposal of any regulated materials. The plan would be reviewed by the MPCA prior to demolition. Following abatement and demolition activities, a comprehensive Abatement Closeout Report would be prepared, which would document the removal, management, and disposal of the regulated materials. This report would be submitted to the MPCA for final closeout. Regulated material and/or waste will be managed in accordance with state requirements. No known toxic or hazardous wastes are anticipated to be generated on the site. Toxic or hazardous waste to be stored on the site during construction will include fuel and oil necessary to operate heavy construction equipment and during operations may include commercial cleaning supplies. 13. Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare Features) a.Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or near the site. The majority of the land within the project area has been previously disturbed through construction of roadways and commercial areas. Habitats in the project area include wooded areas, manicured landscaping, and wetlands. Due to fragmented and low-quality urban habitat, the wildlife that inhabit this area are generalist species adapted to highly disturbed urban conditions. These species are generally more tolerant of human presence and activities, including vehicular traffic and urban development, and have demonstrated by their presence that they adapt readily to the human environment. b.Describe rare features such as state-listed (endangered, threatened, or special concern) species, native plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 61 Beltline Station Development 19 August 2021 Biodiversity Significance, and other sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site. Provide the license agreement number (LA-965) and/or correspondence number (ERDB) from which the data were obtained, and attach the Natural Heritage letter from the DNR. Indicate if any additional habitat or species survey work has been conducted within the site and describe results. State-Listed Species A review of the DNR Natural Heritage Inventory System database was conducted per license agreement LA-965 for the area within approximately one mile of the project site. The database includes the known occurrences of any state endangered, threatened, or special concern species. The review identified five species that may be found near this area. The species are listed in Table 6. Table 6: State-Listed Species Within 1-Mile of Project Limits Species Group Status Last Observed Habitat Least Darter Fish Special Concern 2017 Small rivers and streams, littoral zones of lakes Pugnose Shiner Fish Threatened 1941 Small rivers and streams, littoral zones of lakes Rusty-patched Bumble Bee Insect Endangered 1986 Grasslands and tallgrass prairies Late Hawthorn Plant Special Concern 2020 Mesic loamy soil, with Elm, Basswood, Ash, and Sugar Maple trees Edible Valarian Plan Threatened 2020 Calcareous fens, wet meadows, and moist prairies No sites of biodiversity significance exist within one mile of the proposed project site. Federally-Listed Species The rusty patched bumble bee is an endangered species that prefers grassland with flowering plants from April through October, underground and abandoned rodent cavities or clumps of grasses above ground as nesting sites, and undisturbed soil for hibernating queens to overwinter. The project limits are located within in a low potential zone for the rusty patched bumble bee.9 9 Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Map. Available at https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/insects/rpbb/rpbbmap.html . Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 62 Beltline Station Development 20 August 2021 The project area is located within a county containing documented northern long-eared bat hibernacula.10 ; however, is not within ¼ mile of a known hibernacula or within 150 feet of a maternity roost tree. Tree removal is proposed as part of this project on site and will occur outside of the active roosting season (June 1 -July 31st). c.Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features, and ecosystems may be affected by the project. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of invasive species from the project construction and operation. Separately discuss effects to known threatened and endangered species. No impacts to rare features are anticipated. One 0.26-acre wetland, located in the southwest corner of the proposed development, will be impacted by the proposed development and may displace fish, wildlife, and plant communities within or nearby the wetland. Stormwater Stormwater run-off can cause a number of environmental problems. When stormwater drains off a construction site, it can carry sediment and pollutants that harm lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands. Invasive Species Invasive species are plants and animals that are not native to an area and area capable of causing harm. Certain measures can be taken to limit the likelihood of introducing invasive species, such as securing local materials to avoid the long-rang e movement of goods or washing vehicles prior to accessing the project site. Additionally, landscape designs should include native, non-invasive plants. d.Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources. The proposed development includes landscaping, parks, and stormwater retention areas that can provide habitat for wildlife and plant communities that are generally more tolerant of human presence. The landscaped area will include a blend of biodiverse, native, drought-tolerant plant species that could provide pollinator habitat. Invasive Species Invasive species will be controlled on site during construction and proposed landscaping will not include any DNR-identified invasive species. Additionally, best management practices will be followed when relocating construction equipment from other sites. Stormwater During construction of the proposed development, best practices of wildlife friendly erosion control and temporary stormwater management will be implemented. 10 Townships Containing Documented Northern Long-Eared Bat Maternity Roost Trees and/or Hibernacula Entrances in Minnesota. DNR and USFS, April 1, 2019. Available at https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/ereview/minnesota_nleb_township_list_and_map.pdf. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 63 Beltline Station Development 21 August 2021 14. Historic Properties Describe any historic structures, archeological sites, and/or traditional cultural properties on or in close proximity to the site. Include 1) historic designations; 2) known artifact areas; and 3) architectural features. Attach letter received from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Discuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during project construction and operation. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic properties. The Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) database was reviewed to determine whether any known cultural resources have been previously identified within the project area. The SHPO database response noted that there are several resources nearby; however, no known resources have been identified in the project area (see Attachment C). It is not anticipated that archaeological sites will be uncovered during the construction of this project as the project site has been significantly disturbed with previous development activities. However, if cultural materials are encountered during the construction, a qualified Professional Archaeologist will be contacted to assess the discovery and provide guidance. 15. Visual Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Describe any project related visual effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the potential visual effects from the project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects. The proposed development will include three four to seven story residential buildings and one four-story parking garage. The overall all look would be visually similar to the surrounding buildings. There are no scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Views from CSAH 25 and Beltline Blvd would be similar to those experienced currently. No projected related vapor plumes or glare from intense lights are anticipated. No visual impacts have been identified. Due to the multi-family and commercial uses within the development there will be lighting needed for parking lots and pedestrian connections for use outside of daytime hours. These lights will have shields to minimize glare and effects to wildlife and neighboring properties. Lights for the development will be subject to city ordinances and the Planned Unit Development Master Plan review process. 16. Air a.Stationary Source Emissions – Describe the type, sources, quantities, and compositions of any emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any hazardous air pollutants, criteria pollutants, and any greenhouse gases. Discuss effects to air quality including any sensitive receptors, human health, or applicable regulatory criteria. Include a discussion of any methods used to assess the project’s effect on air quality and the results of that assessment. Identify pollution control equipment and other measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from stationary source emissions. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 64 Beltline Station Development 22 August 2021 No stationary source air emissions are anticipated; therefore, no mitigation is required. No significant impacts are anticipated from the typical residential/commercial systems that will provide heating and cooling for the proposed development. b.Vehicle Emissions – Describe the effect of the project’s traffic generation on air emissions. Discuss the project’s vehicle-related emissions effect on air quality. Identify measures (e.g., traffic operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to minimize or mitigate vehicle-related emissions. Typical of most developments, the proposed project will generate air pollution as a result of increased motor vehicle activity. Motor vehicles emit a variety of air pollutants including carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and particulates. The primary pollutant of concern is CO, which is a byproduct of the combustion process of motor vehicles. CO concentrations are generally highest in the vicinity of signalized intersections vehicles are delayed and emitting CO. Generally, concentrations approaching state air quality standards are found within about 100 feet of a roadway source. Further from the road, the CO in the air is dispersed by the wind such that concentrations rapidly decrease. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has developed a screening method designed to identify intersections that will cause a CO impact above state standards. MnDOT has demonstrated that even the 10 highest traffic volume intersections in the Twin Cities do not experience CO impacts. Therefore, intersections with traffic volumes lower than these 10 highest intersections will not cause a CO impact above state standards. MnDOT’s screening method demonstrates that intersections with total daily approaching traffic volumes below 82,300 vehicles per day will not have the potential for causing CO air pollution problems. None of the intersections in the study area exceed the criteria that would lead to a violation of the air quality standards. c.Dust and Odors – Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of dust and odors generated during project construction and operation. (Fugitive dust may be discussed under Item 16a). Discuss the effect of dust and odors in the vicinity of the project including nearby sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of dust and odors. The construction and occupancy of the proposed project is not expected to generate objectionable odors. The project will generate temporary fugitive dust emissions during construction. These emissions will be controlled by sweeping, watering, or sprinkling, as appropriate or as prevailing weather and soil conditions dictate. Dust emissions are not anticipated during occupancy as all ground surfaces will either be impervious or vegetated. During construction, contractors will follow best management practices to reduce dust emissions. Once occupied, the project is not expected to generate fugitive dust emissions. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 65 Beltline Station Development 23 August 2021 17. Noise Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated during project construction and operation. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the project including 1) existing noise levels/sources in the area; 2) nearby sensitive receptors; 3) conformance to state noise standards; and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of noise. Existing Noise The project site is located in an urban area surrounded by city and county roads. Existing noise at the site is largely emitted from the surrounding roadways. Nearby sensitive receptors include the residential areas to the north, Carpenter Park to the northwest, and businesses to the south. Construction Noise The St. Louis Park City Code regulates both the hour of operation for construction equipment and allowable noise levels. Construction of the project will adhere to requirements identified in the St. Louis Park City Code, Chapter 12-124, which states, “No person shall engage in, permit, or allow construction activities involving the use of power equipment, manual tools, movement of equipment, or other activities except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays.” A permit will be obtained from the City for work outside these hours as applicable. Operational Noise The St. Louis Park City Code and MPCA regulate mechanical noise associated with building operation. The occupancy of the proposed project will comply with these requirements and will not reduce the quality of life to the surrounding neighbors. Building design will incorporate noise reduction technologies in interior spaces as a result of existing local traffic. 18. Transportation a.Describe traffic-related aspects of project construction and operation. Include 1) existing and proposed additional parking spaces; 2) estimated total average daily traffic generated; 3) estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence; 4) source of trip generation rates used in the estimates; and 5) availability of transit and/or other alternative transportation modes. Parking The site is currently vacant. Redevelopment will include the construction of a parking structure, parking within each building, and surface parking: •Parking Structure: 560 stalls, that includes 268 stalls for park and ride purposes •Building 1 – Level P1: 83 stalls •Building 2 – Level P1: 65 stalls Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 66 Beltline Station Development 24 August 2021 •Building 3 – Level P1: 97 stalls •Surface parking: 107 stalls •Total: 912 stalls Existing Traffic Volumes The existing roadway network near the site includes Beltline Blvd, CSAH 25, Lynn Avenue, and the South Service/Frontage Road. The roadway network is described below. •Beltline Blvd is classified as a Proposed Major Collector per the City of St. Louis Park Comprehensive Plan. The 2018 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) is 10,500 vehicles per day. The posted speed limit is 30 miles per hour (mph). However, per the City’s recommended speed limit map, Beltline Blvd is anticipated to have a posted speed limit of 25 mph. An improvement project is being completed in 2021 on Beltline Boulevard south of Park Glen Road to convert the roadway from a 4-lane section to a 3-lane section with on street bike lanes. •CSAH 25 is a Hennepin County road and is classified as a Minor Augmenter. The 2018 daily volume on CSAH 25 at Lynn Avenue is 18,200 vehicles per day and the posted speed limit is 45 mph. •Lynn Avenue is a local city street and does not have a published AADT volume. A 13-hour traffic count conducted at the Lynn Avenue/ South Frontage Road intersection in September 2019 was used to estimate a total daily volume of approximately 350 vehicles per day. There is no posted speed limit on Lynn Avenue. •Park Glen Road is a two-lane undivided roadway that serves as an access road for commercial and residential developments on the east and west sides of Beltline Boulevard. Park Glen Road is designated as a city street in the City of St. Louis Park’s Comprehensive Plan. Per the City’s recommended speed limit map, Park Glen Road is anticipated to have a speed limit of 20 mph. AADT volumes on Park Glen Road are not available. Traffic Generation An updated traffic analysis was conducted in June 2021 for the proposed project. The study utilized data collected in 2019 as part of the original traffic analysis (see Attachment D for full report). Anticipated trip generation estimates were calculated using information within the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Standard ITE trip rates were used to develop the gross new trips generated by the site. Reductions were applied to the trips generated to account for internal capture of the mixed-use development as well as pass-by trips from the adjacent roadways. The trip generation was based on the following uses: •Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) (ITE code 221) (403 total units) •Supermarket (ITE code 850) (analyzed as 32,000 square feet) •Coffee/Donut Shop without Drive-Thru (ITE code 936) (1,800 square feet) Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 67 Beltline Station Development 25 August 2021 Based on the proximity to the Beltline Blvd LRT station, a mode split of 15% transit was assumed for the residential land use and 10% transit was used for the commercial land uses. The trip generation for both scenarios is shown in Table 8. Table 7: Vehicle Trip Generation Summary Land Use Description Trip Generation Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Multifamily Housing 2,195 145 180 Supermarket 3,420 125 295 Coffee/Donut Shop 645 185 65 Total Site Trips 6,260 455 540 Internal Site Capture -760 0 -120 Multimodal Reduction -735 -50 -50 Pass-by Reduction 0 0 -90 Total External Trips 4,765 405 280 Availability of Transit Transit service is currently available near the project area and will be expanded in the near future. There is one bus route within the study area, and the METRO Green Line Beltline Boulevard Station is currently under construction and is anticipated to open in 2024. Route 17F is a local bus route from St. Louis Park to Downtown Minneapolis with major stops along Minnetonka Boulevard, Lake Street, and Hennepin Avenue. The 17F is a spur route of Route 17 and is currently not running due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is assumed that the route will resume service in the future. The connecting bus service at the Beltline Boulevard Station to support the METRO Green Line will be determined by Metro Transit prior to opening days of the LRT service. METRO Green Line Extension will operate from downtown Minneapolis to Eden Prairie. The Beltline Station will be located on the east side of Beltline Boulevard immediately south of the proposed development. Based on the proximity to this station, it is anticipated that the METRO Green Line will be the most likely alternate mode of transportation for site trips. b.Discuss the effect on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project’s impact on the regional transportation system. If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total daily trips exceeds 2,500, a traffic impact study must be prepared as part of the EAW. Us e the format and procedures described in the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Access Management Manual, Chapter 5 (available at: Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 68 Beltline Station Development 26 August 2021 http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagement/resources.html) or a similar local guidance. Traffic Impact Analysis The traffic analysis evaluated intersection capacity for the following intersections: •CSAH 25 and Beltline Blvd/Ottawa Ave S •CSAH 25 and Lynn Ave •CSAH 25 and Monterey Ave (future intersection) •Beltline Blvd and CSAH 25 South Service Rd •Beltline Blvd and Park Glen Rd •Beltline Blvd and backage road (future intersection) The capacity analysis was performed to determine the delay and level of service (LOS) for the study intersections for the Opening Year (2024) conditions. The future year analysis scenarios include: Opening Year (2024) No-Build Conditions – Th e no -build traffic volumes are the anticipated future traffic volumes with area growth taken into consideration and the inclusion of the planned Beltline Station park-and-ride. In this scenario, access would be provided to the proposed site based on the improvements described above. Opening Year (2024) Scenario 1 Build Conditions – The Scenario 1 Build traffic volumes would be the anticipated traffic from the proposed development in addition to the no-build traffic volumes. Access to the site would remain the same as Opening Year (2024) No-Build Conditions. Opening Year (2024) Scenario 2 Build Conditions – The Scenario 2 Build traffic volumes would be the anticipated traffic from the proposed development in addition to the no-build traffic volumes. The development project is proposing site access modifications in order to make the retail component of the site viable. These changes would better facilitate access into and out of the site and include: •Convert the right-in only access on Beltline Boulevard that connects to the backage road to a ¾ access and shift the intersection further to the north. This would add left-in access from southbound Beltline Boulevard to the backage road and right-out access from the backage road to northbound Beltline Boulevard. The proposed ¾ access is located to still provide a minimum 60-foot median between the railroad crossing and the access, which meets the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) requirements for the proposed quiet zone. •Add right-out access from Monterey Avenue to eastbound CSAH 25 to convert the CSAH 25 and Monterey Avenue intersection to a right-in/right-out intersection. The location of the access would remain the same as the Opening Year (2024) No-Build scenario The analysis found that multiple movements at the intersections near the redevelopment site experience failing levels of service under the Opening Year (2024) No-Build conditions. In the Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 69 Beltline Station Development 27 August 2021 Build (2024) conditions, in general, the same movements are anticipated to have LOS E/F operations under Opening Year (2024) Scenario 2 Build Conditions compared to Opening Year (2024) Scenario 1 Build Conditions. The only additional movement that is expected to operate at LOS E under Opening Year (2024) Scenario 2 Build Conditions is the eastbound left-turn movement at CSAH 25 and Beltline Boulevard/Ottawa Avenue S in the AM peak hour. The overall increase in delay compared to Opening Year (2024) Scenario 1 Build Conditions is only approximately two seconds and this movement is not directly affected by development traffic. Additional sensitivity modeling scenarios showed that the distribution of site traffic away from Beltline Blvd and a new traffic signal at Beltline Blvd and Park Glen Rd would both result in improved intersection LOS and less queuing in the study area. c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects. The analysis for all scenarios shows LOS E vehicular operations at several study intersections, but the proposed site is in a prime location to encourage users to access the site via other modes of transportation. The changes to the accesses analyzed in Scenario 2 are necessary to be able to lease space, attract tenants and customers, and make this transit-oriented development a success. These improvements are not necessarily a product of poor operations, but viability of the site. These improvements are: • Modify the access at Beltline Blvd/backage road to allow left-in and right-out movements. This access is already planned to be constructed as a left-in as part of the Southwest LRT project. As part of the Beltline Station development, the access would be modified to construct a right-out. • Modify the access at CSAH 25/Monterey Ave to allow right-in and right-out movements. This access is already planned to be constructed as a right-in as part of the Southwest LRT project. As part of the Beltline Station development, the access would be modified to construction a right-out. Based on the results of the Opening Year (2024) No-Build and Build analyses, several improvements should be considered as traffic volumes increase within the study area. As traffic volumes on Beltline Boulevard grow, it will become increasingly difficult for vehicles on Park Glen Road to turn onto Beltline Boulevard. A traffic signal may be required to provide gaps for vehicles on Park Glen Road. However, the analysis shows that the proposed Beltline Station Development will not trigger the need for the traffic signal. Based on conversations with the City of St. Louis Park, there are not currently plans to install a traffic signal at the intersection, but it is expected to be installed when the vacant parcel on the northeast side of the intersection is developed. The City is also exploring options to fund the signal prior to the redevelopment of the parcel. With the anticipated northbound queues on Beltline Boulevard, there is the potential for northbound vehicles to block the southbound left turning traffic at the ¾ access. It is recommended to install additional signage for northbound Beltline Boulevard to not block Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 70 Beltline Station Development 28 August 2021 the intersection. The queue cutter signal for the SWLRT should also help provide gaps in northbound traffic The CSAH 25/Monterey Avenue Right-in/Right-out is not anticipated to be a desirable movement for vehicles destined to the west on CSAH 25. However, signage should be provided on site to direct traffic to either the right out onto Beltline Boulevard or the signal at CSAH 25 and Lynn Avenue. There should also be prohibited U-turn signage on the eastbound approach of CSAH 25 at Lynn Avenue. The median at CSAH 25 and Lynn Avenue could also be redesigned with a minimal radius on the eastbound approach to discourage U-Turns. Any changes to the median will need to be verified so that they do not impact other turning movements. 19. Cumulative Potential Effects Note: Preparers can leave this item blank if cumulative potential effects are addressed under the applicable EAW Items. a.Describe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental effects that could combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative potential effects. Cumulative effects are defined as the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or persons undertakes such actions. The geographic areas considered for cumulative effects are those areas adjacent to the project site, and the timeframe considered includes projects that would be constructed in the reasonably foreseeable future. Adjacent projects include the METRO Southwest LRT Extension. This LRT extension will run parallel to the south side of the site. It will also include the construction of Beltline Station at the intersection of Beltline Blvd and the Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail . This project is currently under construction and a portion of the proposed project site is currently being used as a staging area for the Southwest LRT extension. A new trail bridge for Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail will be constructed over the LRT and freight rail tracks. Construction on the bridge is currently ongoing. Redevelopment opportunities exist both close to this site and in the broader vicinity even though the area is a built-out urban environment. The proposed development will implement plans and policies adopted by the City of St. Louis Park. The proposed project is not expected to have any adverse impacts. Due to the proposed urban characteristics and for the somewhat restricted opportunities for new development in this area, no cumulative potential impacts of this development are anticipated. b.Describe any reasonably foreseeable future projects (for which a basis of expectation has been laid) that may interact with environmental effects of the proposed project within the geographic scales and timeframes identified above. Parkway Residences Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 71 Beltline Station Development 29 August 2021 Parkway Residences located northeast of the proposed project site along West 31st Street near Glenhurst Avenue S and CSAH 25 started development in Spring of 2020. The project includes construction of four new multifamily buildings, the rehabilitation of three existing apartment buildings, and the demolition of 12 existing buildings. Environmental effects of this project will be similar to those experienced during the Beltline development. Beltline LRT Station The planned Beltline Blvd Station will be located at the intersection of Beltline Blvd and Hwy 25, adjacent to the project site. It will include a passenger drop-off area, and bus stop. A Metropolitan Council LRT park and ride ramp is being constructed as part of the proposed development. A new trail bridge is being constructed over the LRT and freight rail tracks and Beltline Blvd. Currently, the northwest corner of the Beltline Development site is being used as a staging area for this project. Construction is expected to be complete in 2023. Environmental impacts of this project will be similar to those experienced during the Beltline development. Extra Space Storage The Extra Space Storage building located west of the project site has received approvals for a 45,000 square foot addition. Construction started summer 2020. c.Discuss the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to these cumulative effects. There are no other major development projects that have been identified within the project area. No cumulative potential impacts of this development are anticipated. 20. Other Potential Environmental Effects If the project may cause any additional environmental effects not addressed by Items 1 to 19, describ e the effects here, discuss the how the environment will be affected, and identify measures that will be taken to minimize and mitigate these effects. The proposed development is a transit -oriented development adjacent to a METRO Green Line Extension light rail station. The Beltline Station development will complement the transit functions in and around the site and will transform the site and will emphasize a neighborhood scale of connected streets, with traffic calming measures and pedestrian features, that will significantly improve the aesthetic of the area. Energy efficiency with performance functionality will be aggressively deployed to achieve sustainable conservation and ongoing reduction of the project’s carbon footprint. Furthermore, the project proposer has development solar arrays in the metro area to provide renewable energy to reduce the carbon footprint of new development. The project will contribute to the urban tree canopy and provide multi -modal connections, which is consistent with relevant policies identified in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 72 Beltline Station Development 30 August 2021 RGU Certification The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental Assessment Worksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor. I hereby certify that: •The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. •The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages, or components other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected actions or phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9c and 60, respectively, •Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list. Signature Date Title Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 73 Beltline Station Development 31 August 2021 Figures Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 74 Beltline Station Development 32 August 2021 Figure 1: Site Map Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 75 Beltline Station Development 33 August 2021 Figure 2: County Map Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 76 Beltline Station Development 34 August 2021 Figure 3: USGS Map Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 77 Beltline Station Development 35 August 2021 Figure 4: Existing Zoning Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 78 Beltline Station Development 36 August 2021 Figure 5: Future Land Use Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 79 Beltline Station Development 37 August 2021 Figure 6: Water Resources Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 80 Beltline Station Development 38 August 2021 Figure 7: Wellhead Protection, Drinking Water Supply Management Area, and Wells Sites Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 81 Beltline Station Development Attachment A Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 82 LOADING 1,643 SF RAMP DN. 6.5% PUBLIC PARKING LVL 1 (79 STALLS) RAMP UP 6.5% 18 20 18 9 14 10 RAMP DN. RAMP DN. 13 LEASING AMENITY AMENITY AMENITY LOBBY/ LEASING LOBBY/ LEASING POCKET PARK DOG RUN PLAYGROUND 11 15 15 13 AMENITYLOBBY PEDESTRIAN PATH CANOPY STORM RETENTION 24 6 SCREENING WATER RETENTION GARDEN MONTEREY AVE.BELTLINE BLVD.BUILDING 3 5-STORY MARKET RATE 160 UNITS GROCERY 19,508 SF 7-STORY MIXED USE 159 UNITS BUILDING 2 4-STORY AFFORDABLE 84 UNITS H IG H W A Y 2 5 B E L T L IN E S T A T IO N BUILDING 1 PARKING RAMP 5' - 0" 6' - 0" 6' - 0"3' - 0"5' - 0"6' - 0"6' - 0"RETAIL 1,800 SF ENTRY ENTRY OPPORTUNITY FOR ADDITIONAL EXTERIOR ENTRIES PUBLIC SEATING N SITE PLAN 2146.02BELTLINE BLVD.05/27/2021 Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 83 21 ONE WAY12 7 7 6 (9 0 D E G .) S T A L L S 7 (4 5 D E G .) S T A L L S 14' - 0" ELEC MECH. 5 26 12 WATER AREA WELL 478 SF MAINTENANCE 16' - 0"424 SF TRASH N BUILDING 1 - LEVEL P1 2146.02BELTLINE BLVD.05/27/21 0'15'30'60'90' Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 84 10 11 15 13 LOADING 1643 SF POCKET PARK DOG RUN 24 6 721 SF 1BD 721 SF 1BD 1056 SF 2BD 720 SF 1BD 794 SF LOBBY 466 SF MAIL 720 SF CO-WORKING 1395 SF FITNESS 550 SF STUDIO 720 SF 1BD 457 SF GROUP FITNESS 386 SF DOG SPA 301 SF WORKROOM 186 SF OFFICE 160 SF OFFICE 610 SF BIKE ROOM 406 SF MAKER SPACE 253 SF PACKAGE 19508 SF GROCERY LINE OF CANOPY ABOVE STAIR FROM ABOVE 140 SF VESTIBULE 15 LINE OF HOUSING ABOVE N BUILDING 1 - LEVEL 1 2146.02BELTLINE BLVD. 05/27/21 0'15'30'60'90' Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 85 OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO BELOW720 SF 1BD 720 SF 1BD 720 SF 1BD 1056 SF 2BD 720 SF 1BD 550 SF STUDIO 720 SF 1BD 1045 SF 2BD 651 SF ALCOVE 720 SF 1BD 549 SF STUDIO N BUILDING 1 - LEVEL 2 2146.02BELTLINE BLVD. 05/27/21 0'15'30'60'90' Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 86 POOL ROOF DECK 2,138 SF 1052 SF 2BD 1061 SF 2BD 1050 SF 2BD 1091 SF 2BD 720 SF 1BD 720 SF 1BD 1094 SF 2BD 725 SF 1BD 651 SF ALCOVE 720 SF 1BD 720 SF 1BD 720 SF 1BD 720 SF 1BD 1066 SF 2BD 1046 SF 2BD 721 SF 1BD 1051 SF 2BD 720 SF 1BD 1056 SF 2BD 720 SF 1BD 651 SF SIMULATOR ROOM 983 SF 1BD + 1045 SF CLUBROOM 550 SF STUDIO 504 SF GAME ROOM 86 SF M 85 SF W 910 SF 1BD + 552 SF STUDIO 720 SF 1BD 549 SF STUDIO 16' - 0"34' - 0" N BUILDING 1 - LEVEL 3 2146.02BELTLINE BLVD. 05/27/21 0'15'30'60'90' Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 87 1052 SF 2BD 1061 SF 2BD 1050 SF 2BD 1091 SF 2BD 720 SF 1BD 720 SF 1BD 1094 SF 2BD 725 SF 1BD 651 SF ALCOVE 720 SF 1BD 720 SF 1BD 720 SF 1BD 720 SF 1BD 1066 SF 2BD 1046 SF 2BD 721 SF 1BD 1051 SF 2BD 720 SF 1BD 1056 SF 2BD 720 SF 1BD 983 SF 1BD + 550 SF STUDIO 910 SF 1BD + 552 SF STUDIO 720 SF 1BD 549 SF STUDIO 720 SF 1BD 1045 SF 2BD 651 SF ALCOVE N BUILDING 1 - LEVEL 4-7 2146.02BELTLINE BLVD. 05/27/21 0'15'30'60'90' Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 88 RAMP DN. 12 9 6 5 P A R K IN G S T A L L S TRANSFORMER WATER TRASH MECH. MECH. WATER ELEC 19 10 6 8 AREA WELL AREA WELL LOBBY 22' - 0" 2 4 ' - 0 "24' - 0"I NTAKEEXHAUST 405 SF MAINTENANCE N BUILDING 2 - LEVEL P1 2146.02BELTLINE BLVD.05/27/21 0'15'30'60'90' Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 89 1258 SF 3BD 1259 SF 3BD 805 SF 1BD1226 SF 3BD 995 SF 2BD 995 SF 2BD 995 SF 2BD 805 SF 1BD 995 SF 2BD 808 SF 1BD 995 SF 2BD 995 SF 2BD 1069 SF 2BD 1057 SF 2BD 805 SF 1BD 995 SF 2BD 1260 SF 3BD 13 POCKET PARK DOG RUN PLAYGROUND AMENITY 506 SF LOBBY 995 SF FITNESS 990 SF 2BD 397 SF PET SPA 182 SF PACKAGE 273 SF MAIL 210 SF WORKROOM172 SF OFFICE 108 SF OFFICE 160 SF OFFICE 100 SF VESTIBULE 1121 SF CLUBROOM 72 SF M 72 SF W N BUILDING 2 - LEVEL 1 2146.02BELTLINE BLVD. 05/27/21 0'15'30'60'90' Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 90 1258 SF 3BD 1259 SF 3BD 1226 SF 3BD 1258 SF 3BD 1259 SF 3BD 995 SF 2BD 995 SF 2BD 995 SF 2BD 805 SF 1BD 995 SF 2BD 990 SF 2BD 808 SF 1BD 1058 SF 2BD 995 SF 2BD 805 SF 1BD 995 SF 2BD 1058 SF 2BD 1070 SF 2BD 995 SF 2BD 1260 SF 3BD 1057 SF 2BD 805 SF 1BD N BUILDING 2 - LEVEL 2 2146.02BELTLINE BLVD. 05/27/21 0'15'30'60'90' Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 91 1258 SF 3BD 1259 SF 3BD 1226 SF 3BD 1258 SF 3BD 1259 SF 3BD 995 SF 2BD 995 SF 2BD 995 SF 2BD 805 SF 1BD 995 SF 2BD 990 SF 2BD 808 SF 1BD 1094 SF 2BD 995 SF 2BD 805 SF 1BD 995 SF 2BD 1094 SF 2BD 1070 SF 2BD 995 SF 2BD 1260 SF 3BD 1057 SF 2BD 805 SF 1BD N BUILDING 2 - LEVEL 3-4 2146.02BELTLINE BLVD. 05/27/21 0'15'30'60'90' Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 92 RAMP DN. 2 6 9 7 P A R K IN G S T A L L S 20 11 6 4 TRANSFORMER TR. ELEC MECH WATER C C INTAKE MECH. AREA WELL AREA WELL LOBBY 24' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 0" EXHAUST EXHAUST 1 2 1 5 C C C LOBBY C MEP C T T T T 630 SF MAINTENANCE N BUILDING 3 - LEVEL P1 2146.02BELTLINE BLVD.05/27/21 0'15'30'60'90' Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 93 578 SF STUDIO 13 24 6 1050 SF 2BD 720 SF 1BD 550 SF STUDIO 622 SF LOBBY 312 SF MAIL 1053 SF 2BD 720 SF 1BD 578 SF STUDIO 238 SF PACAKGE 450 SF GROUP FITNESS 1143 SF FITNESS 1000 SF CLUBROOM 400 SF MAKER SPACE 90 SF M 90 SF W 154 SF OFFICE 154 SF OFFICE 140 SF WORKROOM 90 SF VESTIBULE 1079 SF 2BD 1076 SF 2BD 720 SF 1BD 1048 SF 2BD 1048 SF 2BD 720 SF 1BD 720 SF 1BD 1050 SF 2BD 720 SF 1BD 649 SF ALCOVE 901 SF 1BD + 910 SF 1BD + 649 SF ALCOVE 550 SF STUDIO 1048 SF 2BD 720 SF 1BD 702 SF 1BD 910 SF 1BD + 720 SF 1BD 720 SF 1BD 550 SF GAME ROOM 250 SF SPA / SAUNA 145 SF SHOWERS N BUILDING 3 - LEVEL 1 2146.02BELTLINE BLVD.05/27/21 0'15'30'60'90' Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 94 OPEN TO BELOW 525 SF SIMULATOR 759 SF 1BD 550 SF STUDIO 720 SF 1BD 1079 SF 2BD 1076 SF 2BD 720 SF 1BD 1048 SF 2BD 1048 SF 2BD 720 SF 1BD 720 SF 1BD 720 SF 1BD 720 SF 1BD 1050 SF 2BD 1050 SF 2BD 720 SF 1BD 649 SF ALCOVE 901 SF 1BD + 720 SF 1BD 910 SF 1BD + 1053 SF 2BD 649 SF ALCOVE 550 SF STUDIO 1048 SF 2BD 720 SF 1BD 550 SF STUDIO 702 SF 1BD 910 SF 1BD + 720 SF 1BD 720 SF 1BD 703 SF 1BD 702 SF 1BD 1053 SF 2BD 660 SF CO-WORKING N BUILDING 3 - LEVEL 2 2146.02BELTLINE BLVD. 05/27/21 0'15'30'60'90' Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 95 1050 SF 2BD 1050 SF 2BD 1078 SF 2BD 1076 SF 2BD 720 SF 1BD 1048 SF 2BD 1048 SF 2BD 720 SF 1BD 720 SF 1BD 720 SF 1BD 720 SF 1BD 1050 SF 2BD 1050 SF 2BD 703 SF 1BD 702 SF 1BD 720 SF 1BD 649 SF ALCOVE 901 SF 1BD + 720 SF 1BD 910 SF 1BD + 550 SF STUDIO 720 SF 1BD 1053 SF 2BD 759 SF 1BD 1053 SF 2BD 649 SF ALCOVE 5 0 ' - 0 " 550 SF STUDIO 1048 SF 2BD 720 SF 1BD 550 SF STUDIO 702 SF 1BD 910 SF 1BD + 720 SF 1BD 720 SF 1BD N BUILDING 3 - LEVEL 3-4 2146.02BELTLINE BLVD. 05/27/21 0'15'30'60'90' Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 96 1079 SF 2BD 1076 SF 2BD 720 SF 1BD 1048 SF 2BD 1048 SF 2BD 720 SF 1BD 720 SF 1BD 720 SF 1BD 720 SF 1BD 1050 SF 2BD 1050 SF 2BD 720 SF 1BD 649 SF ALCOVE 901 SF 1BD + 720 SF 1BD 910 SF 1BD + 550 SF STUDIO 720 SF 1BD 550 SF STUDIO 702 SF 1BD 910 SF 1BD + 720 SF 1BD 720 SF 1BD 703 SF 1BD 702 SF 1BD 649 SF ALCOVE 1048 SF 2BD 1050 SF 2BD 1050 SF 2BD 550 SF ROOFTOP KITCHEN 720 SF 1BD 759 SF 1BD 1053 SF 2BD 1053 SF 2BD N BUILDING 3 - LEVEL 5 2146.02BELTLINE BLVD. 05/27/21 0'15'30'60'90' Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 97 Beltline Station Development Attachment B Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 98 Wetland Delineation Report Beltline Station Development City of Saint Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota Prepared for: Sherman Associates Development, LLC 233 Park Ave South, Suite 201 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Assoc iates, Inc. 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100 Saint Paul, MN 55114 October 2019 Final Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 99 Beltline Station Development | W etland Delineation Report September 2019 | i Sherman Associates Development, LLC Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... i 1 Site Location ....................................................................................................................... 1 2 Project Description ............................................................................................................... 1 3 Purpose of the Delineation..................................................................................................... 1 4 Site Description ................................................................................................................... 1 5 Preliminary Investigation ....................................................................................................... 1 6 Field Investigation ................................................................................................................ 2 7 W etland, Tributary, and Upland Characteristics......................................................................... 2 8 Regulatory Requirements ...................................................................................................... 2 9 Report Preparation ............................................................................................................... 3 References ............................................................................................................................... 4 Appendic es Appendix A: National Wetlands Inventory, DNR Public Waters Inventory, and LiDAR Appendix B: Hydric Soils Information Appendix C: Precipitation Data Appendix D: Field Data Sheets Appendix E: Site Photos Executive Summary W etland scientist Aaron Stolte (CWD #1297 with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc . conducted a wetland investigation and field delineation for the Beltline Station Development Project located in the City of Saint Louis Park, Hennepin County , Minnesota. The wetland investigation and delineation occurred on September 4, 2019. The study area, shown in Fi gure 1, included approximately 6 acres in the southeast corner of County State Aid Highway 25 and Beltline Boulevard in Saint Louis Park, MN. In total, one wetland was delineated. The wetland is a Type 1 - Forested Basin located in the southwest corner of the study area. The wetland is mapped on the NWI which extends out farther than the delineated area. The wetland is not mapped as having hydric soils, but the contours depict a low area in the general vicinity of the delineated wetland. The wetland boundary was placed based on change in elevation and hydrology indicators. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 100 Beltline Station Development | W etland Delineation Report September 2019 | 1 Sherman Associates Development, LLC 1 Site Location The study area, shown in Figure 1, included approximately 6 acres in the southeast corner of County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 25 and Beltline Boulevard in Saint Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 2 Project Description Sherman Associates Development, LLC is proposing to redevelop a 6-acre site at the existing Beltline Blvd and CSAH 25 intersection in St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota . The proposed mixed-use redevelopment is anticipated to consist of four new buildings with vehicular access to the development from either Beltline Blvd or Minnesota 7 Service Rd. 3 Purpose of the Delineation The purpose of this delineation was to identify the extent of wetlands and other aquatic resources within the study area. The information will be used to facilitate project design and determine if wetland impacts are avoidable and/or if minimization of impacts can result from design modifications. 4 Site Description The study area consists of a vacant building site and a small wooded area. Land use on the site is commercial and industrial, with the proposed redevelopment being a mix of residential, commercial, and transit-oriented uses. Cover types within the study area generally consisted of wooded/forested areas with manicured and unmanicured vegetation. 5 Preliminary Investigation Prior to field reconnaissance, potential wetland areas within the project study areas were identified through a desktop review of National W etlands Inventory (NWI), aerial photography (2019), DNR Public W aters Inventory (PWI), LiDAR, and the soil survey for Hennepin County . NWI mapping, available from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, identified one wetland within the project study area. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Public Waters Inven tory (PWI) shapefiles (2017) were reviewed and no DNR Public Watercourses were identified. The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) was reviewed and no NHD flow lines were identified. LiDAR data was reviewed and shows NWI located in a depression. Maps showing NWI and LiDAR are shown in Appendix A. According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, no soil mapping units with the project study areas were considered hydric or partially hydric. M aps and information obtained from the NRCS online web survey are included in Appendix B. The project area is located in Sections 6 of Township 28N, Range 24W . This is depicted on the Hennepin County Minnesota 7.5 minute topographical map (USGS) (see Figure 2). Precipitation data for the project study area was obtained from an online data retrieval system. The online system is maintained by the Climatology Working Group at the University of Minnesota (available at http://climateapps.dnr.state.mn.us/gridded_data/precip/wetland/wetland.asp ). This information was us ed to determine the current hydrologic conditions for the project area and if those conditions are typical for Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 101 Beltline Station Development | W etland Delineation Report September 2019 | 2 Sherman Associates Development, LLC this time of year. Precipitation levels for the three months (June, July, and August ) leading up to the field review on September 4 were compared to historical data. The data shows that June had drier than normal and July and August had wetter than normal precipitation level s, which constitutes wetter than normal precipitation levels for the site visit . This information is included in Appendix C. 6 Field Investigation A routine level 2 (onsite) wetland delineation, as outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987) along with the Midwest regional supplement (August 2010) was performed for the project study areas . During the onsite delineation, vegetation, soils, and current hydrologic characteristics were evaluated at within the study area. Wetland boundaries were flagged with wetland flags where one or more of the three criteria were no longer present. The sample point locations and wetland boundary was surveyed with a Trimble GPS and are shown in Figure 3. A transect was completed for all delineated wetlands. The field data sheets are included in Appendix D. Site photos can be found in Appendix E. 7 W etland, Tributary, and Upland Characteristics The field delineation identified 1 wetland within the project study area. This area is described below. Wetland 1 is a Type 1 — Forested Basin located in the southwest corner of the study area, 0.26 acres in size. The wetland did not have mapped hydric soils according to the Hennepin County Soil Survey; however, was depicted on the NWI. The wetland was dominated by cottonwood, common buckthorn, and boxelder. One transect was completed along the northern edge of the wetland. The wetland boundary was based on a change in topography and presence of primary hydrology indicators, in addition to hydric soil. The wetland appears to be an isolated depression with no outlet. 8 Regulatory Requirements A summary of the permit requirements that may pertain to the project is p rovided below. Any activity planned within areas identified as wetland must be coordinated with and approved by the appropriate agencies prior to commencement of such activities. Agencies in Minnesota that regulate activities that affect lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands include: ◼US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) ◼Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ◼Local Governmental Units (LGUs) ◼Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) The LGU for this project is the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District . The WCA applies to nearly all wetland not regulated by the DNR. The one wetland delineated within the study area is not a Minnesota DNR Public Water. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 102 Beltline Station Development | W etland Delineation Report September 2019 | 3 Sherman Associates Development, LLC The regularity authority of the USACE covers Waters of the United States, including those that are regulated by the DNR or subject to WCA. Generally, the USACE reviewed delineations to determine whether wetlands are jurisdict ional (i.e., Waters of the United States. In Minnesota, a joint application process has been developed for projects with anticipated wetland impacts. Applications are coordinated between the USACE and LGU. 9 Report Preparation The procedures followed for this wetland delineation are in accordance with the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (Version 2.0). This report describes site conditions for a specific date in time and is generally valid for a period of five years from the date of the final field investigation and delineation, which was September 4, 2019. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 103 Beltline Station Development | W etland Delineation Report September 2019 | 4 Sherman Associates Development, LLC References Climatology Working Group, University of Minnesota. Historical Climate Data Retrieval: Daily or Monthly Temperature, Precipitation, Snow Data by Target Location. Available at http://climate.umn.edu/doc/historical.htm , accessed September 2019. Minnesota Climatology Working Group. Historical Climate Data Retrieval: W etland Delineation Monthly Precipitation Data Retrieval from Gridded Database. Available at http://climate.umn.edu/gridded_data/precip/wetland/wetland.asp, accessed September 2019. Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. Information regarding Minnesota wetland regulations (includes links to other regulatory websites). Available at http://www.bwsr.stat e.mn.us/wetlands/index.html, accessed September 2019. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Public Waters Basin and Watercourse Delineations (February 2017). Shapefiles available at https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/water-mn-public-waters. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. National Wetland Inventory Update for East-Central Minnesota (March 2017). Shapefiles available at https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/water-nat-wetlands- inv-2009-2014. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. W eb Soil Survey. Available at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov, accessed September 2019. US Army Corps of Engineers. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual . Technical Report Y -87- 1.January 1987. Available at http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Portals/57/docs/regulatory/RegulatoryDocs/1987%20Manual.pdf . U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region (Version 2.0). January 2012. Available at http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-W orks/Regulatory -Program-and-Permits/reg_supp/. U.S. Geological Survey. National Hydrography Dataset . Shapefiles available at https://nhd.usgs.gov/, accessed September 2019. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 104 National Geographic, Esri, Garmin, HERE, Figure 1 - Project Location Study Area 25 100 N 0 1,000500 Feet Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 105 Copyright:© Figure 2 - USGS Topographical Map Study Area N 0 1,000500 Feet Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 106 !( !( ¬«7 NatchezA v e S ervice R oadSP-2SP-1 Figure 3 - Delineated Wetland Boundary and Type Study Area Wetland Boundary !(Sample Points Parcels 0 8040 FeetN Wetland 1Type 10.26 acres Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 107 Beltline Station Development | W etland Delineation Report September 2019 Sherman Associates Development, LLC Appendix A: National Wetlands Inventory, DNR Public W aters Inventory, and LiDAR Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 108 ¬«7 NatchezA v e S ervice R o ad 881876 877875883882 884 880 878874 888 885 884 883 882 880 889886886885 886885881880878 877 87 9 886 879878885884 888 886885 885886882 877 886 8 8 7885885 886 886885 885 885 884 882883880 881 8 8 0880880 8798778788738 7 3 886 Appendix A - NWI / 2-foot Contours Study Area Wetland Boundary NWI 2-foot Contours Parcels 0 40 80 FeetN Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 109 Beltline Station Development | W etland Delineation Report September 2019 Sherman Associates Development, LLC Appendix B: Hydric Soils Information Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 110 ¬«7 NatchezA v e S ervice R o ad U1A U6B U4A L52CAppendix B - Hydric Soil Rating by Map Unit Study Area Hydric Soil Rating Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 - 99%) Hydric (33 - 65%) Hydric (1 - 32) Not Hydric (0%) 0 40 80 FeetN Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 111 Beltline Station Development | W etland Delineation Report September 2019 Sherman Associates Development, LLC Appendix C: Precipitation Data Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 112 9/4/2019 Precipitation Documentation Worksheet Using Gridded Database climateapps.dnr.state.mn.us/gridded_data/precip/wetland/worksheet.asp?passXutm83=473828&passYutm83=4977422&passcounty=Hennepin&pass…1/1 Minnesota State Climatology Office State Climatology Office - DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources     University of Minnesota home | current conditions | journal | past data | summaries | agriculture | other sites | about us Precipitation Worksheet Using Gridded Database Precipitation data for target wetland location: county: Hennepin township number: 117N township name: St. Louis Park range number: 21W nearest community: Saint Louis Park section number: 10 Aerial photograph or site visit date: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 Score using 1981-2010 normal period values are in inches A 'R' following a monthly total indicates a provisional value derived from radar-based estimates. first prior month:August 2019 second prior month:July 2019 third prior month:June 2019 estimated precipitation total for this location:6.48R 6.61R 3.01R there is a 30% chance this location will have less than:3.50 2.66 3.48 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than:5.05 4.62 5.38 type of month: dry normal wet wet dry monthly score 2 * 3 = 6 1 * 1 = 1 multi-month score: 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet)16 (wet) Other Resources: retrieve daily precipitation data view radar-based precipitation estimates view weekly precipitation maps Evaluating Antecedent Precipitation Conditions (BWSR) wetwetwet 3 * 3 = 9 Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 113 Beltline Station Development | W etland Delineation Report September 2019 Sherman Associates Development, LLC Appendix D : Field Data Sheets Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 114 Slope (%): NWI Classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Hydric soil present? Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) W ater-Stained Leaves (B9)Drainage Patterns (B10) X Aquatic Fauna (B13)Moss Trim Lines (B16) X Marl Deposits (B15) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) X Geomorphic Position (D2) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) X Microtopographic Relief (D4) No Depth (inches): No Depth (inches): Saturation present? (includes capillary fringe)No Depth (inches):Y Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: X Histisol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B Histic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L Stratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) Depleted Below Dark Suface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Red Parent Material (F21) Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Remarks: Type:Hydric soil present?Y Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Indicators: Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149B Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 9-4-2019Sampling Date:Beltline Beltline Development, LLC SP-1Sampling Point:MN Project/Site:City/County: Applicant/Owner:State: St. Louis Park/Hennepin U1A-Urban Land, Udorthents Lat.: Y Investigator(s):Aaron Stolte Section, Township, Range: Datum:W GS 1984 Sec 6, Twp 28N, Ran 24W 2 44.945074 Long.:-93.338873 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none): W ater Marks (B1) Saturation (A3) High Water Table (A2) Surface Water (A1) Iron Deposits (B5) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) HYDROLOGY PFO1A concavedepression Yes Y Y Y No (If no, explain in remarks)Are "normal circumstances" present? Soil Map Unit Name: Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) %Color (moist)%Type*Loc** Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Drift Deposits (B3) Sediment Deposits (B2) Yes X Color (moist) X Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Edge of inundated depression Remarks: Based on antecedent precip conditions, the prior three months have been wetter than normal Field Observations: Surface water present? Water table present?Yes Yes Remarks 0-14 10YR 2/1 fibric peat Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Sampling Point:SP-1 Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture *Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains **Location: PL=Pore Lining, SOIL WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region X 8 6 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 115 50/20 Thresholds Tree Stratum 1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum 2 Herb Stratum 3 W oody Vine Stratum 4 5 Dominance Test Worksheet 6 7 8 (A) 9 10 (B) =Total Cover (A/B) 1 Prevalence Index Worksheet 2 Total % Cover of: 3 OBL species x 1 = 4 FACW species x 2 = 5 FAC species x 3 = 6 FACU species x 4 = 7 UPL species x 5 = 8 Column totals (A)(B) 9 Prevalence Index = B/A = 10 =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation X Dominance test is >50% 1 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 =Total Cover 1 2 3 4 5 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Photo #: No. of flags: Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 50%20% 0 16 12 40 30 Sampling Point:SP-1VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 0 Indicator Status Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: 0 0 140 0 0 0 0 Woody Vine Stratum Plot Size (30' radius )Absolute % Cover Dominant Species 80 Herb Stratum Plot Size (5' radius )Absolute % Cover Dominant Species Indicator Status Dominant Species Indicator Status Rhamnus cathartica 80 Y FAC 60 Sapling/Shrub Stratum Plot Size (15' radius )Absolute % Cover Tree Stratum Plot Size (30' radius 30 Rhamnus cathartica Populus deltoides 0 0 420 0 0 )Absolute % Cover Dominant Species Indicator Status 30 Y Y FAC FAC Y Hydrophytic vegetation present? *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height. 420 3 100.00% 3.00 3 140 0 0 US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 116 Slope (%): NWI Classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Hydric soil present? Indicators of wetland hydrology present?If yes, optional wetland site ID: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Drainage Patterns (B10) Aquatic Fauna (B13)Moss Trim Lines (B16) Marl Deposits (B15) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Microtopographic Relief (D4) No Depth (inches): No Depth (inches): Saturation present? (includes capillary fringe)No Depth (inches):N Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histisol (A1)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B Histic Epipedon (A2)Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Black Histic (A3)5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L Stratified Layers (A5)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) Depleted Below Dark Suface (A11)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Matrix (F3)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) Sandy Redox (S5)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Red Parent Material (F21) Stripped Matrix (S6)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Remarks: Type:Hydric soil present?N Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Indicators: Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149B Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 9-4-2019Sampling Date:Beltline Beltline Development, LLC SP-2Sampling Point:MN Project/Site:City/County: Applicant/Owner:State: St. Louis Park/Hennepin U1A-Urban Land, Udorthents Lat.: N Investigator(s):Aaron Stolte Section, Township, Range: Datum:WGS 1984 Sec 6, Twp 28N, Ran 24W 3 44.945042 Long.:-93.338865 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none): Water Marks (B1) Saturation (A3) High Water Table (A2) Surface Water (A1) Iron Deposits (B5) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) HYDROLOGY PFO1A nonehillslope Yes N N Y No (If no, explain in remarks)Are "normal circumstances" present? Soil Map Unit Name: Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) %Color (moist)%Type*Loc** Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Drift Deposits (B3) Sediment Deposits (B2) Yes Color (moist) Remarks: Based on antecedent precip conditions, the prior three months have been wetter than normal Field Observations: Surface water present? W ater table present?Yes Yes Remarks 0-8 10YR 2/2 100 sa lo Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Sampling Point:SP-2 Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture 8-24 10YR 5/3 100 sand Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Hillslope leading into depression, approx. 2-feet upslope of SP-1 *Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains **Location: PL=Pore Lining, SOIL WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region X X X Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 117 50/20 Thresholds Tree Stratum 1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum 2 Herb Stratum 3 W oody Vine Stratum 4 5 Dominance Test Worksheet 6 7 8 (A) 9 10 (B) =Total Cover (A/B) 1 Prevalence Index Worksheet 2 Total % Cover of: 3 OBL species x 1 = 4 FACW species x 2 = 5 FAC species x 3 = 6 FACU species x 4 = 7 UPL species x 5 = 8 Column totals (A)(B) 9 Prevalence Index = B/A = 10 =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation X Dominance test is >50% 1 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 =Total Cover 1 2 3 4 5 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Photo #: No. of flags: Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 50%20% 0 10 15 25 38 Sampling Point:SP-2VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 0 Indicator Status Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: 0 0 125 0 0 0 0 Woody Vine Stratum Plot Size (30' radius )Absolute % Cover Dominant Species 50 Herb Stratum Plot Size (5' radius )Absolute % Cover Dominant Species Indicator Status Dominant Species Indicator Status Rhamnus cathartica 50 Y Y FAC 75 Sapling/Shrub Stratum Plot Size (15' radius )Absolute % Cover Acer negundo 15 Tree Stratum Plot Size (30' radius 30 Rhamnus cathartica Populus deltoides 0 0 375 0 0 )Absolute % Cover Dominant Species Indicator Status 30 Y Y FAC FAC FAC Y Hydrophytic vegetation present? *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height. 375 4 100.00% 3.00 4 125 0 0 US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 118 Beltline Station Development | W etland Delineation Report September 2019 Sherman Associates Development, LLC Appendix E: Site Photos Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 119 Beltline Station Development | W etland Delineation Report September 2019| E -1 Sherman Associates Development, LLC Photo 1: North side of site looking at forested wetland Photo 2: Middle of forested wetland with standing water Photo 3: Middle of forested wetland with standing water Photo 4: South side of site showing construction activity Photo 5: Middle of forested wetland Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 120 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, ST. PAUL DISTRICT 180 FIFTH STREET EAST, SUITE 700 ST. PAUL, MN 55101-1678 June 10, 2020 Regulatory File No. MVP-2019-02827-MAD Beltline Development, LLC c/o Will Anderson 233 Park Ave South, Suite 201 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Dear Mr. Anderson: We are responding to your request, submitted by Kimley-Horn on your behalf, for Corps of Engineers (Corps) concurrence with the delineation of aquatic resources completed on the Beltline Station site. The project site is in Section 6, Township 28 North, Range 24 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota. We have conducted a preliminary review of the delineation report, dated October 2019 and generally concur that Figure 3 in the report depicts a reasonable approximation of the location and boundaries of aquatic resources on the property. This delineation can be used for planning, and will generally be sufficient for permitting purposes. It may be necessary to review this determination in response to changing site conditions or new information. Additional Information regarding Jurisdiction and Permitting: No jurisdictional determination was prepared for this project, nor is one required to support a permit application. If you submit a permit application, we will assist you in identifying aquatic resources that are not subject to Corps regulation to exclude those resources from the permit evaluation. A permit application should include this delineation, any subsequent revisions, and any state or local delineation approvals. You are advised that receipt of a permit or exemption from a state or local agency does not satisfy the requirement to obtain a Corps permit where one is needed. Please note that the Corps has issued Nationwide General Permits and Regional General Permits that provide authorization for many minor activities. Many of those general permits require a pre-construction notification and Corps verification prior to starting work. However, several general permits also have “self-certifying” provisions that eliminate the need to provide notice to the Corps, provided the permittee complies with the terms and conditions of the general permit. Current general permit terms and conditions can be found at: https://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Permitting-Process-Procedures/. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 121 Regulatory Branch (File No. MVP-2019-02827-MAD) Page 2 of 2 If you have any questions, please contact me in our St. Paul office at (651) 290-5266 or Maria.A.DeLaundreau@usace.army.mil. In any correspondence or inquiries, please refer to the Regulatory file number shown above. Sincerely, Maria DeLaundreau Project Manager cc: Aaron Stolte, Kimley-Horn Heidi Quinn, LGU Ben Carlson, BWSR Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 122 Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decisionPage 123 Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decisionPage 124 Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decisionPage 125 National Geographic, Esri, Garmin, HERE, Figure 1 - Project Location Study Area 25 100 N 0 1,000500 Feet Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 126 !( !( ¬«7 NatchezA v e S ervice R o ad SP-2SP-1 Figure 3 - Delineated Wetland Boundary and Type Study Area Wetland Boundary !(Sample Points Parcels 0 8040 FeetN Wetland 1Type 10.26 acres Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 127 ¬«7 NatchezA v e S ervice R o ad 881876 877875883882 884 880 878874 888 885 884 883 882 880 889886886885 886885881880878 877 87 9 886 879878885884 888 886885 885886882 877 886 8 8 7885885 886 886885 885 885 884 882883880 881 8 8 0880880 8798778788738 7 3 886 Appendix A - NWI / 2-foot Contours Study Area Wetland Boundary NWI 2-foot Contours Parcels 0 40 80 FeetN Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 128 Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decisionPage 129 Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decisionPage 130 Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decisionPage 131 Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decisionPage 132 !(7 !(7 UV100 !(7 L1UBH L1UBH PUBGx PFO1C PFO1Cd PUBGx PEMFd PEMC PUBGx PSS1Cd PUBF PEMC PEMF PUBF PSS1Cd State Hwy 7 W 31s t S t W 28t h S t MinikahdaCtW 28t h S tMontereyAve CalhounPkwy WZenithAve SChowen Pl W 2 8 t h S t W 36t h S t Minn e t o n k a Svc R dRaleighAve SL a k e s h o r e D r Lis t P l W 28t h S t Depot St W 28t h S t Market PlzPark Glen Rd State Hwy 7 Svc Rd W 31 s t S t Ab b o t t A v e SExcelsior BlvdExcelsior BlvdChowen Ave SEwing Ave SIvy Ln W 28th St Joppa Ave SEwing Ave SBeltline BlvdW 28t h S t Huntington Ave SEwing Ave SW Calhoun BlvdBeltline BlvdW 34t h S t W 29th St W 31s t S t Drew Ave SJoppa Ave SGlenhurst Ave SSunset Blvd Randall AveMonterey AveW 32n d S tS Chowen AveLynn AveDean CtDrew Ave SHuntington Ave SCed a r L a k e P k w y St Paul Ave Chowen Ave SW 31s t S t St Louis AveOttawa Ave SW Calhoun Pkwy Sunset Blvd Suns e t B l v d Park Glen Rd Ced a r L a k e A v e France Ave SCo Rd 17Natchez Ave SInglewood Ave SGlenhurst Ave SExcelsior Blv d Minne t o n k a B l v d Co Rd 17France Ave SW Lak e S t Co Rd 5 Minneapolis St. LouisPark Bass27001500 Calhoun27003100 Cedar27003900 MinnehahaCreek D-029-24-32-004 D-028-24-06-007 E-028-24-05-001 D-028-24-05-002D-028-24-05-001 D-028-24-05-004 D-028-24-06-010 053-050282422 0 0 0 3053-0602824130003053-3202924340507 053-0502824220127 A B B A A B A B AB 0 200 400100 Scale N(I Exhibit 12Rev 04.009/24/2013Sheet 12 of 15Preliminary Wetland Field Data ReviewLocally Preferred Alternative SOUTHWEST LRT DRAFT - WORK IN PROCESS Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 133 Project/Site Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet)1 (A)23 (B)45 (A/B)=Total CoverSapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet1Total % Cover of:2 OBL species x 1 =3 FACW species x 2 =4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 ==Total Cover UPL species x 5 =Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 23 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation5X Dominance test is >50%6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0*78910 =Total CoverWoody vine stratum ) 12 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)Highway 7 Frontage Road, East of Beltline. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County: St. Louis Park/Hennepin Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/26/2013 Sampling Point: WL1-SPAMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave 6-28-24 (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) F01A , or hydrology , or hydrology 053-0602824130003 Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:85 (Plot size: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 15 30 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 2 2 00 100.00% Y0 Alliaria petiolata 70 Y FAC (Plot size: Phalaris arundinacea 15 N FACW 15 2.85 100 285 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 00 00 85 255 Rhamnus cathartica 15 Y FAC Absolute % Cover f yes, optional wetland site ID: All three criteria were met. Area is a wetland. Y Dominant Species Indicator Staus Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Y U1A-Urban Land, Udorthents NWI Classification: 0-2 Lat:Long:Datum: Investigator(s): Marc Cottingham/Mo Elabbady/Alison Hruby Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner: SWLRT State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name US Amy Corps of Engineers  Midwest Region         Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 134 Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13)True Aquatic Plants (B14)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) XX X Storm drainage pone inlet. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes X NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) YWater table present? Yes No X Depth (inches):18" Stripped Matrix (S6)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1)0-13Black Histic (A3)Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9)Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltandhydrology must be present, unless disturbed orproblematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2)Water Marks (B1) 0-40 10YR2/1 100 Fiberous Peat Sampling Point:WL1-SPA Depth (Inches)Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region             Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 135 Project/Site Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet)1 (A)23 (B)45 (A/B)=Total CoverSapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet1Total % Cover of:2 OBL species x 1 =3 FACW species x 2 =4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 ==Total Cover UPL species x 5 =Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 23 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation5X Dominance test is >50%6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0*78910 =Total CoverWoody vine stratum ) 12 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)Highway 7 Frontage Road, East of Beltline. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:15 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County: St. Louis Park/Hennepin Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/26/2013 Sampling Point: WL1-SPBMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Convex 6-28-24 (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) , or hydrology , or hydrology 053-0602824130003 Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:70 (Plot size: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 00 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 3 3 00 100.00% Y0 Alliaria petiolata 70 Y FAC (Plot size:15 3.00 100 300 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 00 00 100 300 Rhamnus cathartica 15 Y FAC Absolute % Cover f yes, optional wetland site ID: Soil and hydrology criteria were not met. Area is not a wetland. N Acer negundo 15 Y FAC Dominant Species Indicator Staus Y N VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No Y U1A-Urban Land, Udorthents NWI Classification: 0-2 Lat:Long:Datum: Investigator(s): Marc Cottingham/Mo Elabbady/Alison Hruby Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner: SWLRT State: Slope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name US Amy Corps of Engineers  Midwest Region         Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 136 Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Aquatic Fauna (B13)True Aquatic Plants (B14)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) NWater table present? Yes No X Depth (inches):X Stripped Matrix (S6)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1)0-13Black Histic (A3)Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9)Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltandhydrology must be present, unless disturbed orproblematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) NHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2)Water Marks (B1) 0-20 10YR2/2 100 Sandy Loam Sampling Point:WL1-SPB Depth (Inches)Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region             Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 137 Beltline Station Development Attachment C Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 138 COUNTY CITYTWP PROPNAME ADDRESS TOWNRANG SECQUARTER USGS REPORTNUMNRH CE DOEINVENTNUM Hennepin Hopkins Chicago, Milwaukee, and Saint Paul Railroad Depot Canadian Pacific Railroad at TH 169 28 24 6 NW-NW Hopkins HE-2010-21H HE-HOC-345 Minneapolis Kenilworth Railroad Bridge (Minneapolis and Saint Louis Railway Bridge)over Kenilworth Canal 28 24 6 NW-SE Minneapolis South HE-2012-9H Y HE-MPC-1850 Pedestrian Bridge over Kenilworth Lagoon (Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad Bridge)28 24 6 NW-NW Minneapolis South HE-2012-9H Y HE-MPC-1851 St. Louis Park St. Louis Park Roadside Parking Are SE corner of the jct. Of TH 100 and TH 7 28 24 6 S-SW-NW Mineapolis South xx-98-6H HE-SDC-017 Peavey-Haglin Concrete Grain Elevator Highway 7 & Highway 100 28 24 6 C-S-NW Minneapolis South Y HE-SLC-009 Lilac Way Mn. Hwy. 100 Mn. Hwy. 100 28 24 6 Minneapolis South HE-94-19H HE-SLC-015 St. Louis Park Roadside Parking Area 5025 Hwy 7 28 24 6 SW-SW-NW Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-017 St. Louis Park Roadside Parking Area 28 24 6 SW-SW-NW Minneapolis South XX-98-6H HE-SLC-017 Bridge No. 5598 over Minnetonka Blvd on MNTH 100 28 24 6 HE-SLC-018 Bridge No. 5462 carries MNTH 7 over MNTH 100 28 24 6 Minneapolis South HE-SLC-021 Bridge No. 5308 MNTH 100 / under Soo Line RR 28 24 6 HE-SLC-025 Bridge No. 5309 MNTH 100 / under C&NW RY 28 24 6 HE-SLC-026 Woodmark Industries Building 4601 Hwy 7 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-052 Northland Aluminum, Inc.5005 Hwy 7 28 24 6 SW-NW Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-054 Hoffman Callan Company 3007 Highway 7/3000 France Ave. S 28 24 6 NE-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H Y HE-SLC-055 Hennepin St. Louis Park House 3109 Natchez Ave S 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-076 House 3105 Natchez Ave S 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-077 House 3101 Natchez Ave S 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-SLC-078 HE-SLC-078 House 3100 Natchez Ave S 28 24 6 NE-NW Minneapolis South HE-SLC-079 House 3049 Natchez Ave S 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-080 House 3045 Natchez Ave S 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-081 House 3041 Natchez Ave S 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-082 House 3037 Natchez Ave S 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-083 House 3029 Natchez Ave S 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-2012-20H HE-SLC-084 House 3040 Natchez Ave S 28 24 6 NE-NW Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-085 House 3044 Natchez Ave S 28 24 6 NE-NW Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-086 House 3052 Natchez Ave S 28 24 6 NE-NW Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-087 House 3029 Monterey Ave S 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-088 House 3033 Monterey Ave S 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-089 House 3037 Monterey Ave S 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-090 House 3041 Monterey Ave S 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-091 House 3045 Monterey Ave S 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-092 House 3049 Monterey Ave S 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-093 House 3024 Monterey Ave S 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-094 House 3028 Monterey Ave S 28 24 6 NW-NE HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-095 House 3034 Monterey Ave S 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-096 House 3044 Monterey Ave S 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-097 House 3048 Monterey Ave 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-098 Hennepin St. Louis Park House 3100 Monterey Ave S 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-099 House 3104 Monterey Ave S 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-100 House 3108 Monterey Ave S 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-101 Apartments 4516 Hwy 7 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-102 House 3046 Lynn Ave S 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-103 Apartments 3030 Raleigh Ave S 28 24 6 NW-NW Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-104 Business 4725 Hwy 7 28 24 6 SE-NW Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-106 Business 4521 Hwy 7 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-SLC-107 Business 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-107 Business 3113 Lynn Ave S 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-108 Business 3119 Lynn Ave S 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-109 Commercial Building 4838 35th St W 28 24 6 SE-NW Minneapolis South HE-2015-8H HE-SLC-1094 Apartment Building 4300-4310 Hwy 7 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-2015-8H HE-SLC-1097 House & Garage 3040-3042 Lynn Ave S 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-2015-8H HE-SLC-1099 Business 3200 Lynn Ave S 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-110 Park Towers Apartments 4810 Highway 7 28 24 6 NE-NW Minneapolis South HE-SLC-1101 Apartment Building 4405 Hwy 7 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-111 Business 4301 Hwy 7 28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-112 House 3907 31st St W 28 24 6 NE-NE Minneapolis South HE-SLC-113 House 28 24 6 NE-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-113 House 3917 31st St W 28 24 6 NE-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-114 House 3921 31st St W 28 24 6 NE-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-115 Apartment Building 4009 31st St W 28 24 6 NE-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-116 Hennepin St. Louis Park House 4013 31st St W 28 24 6 NE-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-117 House 4101 31st St W 28 24 6 NE-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-118 House 4105 31st St W 28 24 6 NE-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-119 House 4117 31st St W 28 24 6 NE-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-120 House 4125 31st St W 28 24 6 NE-NE Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-121 House 3057 Ottawa Ave S 28 24 6 NE-NW Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-124 House 3053 Ottawa Ave S 28 24 6 NE-NW Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-125 House 3049 Ottawa Ave S 28 24 6 NE-NW Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-126 House 3041 Ottawa Ave S 28 24 6 NE-NW Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-127 House 3050 Ottawa Ave S 28 24 6 NE-NW Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-128 House 3044 Ottawa Ave S 28 24 6 NE-NW Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-129 House 3040 Ottawa Ave S 28 24 6 NE-NW Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-130 House 3036 Ottawa Ave S 28 24 6 NE-NW Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-131 Business 4906 35th St W 28 24 6 NE-SW Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-132 Business 4905 35th St W 28 24 6 NE-SW Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-133 Business 4930 35th St W 28 24 6 NE-SW Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-134 Business 5100 35th St W 28 24 6 NW-SW Minneapolis North HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-135 Business 3501 State Hwy 100 S 28 24 6 NW-SW Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-136 St. Louis Park City Hall 5005 Minnetonka Blvd 28 24 6 NE-NW Minneapolis South HE-2010-20H HE-SLC-311 Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad Bridge (Bridge No. 5309)28 24 6 NW-NW Minneapolis South HE-SLC-517 Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul Railroad Bridge (Bridge No. 5308)over TH 100 28 24 6 NW-NW Minneapolis South HE-2010-21H HE-SLC-520 Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 139 B'nai Abraham Synagogue (B'nai Emet Synagogue)3115 Ottawa Ave.28 24 6 NW-NE Minneapolis South HE-SLC-566 Hennepin St. Louis Park commercial building 4330 Highway 7 28 24 6 NW-NE HE-SLC-567 Park Tower Apartments 4810 Highway 7 28 24 6 NE-NE Hopkins HE-SLC-574 Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 140 Beltline Station Development Attachment D Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 141 1 Beltline Station Development Traffic Technical Memorandum June 2021 MEMORANDUM To: Jennifer Monson City of St. Louis Park From: JoNette Kuhnau, P.E., PTOE Jacob Rojer, P.E. Date: June 29, 2021 Re: Beltline Station Development Traffic Technical Memorandum – June 2021 Update St. Louis Park, MN Introduction Sherman Associates Development, LLC is proposing to redevelop an approximately 7-acre site south of Hennepin County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 25 and east of Beltline Boulevard in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. The proposed redevelopment is a mix of residential, commercial, and transit-oriented uses consistent with the City of St. Louis Park’s 2040 Future Land Use plan. The development is proposed to include approximately 403 apartment units in three buildings, a 20,000 square foot grocery store, and 1,800 square feet of retail space attached to the park-and- ride ramp that will be located on the site. The conceptual site plan is provided in Attachment A. The purpose of this memorandum is to document the traffic analysis completed for the development, determine the impacts of the proposed access changes, and identify transportation infrastructure improvements or mitigations. The methodology, assumptions, and results of the analysis are presented in the following sections. Background Information Study Area The study area includes CSAH 25 between the Minnesota Trunk Highway (TH) 100 Northbound Ramps and Lynn Avenue, and Beltline Boulevard between CSAH 25 and Park Glen Road. The intersections that were analyzed are listed below and are shown in Exhibit 1. All exhibits are included in Attachment B. CSAH 25 & Beltline Boulevard/Ottawa Avenue S Beltline Boulevard & CSAH 25 South Service Road Beltline Boulevard & Park Glen Road CSAH 25 & Lynn Avenue CSAH 25 & Monterey Avenue (future intersection) Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 142 2 Beltline Station Development Traffic Technical Memorandum June 2021 Beltline Boulevard & Backage Road (future intersection) The CSAH 25 & TH 100 Northbound Ramps intersection was also included in the traffic modeling to accurately represent vehicle progression on CSAH 25, but traffic operations for this intersection were not evaluated. Vehicle turning movement volume, pedestrian, and bicycle counts for the existing study intersections were collected between 6:00 AM and 7:00 PM on Wednesday, September 4, 2019. The counts were conducted with schools in session. The vehicle turning movement counts included vehicle classifications used to determine heavy vehicle percentages for the approaches at the study intersections. The existing traffic signal timing information for the CSAH 25 & TH 100 Northbound Ramps intersection and the CSAH 25 & Beltline Boulevard/Ottawa Avenue S intersection were provided by MnDOT. The traffic signal at the CSAH 25 & Beltline Boulevard/Ottawa Avenue S intersection is currently running with a 190 second cycle length in the AM peak hour and a 200 second cycle length in the PM peak hour. Roadway Characteristics The existing conditions are not included in this report due to magnitude of planned roadway improvements and speed limit adjustments within the study area that will take place between 2021 and 2024. An existing conditions analysis would therefore not be informative due to the number of changes in the transportation conditions. The following provides a detailed description of the existing roadways that are included in the study area and the proposed changes by 2024: Beltline Boulevard is currently a four-lane undivided roadway that runs in the north/south direction along the west side of the proposed redevelopment. Beltline Boulevard is a Municipal State Aid Street (MSAS) and is a Major Collector roadway per the City of St. Louis Park’s Comprehensive Plan, with an improvement project planned for 2021. The project will make the following changes in the study area: Convert Beltline Boulevard from a 4-lane section to a 3-lane section from 36th Street to Park Glen Road with a single lane in each direction and a two-way left turn lane. On-street bike lanes and trails will be provided on both sides of Beltline Boulevard. Based on the City’s recommended speed limit map, Beltline Boulevard is anticipated to have a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph). The annual average daily traffic (AADT) in 2018 was 10,500 vehicles per day (vpd). CSAH 25 is currently a four-lane divided roadway that runs in the east/west direction along the north side of the proposed redevelopment. CSAH 25 is classified as a Minor Augmentor roadway. The 2018 AADT on CSAH 25 at Lynn Avenue is 18,200 vpd and the posted speed limit is 45 mph. In 2018, St. Louis Park and Hennepin County collaborated on a study to explore roadway layouts that would transform CSAH 25 between TH 100 and France Avenue into an “urban boulevard”. The study reviewed potential options for repurposing the right-of-way to provide enhanced multimodal facilities, traffic calming, and landscaped boulevards. Currently, no timeframe for implementation of these improvements has been identified. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 143 3 Beltline Station Development Traffic Technical Memorandum June 2021 Park Glen Road is a two-lane undivided roadway that serves as an access road for commercial and residential developments on the east and west sides of Beltline Boulevard. Park Glen Road is designated as a city street in the City of St. Louis Park’s Comprehensive Plan. Per the City’s recommended speed limit map, Park Glen Road is anticipated to have a speed limit of 20 mph. AADT volumes on Park Glen Road are not available. Lynn Avenue is a local city street and does not have a published AADT volume. A 13-hour traffic count conducted at the Lynn Avenue & CSAH 25 South Service Road intersection in September 2019 was used to estimate a total daily volume of approximately 350 vehicles per day. There is currently no posted speed limit on Lynn Avenue. Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facilities Pedestrian With the city’s planned improvements on Beltline Boulevard, pedestrian facilities will be provided on both sides of the roadway between Park Glen Road and 36 th Street, which will tie into the trails being constructed on both sides of the roadway between Park Glen Road and CSAH 25 as part of the METRO Green Line Extension/Southwest Light Rail (SWLRT). Additionally, the Cedar Lake Trail runs along the south side of the site and provides access to the regional trail network. The SWLRT project will construct a bridge to grade separate the Cedar Lake Trail over Beltline Boulevard. There are not currently sidewalks along CSAH 25. However, according to the St. Louis Park Comprehensive Plan the corridor is planned for future pedestrian facilities. Bicycle The reconstruction of Beltline Boulevard will provide trails on both sides of the road as well as the on-street bicycle facilities. As previously mentioned, the facilities along Beltline Boulevard will connect to the Cedar Lake Trail on the south edge of the site. This provides access to the regional bicycle/trail network. Transit Transit service is currently available near the project area and will be expanded in the near future. There is one bus route within the study area, and the METRO Green Line Beltline Boulevard Station is currently under construction and is anticipated to open in 2024. Route 17F is a local bus route from St. Louis Park to Downtown Minneapolis with major stops along Minnetonka Boulevard, Lake Street, and Hennepin Avenue. The 17F is a spur route of Route 17 and is currently not running due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is assumed that the route will resume service in the future. The connecting bus service at the Beltline Boulevard Station to support the METRO Green Line will be determined by Metro Transit prior to opening days of the LRT service. METRO Green Line Extension is a future LRT route that will operate from downtown Minneapolis to Eden Prairie. The Beltline Station will be located on the east side of Beltline Boulevard immediately south of the proposed development. Based on the proximity to this station, it is anticipated that the METRO Green Line will be the most likely alternate mode of transportation for site trips. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 144 4 Beltline Station Development Traffic Technical Memorandum June 2021 Future Year (2024) Analysis Future Year Conditions Several improvements are planned in the study area as part of the SWLRT project and as part of City-led projects. The following improvements and changes are being constructed in the study area: Light rail transit (LRT) operating south of the site in the existing rail corridor, operating at 10-minute headways in each direction and crossing Beltline Boulevard with twelve LRT crossings per hour during peak periods. Install a new traffic signal at the CSAH 25 & Lynn Avenue intersection, with a dedicated eastbound right-turn lane and a dedicated westbound left-turn lane. Install a new traffic signal on Beltline Boulevard at the rail crossing to prevent vehicle queues from extending across the tracks (queue cutter signal). Grade separate the Cedar Lake Trail over Beltline Boulevard just north of the railroad crossing and remove the existing at-grade trail crossing. Improve and expand the capacity at the CSAH 25 & Beltline Boulevard/Ottawa Avenue S intersection: Extend the westbound left turn lane to approximately 460 feet. Construct a second northbound left turn lane. Extend the northbound right turn lane. Close the CSAH 25 South Service Road east of Beltline Boulevard. Construct a Backage Road that connects Lynn Avenue to Beltline Boulevard and provides access for buses and park-and-ride vehicles. Add a right-in only access on northbound Beltline Boulevard to connect to the Backage Road. Construct a right-in only access from CSAH 25 to Monterey Avenue, south of CSAH 25. Convert Beltline Boulevard from a 4-lane section to a 3-lane section from 36 th Street to Park Glen Road with a single lane in each direction and a two-way left turn lane (City-led project). On-street bike lanes and trails will be provided on both sides of Beltline Boulevard (City- led project). Three analysis scenarios were analyzed to determine the impacts of the proposed redevelopment and the proposed accesses on both Beltline Boulevard and CSAH 25. The proposed development is anticipated to be fully built out by 2023, so 2024 was chosen as the future year for analysis because it is one year after the development opens and also coincides with the opening year for the METRO Green Line extension. The future year analysis scenarios include: Opening Year (2024) No-Build Conditions – The no-build traffic volumes are the anticipated future traffic volumes with area growth taken into consideration and the Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 145 5 Beltline Station Development Traffic Technical Memorandum June 2021 inclusion of the planned Beltline Station park-and-ride. In this scenario, access would be provided to the proposed site based on the improvements described above. Opening Year (2024) Scenario 1 Build Conditions – The Scenario 1 Build traffic volumes would be the anticipated traffic from the proposed development in addition to the no-build traffic volumes. Access to the site would remain the same as Opening Year (2024) No- Build Conditions. The geometry and intersection control for both Opening Year (2024) No- Build Conditions and Opening Year (2024) Build Scenario 1 Conditions is shown in Exhibit 2. Opening Year (2024) Scenario 2 Build Conditions – The Scenario 2 Build traffic volumes would be the anticipated traffic from the proposed development in addition to the no-build traffic volumes. The development project is proposing site access modifications in order to make the retail component of the site viable. These changes would better facilitate access into and out of the site and include: Convert the right-in only access on Beltline Boulevard that connects to the Backage Road to a ¾ access and shift the intersection further to the north. This would add left-in access from southbound Beltline Boulevard to the Backage Road and right-out access from the Backage Road to northbound Beltline Boulevard. The proposed ¾ access is located to still provide a minimum 60-foot median between the railroad crossing and the access, which meets the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) requirements for the proposed quiet zone. Add right-out access from Monterey Avenue to eastbound CSAH 25 to convert the CSAH 25 & Monterey Avenue intersection to a right-in/right-out intersection. The location of the access would remain the same as the Opening Year (2024) No- Build scenario. The proposed changes to the site accesses are shown in Figure 1. The geometry and intersection control for Opening Year (2024) Build Scenario 2 Conditions at all study intersections is shown in Exhibit 3. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 146 6 Beltline Station Development Traffic Technical Memorandum June 2021 Figure 1: Proposed Access Changes Volume Development Background Growth The projected changes in traffic volumes and patterns between the existing and forecast Opening Year (2024) No-Build Conditions included background traffic growth and additional traffic generated by the proposed Beltline Station park-and-ride. The following annual growth rates were used to represent background growth based on information in the Saint Louis Park 2040 Comprehensive Plan: 0.7% per year on CSAH 25 west of Beltline Boulevard/Ottawa Avenue S 0.8% per year on CSAH 25 east of Beltline Boulevard/Ottawa Avenue S 1.2% on Beltline Boulevard/Ottawa Avenue S Trip generation estimates and regional trip distribution for the park-and-ride facility were based on the same rates and distribution used for the SWLRT project. The trip distribution and trip assignment for the park-and-ride are shown in Exhibits 4 & 5, respectively. The trips generated by the park-and-ride were added to the background growth to produce the total forecast Opening Year (2024) No-Build Conditions traffic volumes, which are shown in Exhibit 6. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 147 7 Beltline Station Development Traffic Technical Memorandum June 2021 Trip Generation and Distribution The trip-generating potential of the proposed development was calculated using information within the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Standard ITE trip rates were used to develop the gross new trips generated by the site. The trip generation was based on the following uses: Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) (ITE code 221) Supermarket (ITE code 850) Coffee/Donut Shop without Drive-Thru (ITE code 936) Based on the proximity to the Beltline Boulevard LRT station, a mode split of 15% transit was assumed for the residential land use and 10% transit was used for the commercial land uses. Site generated trips are expected to exhibit multiple routing patterns when traveling to and from the subject site, as described below: Internal Capture – The proposed commercial use on the proposed site is intended to complement the residential use; thus, it is likely that some patrons that visit the commercial use will originate from the residential land use on site and will not travel on external roadways to access the commercial land use. To reflect these “internally captured” trips, an internal capture reduction was applied for the proposed residential and commercial uses. Internal capture rates are based on Table 6.1 in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. Pass-by – Pass-by traffic reflects the travel patterns of motorists who are already traveling on the adjacent study roadways and stop at the site en route to another primary destination. Primary Trips – Primary trips reflect new traffic volumes generated by the proposed development that are assumed to approach and depart on the same route. Trips to/from the site that are not pass-by or internal capture trips are expected to be primary trips. Table 1 summarizes the trip generation for the proposed site. Note that the development site plan shows a 20,000 square foot grocery store, however a 32,000 square foot grocery store was analyzed to be conservative. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 148 8 Beltline Station Development Traffic Technical Memorandum June 2021 Table 1: Proposed Site Vehicle Trip Generation ITE Land Use Code Land Use Size Units AM Peak PM Peak Total In Out Total In Out 221 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 403 Dwelling Unit(s) 145 40 105 180 110 70 850 Supermarket 32 1,000 Sq Ft 125 75 50 295 150 145 936 Coffee/Donut Shop w/o D.T. 1.8 1,000 Sq Ft 185 95 90 65 35 30 Total Site Trips 455 210 245 540 295 245 Total Rounded Residential Trips 145 40 105 180 110 70 Residential Internal Capture 0 0 0 60 45 15 Residential Mode Share (15% Reduction in Vehicle Trips) 20 5 15 20 10 10 Residential Pass-by Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total External Residential Vehicle Trips 125 35 90 100 55 45 Total Rounded Commercial Trips 310 170 140 360 185 175 Commercial Internal Capture 0 0 0 60 15 45 Commercial Mode Share (10% Reduction in Vehicle Trips) 30 15 15 30 15 15 Commercial Pass-by Reduction 0 0 0 90 50 40 Total External Commercial Vehicle Trips 280 155 125 180 105 75 Total External Vehicle Trips 405 190 215 280 160 120 The trips generated by the proposed development were distributed through the study network based on the two scenarios of Opening Year (2024) Build Conditions. Separate distributions were utilized for residential trips and commercial trips based on the location of the residential use on the east side of the site and residents’ familiarity with access from routes other than Beltline Boulevard. The Scenario 1 development trip distribution for residential trips is shown in Exhibit 7, and Exhibit 8 shows the Scenario 1 development trip distribution for commercial trips. The Scenario 1 combined trip assignment for residential and commercial (net external vehicle trips) is shown in Exhibit 9. The Scenario 1 pass-by trips for the supermarket land use were also distributed and assigned throughout the network and are shown in Exhibit 10. The total traffic volumes for Opening Year (2024) Scenario 1 Build Conditions including the background growth, development net external vehicle trips, and development pass-by trips are shown in Exhibit 11. The Scenario 2 development trip distribution for residential trips is shown in Exhibit 12, and Exhibit 13 shows the Scenario 2 development trip distribution for commercial trips. The Scenario 2 combined trip assignment for residential and commercial (net external vehicle trips) is shown in Exhibit 14. The Scenario 2 pass-by trips for the supermarket land use were also distributed and assigned throughout the network and are shown in Exhibit 15. The park-and-ride traffic was redistributed for Opening Year (2024) Scenario 2 Build Conditions based on the changes in site access. The total traffic volumes for Opening Year (2024) Scenario 2 Build Conditions including the background growth, redistributed park-and-ride trips, redistributed development net external trips, and development pass-by trips are shown in Exhibit 16. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 149 9 Beltline Station Development Traffic Technical Memorandum June 2021 Traffic Analysis Methodology Traffic operations for the weekday AM and PM peak hours were analyzed at each of the study intersections. The AM and PM peak hours were determined to occur from 7:30-8:30 AM and 4:45-5:45 PM based on the existing traffic data. The capacity analysis was performed using Vissim software to determine the delay and level of service (LOS) for the study intersections. Vissim was chosen as the appropriate software for this analysis due to its ability to model the future SWLRT alignment immediately adjacent to the site. The LOS boundaries for signalized and unsignalized intersections, as documented in the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition, are provided in Table 2. Table 2: Level of Service Boundaries Level of Service Average Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) Description Unsignalized Intersection Signalized Intersection A 0-10 0-10 Minimal control delay; traffic operates at primarily free-flow conditions; unimpeded movement within traffic stream. B >10-15 >10-20 Minor control delay at signalized intersections; traffic operates at a fairly unimpeded level with slightly restricted movement within traffic stream. C >15-25 >20-35 Moderate control delay; movement within traffic stream more restricted than at LOS B; formation of queues contributes to lower average travel speeds. D >25-35 >35-55 Considerable control delay that may be substantially increased by small increases in flow; average travel speeds continue to decrease. E >35-50 >55-80 High control delay; average travel speed no more than 33 percent of free flow speed. F >50 >80 Extremely high control delay; extensive queuing and high volumes create exceedingly restricted traffic flow. Opening Year (2024) No-Build Conditions Analysis The Opening Year (2024) No-Build Conditions modeling was conducted to identify the expected traffic operations for the Opening Year (2024) without the proposed project. An intersection capacity analysis was performed at the study intersections using the Opening Year (2024) No-Build Conditions AM and PM peak hour turning movement volumes (as shown in Exhibit 6). Table 3 provides a summary of the average delay (seconds per vehicle) and LOS for each individual movement at the study intersections. The queue analysis table for the 2040 No Build conditions analysis is included in Attachment C. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 150 10 Beltline Station Development Traffic Technical Memorandum June 2021 Table 3: No-Build (2024) Conditions Delay Results Intersection Control Type Approach Movement AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Delay LOS Delay LOS CSAH 25 & Beltline Boulevard/ Ottawa Ave S Signal EB Left 54.4 D 72.2 E Through 17.3 B 43.6 D Right 3.1 A 12.2 B WB Left 93.3 F 94.1 F Through 31.3 C 39.2 D Right 7.1 A 5.8 A NB Left 70.3 E 69.3 E Through 42.9 D 23.9 C Right 8.1 A 11.2 B SB Left 98.9 F 100+ F Through 86.4 F 87.7 F Right 13.1 B 17.4 B Intersection 30.4 C 42.6 D Beltline Boulevard & CSAH 25 South Service Rd Side Street Stop EB Left 29.7 D 100+ F Right 5.5 A 14.0 B NB Left 6.7 A 19.9 C Through 10.5 B 31.1 D SB Through 0.6 A 3.0 A Right 0.9 A 1.1 A Intersection 5.5 A 18.7 C Beltline Boulevard & Park Glen Rd Side Street Stop EB Left 23.2 C 100+ F Through 0.0 A 0.0 A Right 14.8 B 100+ F WB Left 16.3 C 100+ F Through 0.0 A 100+ F Right 11.0 B 100+ F NB Left 5.0 A 29.5 D Through 1.0 A 22.8 C Right 1.1 A 20.0 C SB Left 9.0 A 38.7 E Through 2.9 A 3.9 A Right 2.8 A 6.4 A Intersection 4.7 A 35.6 E Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 151 11 Beltline Station Development Traffic Technical Memorandum June 2021 Table 3 (cont.): No-Build (2024) Conditions Delay Results Intersection Control Type Approach Movement AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Delay LOS Delay LOS CSAH 25 & Lynn Ave Signal EB Through 4.2 A 6.2 A Right 2.6 A 2.9 A WB Left 28.8 C 44.3 D Through 1.7 A 3.9 A NB Left 36.4 D 40.9 D Right 14.2 B 29.0 C Intersection 3.8 A 7.8 A CSAH 25 & Monterey Ave Uncontrolled EB Through 0.4 A 0.6 A Right 1.7 A 1.3 A WB Through 0.8 A 0.6 A Intersection 0.7 A 0.6 A Beltline Boulevard & Backage Road Uncontrolled NB Through 6.7 A 22.5 C Right 7.2 A 30.2 D SB Through 3.3 A 4.9 A Intersection 5.0 A 13.5 B There are a significant amount of movements at CSAH 25 & Beltline Boulevard that have longer delays in both peak hours, this is most likely attributed to the longer cycle lengths in the peak hours. However, all intersections operate at LOS D or better under the Opening Year (2024) No- Build Conditions except for the following: Beltline Boulevard & Park Glen Road – The eastbound and westbound movements in the PM peak hour operate at LOS F with excessive delays. The poor LOS is primarily caused by northbound queues on Beltline Boulevard and the decreased gaps on Beltline Boulevard due to the higher traffic volumes. The need to signalize this intersection is anticipated to be needed by Opening Day (2024) No-Build Conditions based on the results of the analysis. Without signalizing this intersection, the delay and LOS results are anticipated to deteriorate even further into the future. It should be noted that the capacity improvements completed as part of the SWLRT project maximize the realistic capacity of the study area. Any additional mitigation to increase capacity may not be feasible due to property impacts and improvement costs. Opening Year (2024) Scenario 1 Build Conditions Analysis The Opening Year (2024) Scenario 1 Build Conditions modeling was conducted to identify the expected traffic operations for the Opening Year (2024) with the SWLRT roadway geometrics and the proposed development. This option is not viable from a development standpoint, as the retail component of the site needs additional access to attract and retain tenants. However, this analysis will be used as a comparison to determine the change in operations between Scenarios 1 and 2 Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 152 12 Beltline Station Development Traffic Technical Memorandum June 2021 at the Beltline Boulevard & Backage Road intersection and the CSAH 25 & Monterey Avenue intersection. An intersection capacity analysis was performed at the study intersections using the Opening Year (2024) Scenario 1 Build Conditions AM and PM peak hour turning movement volumes (as shown in Exhibit 11). Table 4 provides a summary of the average delay (seconds per vehicle) and LOS for each individual movement of the study intersections. The queue results table for the Scenario 1 Build Conditions analysis is included in Attachment C. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 153 13 Beltline Station Development Traffic Technical Memorandum June 2021 Table 4: Opening Year (2024) Scenario 1 Build Conditions Delay Results Intersection Control Type Approach Movement AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Delay LOS Delay LOS CSAH 25 & Beltline Boulevard/ Ottawa Ave S Signal EB Left 57.0 E 91.0 F Through 19.9 B 62.7 E Right 3.8 A 25.8 C WB Left 94.1 F 100+ F Through 31.7 C 39.8 D Right 11.0 B 7.5 A NB Left 68.6 E 76.0 E Through 47.7 D 24.9 C Right 8.2 A 11.6 B SB Left 100+ F 100+ F Through 84.4 F 95.9 F Right 15.7 B 21.4 C Intersection 32.2 C 51.8 D Beltline Boulevard & CSAH 25 South Service Rd Side Street Stop EB Left 31.5 D 100+ F Right 5.3 A 13.8 B NB Left 6.5 A 24.0 C Through 11.8 B 35.4 E SB Through 0.6 A 4.8 A Right 1.0 A 1.5 A Intersection 5.9 A 21.5 C Beltline Boulevard & Park Glen Rd Side Street Stop EB Left 21.8 C 100+ F Through 0.0 A 0.0 A Right 17.3 C 100+ F WB Left 20.4 C 100+ F Through 0.0 A 100+ F Right 12.7 B 100+ F NB Left 4.7 A 32.3 D Through 0.9 A 38.6 E Right 1.0 A 31.0 D SB Left 9.8 A 49.7 E Through 2.7 A 5.8 A Right 2.8 A 3.8 A Intersection 4.8 A 49.4 E Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 154 14 Beltline Station Development Traffic Technical Memorandum June 2021 Table 4 (cont.): Opening Year (2024) Scenario 1 Build Conditions Delay Results Intersection Control Type Approach Movement AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Delay LOS Delay LOS CSAH 25 & Lynn Ave Signal EB Through 9.9 A 14.0 B Right 5.0 A 7.8 A WB Left 44.5 D 53.8 D Through 5.4 A 6.0 A NB Left 43.7 D 51.3 D Right 32.8 C 43.0 D Intersection 11.8 B 16.4 B CSAH 25 & Monterey Ave Uncontrolled EB Through 0.6 A 2.1 A Right 2.2 A 2.2 A WB Through 1.7 A 2.1 A Intersection 1.3 A 2.1 A Beltline Boulevard & Backage Road Uncontrolled NB Through 6.5 A 27.1 D Right 7.3 A 28.0 D SB Through 3.2 A 6.9 A Intersection 4.9 A 16.7 C The Opening Year (2024) Scenario 1 Build conditions analysis generally exhibits issues in the same locations as the Opening Year (2024) No-Build conditions analysis. However, some individual movements also had a change in LOS between the Opening Year (2024) No-Build Conditions analysis and the Opening Year (2024) Scenario 1 Build Conditions analysis. At the CSAH 25 & Beltline Boulevard/Ottawa Avenue S intersection, the eastbound through movement is anticipated to operate at LOS E under Opening Year (2024) Scenario 1 Build Conditions. This is primarily due to the additional site traffic that is utilizing CSAH 25 to access the site. The northbound through movement at the Beltline Boulevard & CSAH 25 South Service Road intersection is anticipated to operate at LOS E under Opening Year (2024) Scenario 1 Build Conditions due to queue spillback from the northbound queue at the CSAH 25 & Beltline Boulevard/Ottawa Avenue S intersection. The northbound through movement at the intersection of Beltline Boulevard & Park Glen Road are expected to operate at LOS E under Opening Year (2024) Scenario 1 Build Conditions. This is caused by the queue extending from the CSAH 25 intersection back to the intersection with Park Glen Road. Opening Year (2024) Scenario 2 Build Conditions Analysis The Opening Year (2024) Scenario 2 Build Conditions modeling was conducted to identify the expected traffic operations for the Opening Year (2024) with the proposed roadway geometrics that make the proposed commercial development viable. As previous mentioned, the proposed roadway changes are described below (and shown in Exhibit 3). Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 155 15 Beltline Station Development Traffic Technical Memorandum June 2021 Convert the right-in only access on Beltline Boulevard that connects to the Backage Road to a ¾ access and shift the intersection further to the north. This would add left-in access from southbound Beltline Boulevard to the Backage Road and right-out access from the Backage Road to northbound Beltline Boulevard. Add right-out access from Monterey Avenue to eastbound CSAH 25 to convert the CSAH 25 & Monterey Avenue intersection to a right-in/right-out intersection. The location of the access would remain the same as the Opening Year (2024) No-Build scenario. An intersection capacity analysis was performed at the study intersections using the Opening Year (2024) Scenario 2 Build Conditions AM and PM peak hour turning movement volumes (as shown in Exhibit 16). Table 5 provides a summary of the average delay (seconds per vehicle) and LOS for each individual movement of the study intersections. The queue results table for the Scenario 2 Build Conditions analysis is included in Attachment C. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 156 16 Beltline Station Development Traffic Technical Memorandum June 2021 Table 5: Opening Year (2024) Scenario 2 Build Conditions Delay Results Intersection Control Type Approach Movement AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Delay LOS Delay LOS CSAH 25 & Beltline Boulevard/ Ottawa Ave S Signal EB Left 56.7 E 98.1 F Through 26.0 C 70.6 E Right 6.3 A 27.9 C WB Left 95.4 F 95.6 F Through 35.6 D 40.9 D Right 10.6 B 4.8 A NB Left 55.9 E 60.7 E Through 42.6 D 23.6 C Right 8.3 A 11.2 B SB Left 100+ F 100+ F Through 84.8 F 99.0 F Right 15.4 B 24.8 C Intersection 34.9 C 53.2 D Beltline Boulevard & CSAH 25 South Service Rd Side Street Stop EB Left 32.8 D 100+ F Right 5.0 A 30.2 D NB Left 12.5 B 26.1 D Through 15.6 C 35.4 E SB Through 0.8 A 3.8 A Right 0.9 A 1.6 A Intersection 7.6 A 22.1 C Beltline Boulevard & Park Glen Rd Side Street Stop EB Left 27.8 D 100+ F Through 0.0 A 0.0 A Right 17.0 C 100+ F WB Left 23.4 C 100+ F Through 0.0 A 100+ F Right 13.8 B 100+ F NB Left 5.8 A 25.5 D Through 0.9 A 35.1 E Right 1.1 A 32.0 D SB Left 10.8 B 41.4 E Through 3.8 A 5.3 A Right 5.0 A 3.7 A Intersection 5.7 A 55.1 F Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 157 17 Beltline Station Development Traffic Technical Memorandum June 2021 Table 5 (cont.): Opening Year (2024) Scenario 2 Build Conditions Delay Results Intersection Control Type Approach Movement AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Delay LOS Delay LOS CSAH 25 & Lynn Ave Signal EB Through 6.8 A 6.5 A Right 3.4 A 3.9 A WB Left 41.7 D 46.0 D Through 3.0 A 3.4 A NB Left 38.6 D 39.0 D Right 22.2 C 23.2 C Intersection 6.9 A 7.5 A CSAH 25 & Monterey Ave Side Street Stop EB Through 0.5 A 0.8 A Right 1.0 A 1.1 A WB Through 1.7 A 1.2 A NB Right 10.0 B 11.5 B Intersection 1.4 A 1.3 A Beltline Boulevard & Backage Road Side Street Stop WB Right 13.8 B 71.3 F NB Through 7.5 A 30.2 D Right 8.2 A 30.1 D SB Left 7.3 A 23.5 C Through 2.6 A 4.1 A Intersection 5.9 A 20.3 C In general, the same movements are anticipated to have LOS E/F operations under Opening Year (2024) Scenario 2 Build Conditions compared to Opening Year (2024) Scenario 1 Build Conditions. The only additional movement that is expected to operate at LOS E under Opening Year (2024) Scenario 2 Build Conditions is the eastbound left-turn movement at CSAH 25 & Beltline Boulevard/Ottawa Avenue S in the AM peak hour. The overall increase in delay compared to Opening Year (2024) Scenario 1 Build Conditions is only approximately two seconds and this movement is not directly affected by development traffic. As in Opening Year (2024) Scenario 1 Build Conditions, high levels of northbound delay and queuing on Beltline Boulevard are also anticipated in the PM peak hour of Opening Year (2024) Scenario 2 Build Conditions. Figure 2 below illustrates the extent of queuing that is expected to be present along northbound Beltline Boulevard under all three analysis scenarios. Based on these queuing results, the northbound queues are not anticipated to differ significantly between Build Scenario 1 & 2. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 158 18 Beltline Station Development Traffic Technical Memorandum June 2021 Figure 2: Northbound Beltline Boulevard Queuing Site Access Comparison & Study Area Mitigations Safe and convenient access is paramount to be able to lease space, attract tenants and customers, and make this transit oriented development a success. The analysis for all scenarios shows LOS E vehicular operations at several study intersections, but the proposed site is in a prime location to encourage users to access the site via other modes of transportation. Site Access Beltline Boulevard/Backage Road ¾ Access: Perhaps the most critical access point for the success of the proposed development is the ¾ access on Beltline Boulevard. The operational results and benefits of the additional southbound left-turn and westbound right-turn movements are described below. Southbound left-turn from Beltline Boulevard onto the Backage Road: The ¾ access is expected to operate acceptably in both the AM and PM peak hours. Additionally, this movement is not anticipated to have an adverse impact to the southbound through movements along Beltline Boulevard. The maximum queue is 145 feet with a proposed storage bay of 225 feet. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 159 19 Beltline Station Development Traffic Technical Memorandum June 2021 The movement is vital to the retail component of the site because of the visibility of the commercial uses on the corner of Beltline Boulevard & CSAH 25. It allows for better access to the SWLRT park-and-ride which will be located adjacent to the proposed ¾ access. Westbound right-turn from the Backage Road onto Beltline Boulevard: The access is expected to operate acceptably in the AM peak hour. In the PM peak hour, it is anticipated that there will be around 70 seconds of delay as a result of northbound queues on Beltline Boulevard from the CSAH 25 & Beltline Boulevard intersection that extend beyond the access. However, this level of delay is not uncommon for side street approaches on roadways like Beltline Boulevard during the peak periods, and the 95th percentile queue length is 85 feet. Delays and queues will occur for northbound traffic on Beltline Boulevard in both Scenario 1 & 2 during the PM peak hour with or without the right-turn from the Backage Road onto Beltline Boulevard. Allowing the right-turn onto Beltline Boulevard from the Backage Road will decrease delay from 51 seconds to 39 seconds and queuing from 115 feet to 30 feet for the northbound left-turn at CSAH 25 & Lynn Avenue in the PM peak hour when comparing Scenarios 1 & 2. Additionally, the right-out is beneficial because vehicles destined to the west on CSAH 25 could use the right-out on Beltline Boulevard (1/8 mile) instead of having to circulate back to Lynn Avenue to make a left turn onto CSAH 25 (1/2 mile). During the PM peak hour, the estimated travel times would be similar for both routes due to the delay on Beltline Boulevard, but throughout the rest of the day, the right out on Beltline Boulevard would be faster. CSAH 25/Monterey Avenue Right-in/Right-out: As previously mentioned, St. Louis Park and Hennepin County have collaborated to explore roadway layouts that would transform CSAH 25 into an “urban boulevard”. The corridor study reviewed potential options for repurposing the right- of-way to provide enhanced multimodal facilities, traffic calming, and landscaped boulevards. Providing right-in/right-out access at Monterey Avenue would align with the characteristics of a more urban streets. In addition, the proposed right-in-right-out access is 700 feet from the Beltline Boulevard intersection to the west and 500 feet from the Lynn Avenue intersection to the east. Per Hennepin County Access Spacing Guidelines, limited access can be provided at 1/16 mile (330 feet) in an urban setting. The operational results and benefits of the additional northbound right-turn movement are described below. Northbound right-turn from Monterey Avenue onto CSAH 25: The access is expected to operate acceptably in both the AM and PM peak hours of Scenario 2. Allowing the northbound right-turn will disperse traffic on the proposed site to more access points, thus reducing delays at the ¾ access on Beltline Boulevard and the CSAH 25 & Lynn Avenue intersection. Which would allow more green time for CSAH 25 through movements at the Lynn Avenue signal. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 160 20 Beltline Station Development Traffic Technical Memorandum June 2021 Allowing the right-turn onto CSAH 25 from Monterey Avenue will also decrease delay and queuing for the northbound right-turn at CSAH 25 & Lynn Avenue when comparing Scenarios 1 & 2. It is not anticipated that vehicles will utilize the right-out at Monterey Avenue to ultimately head west on CSAH 25. In conjunction with the ¾ access on Beltline Boulevard, taking a right out at the access and making an illegal U-turn at Lynn Avenue to head west will be less desirable then exiting onto Beltline Boulevard. o The travel time and distances for routes to exit the site were evaluated based on the roadway network, accesses, posted speed limits, and intersection delay. The typical travel time to head west on CSAH 25 from the right out onto Beltline Boulevard would be around 80 seconds. While the typical travel time to head west on CSAH 25 from the right out onto CSAH 25 and completing an illegal U-turn would be around 125 seconds. Study Area Mitigations Based on the results of the Opening Year (2024) No-Build and Build analyses, several improvements should be considered as traffic volumes increase within the study area. As traffic volumes on Beltline Boulevard grow, it will become increasingly difficult for vehicles on Park Glen Road to turn onto Beltline Boulevard. A traffic signal may be required to provide gaps for vehicles on Park Glen Road. However, the analysis shows that the proposed Beltline Station Development will not trigger the need for the traffic signal. Based on conversations with the City of St. Louis Park, there are not currently plans to install a traffic signal at the intersection, but it is expected to be installed when the vacant parcel on the northeast side of the intersection is developed. The City is also exploring options to fund the signal prior to the redevelopment of the parcel. With the anticipated northbound queues on Beltline Boulevard, there is the potential for northbound vehicles to block the southbound left turning traffic at the ¾ access. It is recommended to install additional signage for northbound Beltline Boulevard to not block the intersection. The queue cutter signal for the SWLRT should also help provide gaps in northbound traffic. The CSAH 25/Monterey Avenue right-in/right-out is not anticipated to be a desirable movement for vehicles destined to the west on CSAH 25. However, signage should be provided on site to direct traffic to head west on CSAH 25 using either the right-out onto Beltline Boulevard or the signal at CSAH 25 & Lynn Avenue. There should also be prohibited U-turn signage on the eastbound approach of CSAH 25 at Lynn Avenue. The median at CSAH 25 & Lynn Avenue could also be redesigned with a minimal radius on the eastbound approach to discourage U-Turns. Any changes to the median will need to be verified so that they do not impact other turning movements. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 161 21 Beltline Station Development Traffic Technical Memorandum June 2021 Summary and Conclusion A traffic analysis was completed for the area surrounding the proposed redevelopment site south of CSAH 25 and east of Beltline Boulevard in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. The AM and PM peak hours of traffic were analyzed under three scenarios: Opening Year (2024) No-Build Conditions, Opening Year (2024) Scenario 1 Build Conditions, and Opening Year (2024) Scenario 2 Build Conditions. In the Opening Year (2024) No-Build Conditions, there are a significant amount of movements at CSAH 25 & Beltline Boulevard that have longer delays in both peak hours, this is most likely attributed to the longer cycle lengths in the peak hours. However, all intersections operate at LOS D or better except for Beltline Boulevard & Park Glen Road which is anticipated to have substantial delays for the side street movements in the PM peak hour. It should be noted that the capacity improvements completed as part of the SWLRT project maximize the realistic capacity of the study area. Any additional mitigation to increase capacity may not be feasible due to property impacts and improvement costs. Overall, the Opening Year (2024) Scenario 1 Build Conditions analysis generally exhibits issues in the same locations as the Opening Year (2024) No-Build conditions analysis. However, with the addition of the site traffic, delays are expected to deteriorate slightly from the Opening Year (2024) No-Build Conditions. This results in some increased queues and delays along Beltline Boulevard. In general, the same movements are anticipated to experience a decrease in LOS under Opening Year (2024) Scenario 2 Build Conditions as in Opening Year (2024) Scenario 1 Build Conditions. With the changes in geometry, Opening Year (2024) Scenario 2 Build Conditions is expected to have slightly more delay at CSAH 25 & Monterey Boulevard, less delay at the CSAH 25 & Lynn Avenue intersection, and acceptable operations at the ¾ access when compared to the Opening Year (2024) Scenario 1 Build Conditions. Converting the access on Beltline Boulevard to a ¾ access and also adding right-out access from Monterey Avenue to eastbound CSAH 25, as proposed under Opening Year (2024) Scenario 2 Build Conditions, are not anticipated to have a significant impact on the operations along the two corridors. Both of these accesses are anticipated to operate acceptably in the AM peak hour and throughout the majority of the day. In the PM peak hour, there will be longer delays for the westbound right-turn onto Beltline Boulevard. However, delays of this level are not unexpected for side street movements on a corridor such as Beltline Boulevard, especially adjacent to a major traffic signal. This westbound right turn delay is the result of the northbound queues extending from the intersection of CSAH 25 & Beltline Boulevard. Additionally, adequate access is paramount to be able to lease space, attract tenants and customers, and make this transit oriented development a success for the community and help achieve the City of St. Louis Park goals of serving people first, followed by bikes, transit, and then cars. While the analysis completed for this study shows less than desirable vehicular operations at several study intersections, the proposed site is in a prime location to encourage users to access the site via other modes of transportation. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 162 22 Beltline Station Development Traffic Technical Memorandum June 2021 Attachments A. Site Plan B. Exhibits C. Queue Results Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 163 Beltline Station Development Traffic Technical Memorandum June 2021 Attachment A. Site Plan Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 164 LOADING 1,643 SF RAMP DN. 6.5% PUBLIC PARKING LVL 1 (79 STALLS) RAMP UP 6.5% 18 20 18 9 14 10 RAMP DN. RAMP DN. 13 LEASING AMENITY AMENITY AMENITY LOBBY/ LEASING LOBBY/ LEASING POCKET PARK DOG RUN PLAYGROUND 11 15 15 13 AMENITYLOBBY PEDESTRIAN PATH CANOPY STORM RETENTION 24 6 SCREENING WATER RETENTION GARDEN MONTEREY AVE.BELTLINE BLVD.BUILDING 3 5-STORY MARKET RATE 160 UNITS GROCERY 19,508 SF 7-STORY MIXED USE 159 UNITS BUILDING 2 4-STORY AFFORDABLE 84 UNITS H IG H W A Y 2 5 B E L T L IN E S T A T IO N BUILDING 1 PARKING RAMP 5' - 0" 6' - 0" 6' - 0"3' - 0"5' - 0"6' - 0"6' - 0"RETAIL 1,800 SF ENTRY ENTRY OPPORTUNITY FOR ADDITIONAL EXTERIOR ENTRIES PUBLIC SEATING N SITE PLAN 2146.02BELTLINE BLVD.05/27/2021 Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 165 Beltline Station Development Traffic Technical Memorandum June 2021 Attachment B. Exhibits Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 166 Monterey AvenueMonterey AvenueNOT TO SCALEN25COUNTYPark Glen RoadPark Glen RoadLynn AvenueLynn AvenueCSAH 25 South Service RoadCSAH 25 South Service RoadOttawa AvenueOttawa AvenueBeltline B o ul e v ar d Beltline B o ul e v ar d EXHIBIT 1PROJECT LOCATIONBELTLINE STATION DEVELOPMENTLEGENDProject LocationStudy IntersectionProposed Site AccessSpecial city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decisionPage 167 Monterey AvenueMonterey AvenueNOT TO SCALEN25COUNTYPark Glen RoadPark Glen RoadLynn AvenueLynn AvenueCSAH 25 South Service RoadCSAH 25 South Service RoadOttawa AvenueOttawa AvenueBeltline B o ul e v ar d Beltline B o ul e v ar d EXHIBIT 2OPENING YEAR (2024) NO-BUILD & SCENARIO 1 BUILD CONDITIONSGEOMETRY AND INTERSECTION CONTROLLEGENDStudy IntersectionProposed Site AccessSignal ControlStop ControlChannelized Right Turn** Denotes a turn lane that is not striped as a dedicated turn lane, but the roadway width provides enough space for right-turning behicles to bypass vehicles waiting to turn left. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decisionPage 168 NOT TO SCALE 25COUNTY EXHIBIT 3 OPENING YEAR (2024) SCENARIO 2 BUILD CONDITIONS GEOMETRY AND INTERSECTION CONTROL * LEGEND Study Intersection Proposed Site Access Signal Control Stop Control Channelized Right Turn Proposed Geometry Change * Denotes a turn lane that is not striped as a dedicated turn lane, but the roadway width provides enough space for right-turning behicles to bypass vehicles waiting to turn left. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 169 Monterey AvenueMonterey AvenueNOT TO SCALEN25COUNTYPark Glen RoadPark Glen RoadLynn AvenueLynn AvenueCSAH 25 South Service RoadCSAH 25 South Service RoadOttawa AvenueOttawa AvenueBeltline B o ul e v ar d Beltline B o ul e v ar d EXHIBIT 4OPENING YEAR (2024) NO-BUILD CONDITIONSPARK & RIDE TRIP DISTRIBUTIONLEGENDStudy IntersectionProposed Site AccessRegional Trip DistributionEntering Site TrafficExiting Site TrafficX%X%X%48%40%48%2%2%50%90%10% 40% 40%40% 40%90%10%10%40%40%2%48% Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decisionPage 170 Monterey AvenueMonterey AvenueNOT TO SCALEN25COUNTYPark Glen RoadPark Glen RoadLynn AvenueLynn AvenueCSAH 25 South Service RoadCSAH 25 South Service RoadOttawa AvenueOttawa AvenueBeltline B o ul e v ar d Beltline B o ul e v ar d EXHIBIT 5OPENING YEAR (2024) NO-BUILD CONDITIONSPARK & RIDE TRIP ASSIGNMENTLEGENDStudy IntersectionProposed Site AccessAM (PM) Peak Hour Site TrafficXX (XX)10 (55)10 (50)60 (10)5 (0)20 (105)65 (10)10 (50)10 (50) 50 (10)20 (105)15 (5)0 (10)10 (50)50 (10)Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decisionPage 171 Monterey AvenueMonterey AvenueNOT TO SCALEN25COUNTYPark Glen RoadPark Glen RoadLynn AvenueLynn AvenueCSAH 25 South Service RoadCSAH 25 South Service RoadOttawa AvenueOttawa AvenueBeltline B o ul e v ar d Beltline B o ul e v ar d EXHIBIT 6OPENING YEAR (2024) NO-BUILD CONDITIONSTOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES145 (300)50 (105)1,165 (750)15 (25)895 (945)355 (470)15 (15)110 (180)115 (50)190 (235) 165 (405) 180 (320)1,325 (1,075)1,025 (1,270)65 (10)LEGENDStudy IntersectionProposed Site AccessAM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX)20 (35)10 (25)580 (935)30 (15)10 (10) 515 (925)45 (45)10 (35)0 (10)165 (110)0 (0)15 (45)45 (15)425 (850) 120 (95) 30 (10)400 (800)50 (70)35 (15)1,010 (1,255)1,290 (945)15 (15)35 (130)20 (40)590 (960)525 (935) 50 (10)Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decisionPage 172 Monterey AvenueMonterey AvenueNOT TO SCALEN25COUNTYPark Glen RoadPark Glen RoadLynn AvenueLynn AvenueCSAH 25 South Service RoadCSAH 25 South Service RoadOttawa AvenueOttawa AvenueBeltline B o ul e v ar d Beltline B o ul e v ar d EXHIBIT 7OPENING YEAR (2024) SCENARIO 1 BUILD CONDITIONSDEVELOPMENT TRIP DISTRIBUTION - RESIDENTIAL TRIPSLEGENDStudy IntersectionProposed Site AccessRegional Trip DistributionEntering Site TrafficX%X%LEGENDStudy IntersectionProposed Site AccessEntering Regional Trip DistributionExiting Regional Trip DistributionEntering Site TrafficExiting Site TrafficX%X%X%X%20%25%20%25% 20%25% 25% 5%45% 50% 25% 20% 5% 45%50%20%50%75%5%75%25%25%5%Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decisionPage 173 NOT TO SCALE 25COUNTY EXHIBIT 8 OPENING YEAR (2024) SCENARIO 1 BUILD CONDITIONS DEVELOPMENT TRIP DISTRIBUTION - COMMERCIAL TRIPS LEGEND Study Intersection Proposed Site Access Regional Trip Distribution Entering Site Traffic LEGEND Study Intersection Proposed Site Access Entering Regional Trip Distribution Exiting Regional Trip Distribution Entering Site Traffic Exiting Site Traffic Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 174 NOT TO SCALE 25COUNTY EXHIBIT 9 OPENING YEAR (2024) SCENARIO 1 BUILD CONDITIONS DEVELOPMENT TRIP ASSIGNMENT - NEW EXTERNAL TRIPS LEGEND Study Intersection Proposed Site Access AM (PM) Peak Hour Site Traffic Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 175 Monterey AvenueMonterey AvenueNOT TO SCALEN25COUNTYPark Glen RoadPark Glen RoadLynn AvenueLynn AvenueCSAH 25 South Service RoadCSAH 25 South Service RoadOttawa AvenueOttawa AvenueBeltline B o ul e v ar d Beltline B o ul e v ar d EXHIBIT 10OPENING YEAR (2024) SCENARIO 1 BUILD CONDITIONSDEVELOPMENT TRIP ASSIGNMENT - PASS-BY TRIPS(-10)(-25)(25)(10) (-10)(-15)(15)(-10)(5)(5)LEGENDStudy IntersectionProposed Site AccessPM Peak Hour Pass-By Trips*(XX)* Note: There are no pass-by trips for the proposeddevelopment during the AM peak hour.(20)(20)Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decisionPage 176 NOT TO SCALE 25COUNTY EXHIBIT 11 OPENING YEAR (2024) SCENARIO 1 BUILD CONDITIONS TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEGEND Study Intersection Proposed Site Access AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 177 Monterey AvenueMonterey AvenueNOT TO SCALEN25COUNTYPark Glen RoadPark Glen RoadLynn AvenueLynn AvenueCSAH 25 South Service RoadCSAH 25 South Service RoadOttawa AvenueOttawa AvenueBeltline B o ul e v ar d Beltline B o ul e v ar d EXHIBIT 12OPENING YEAR (2024) SCENARIO 2 BUILD CONDITIONSDEVELOPMENT TRIP DISTRIBUTION - RESIDENTIAL TRIPSLEGENDStudy IntersectionProposed Site AccessRegional Trip DistributionEntering Site TrafficX%X%LEGENDStudy IntersectionProposed Site AccessEntering Regional Trip DistributionExiting Regional Trip DistributionEntering Site TrafficExiting Site TrafficX%X%X%X%10%20%35% 25% 20%40%25% 25% 5%45% 25%10%20%35%50% 25% 20% 5% 5%40%5%25% 5% 30%20%20%40%40%25%25%Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decisionPage 178 Monterey AvenueMonterey AvenueNOT TO SCALEN25COUNTYPark Glen RoadPark Glen RoadLynn AvenueLynn AvenueCSAH 25 South Service RoadCSAH 25 South Service RoadOttawa AvenueOttawa AvenueBeltline B o ul e v ar d Beltline B o ul e v ar d EXHIBIT 13OPENING YEAR (2024) SCENARIO 2 BUILD CONDITIONSDEVELOPMENT TRIP DISTRIBUTION - COMMERCIAL TRIPS50%50%20%25% 20%15%25% 25% 5%45% 25%50%20%50%LEGENDStudy IntersectionProposed Site AccessRegional Trip DistributionEntering Site TrafficX%X%LEGENDStudy IntersectionProposed Site AccessEntering Regional Trip DistributionExiting Regional Trip DistributionEntering Site TrafficExiting Site TrafficX%X%X%X%50% 25% 20% 5% 30%15%5%10%25% 5% 45%5%15%15%20%25%25%25%15%Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decisionPage 179 Monterey AvenueMonterey AvenueNOT TO SCALEN25COUNTYPark Glen RoadPark Glen RoadLynn AvenueLynn AvenueCSAH 25 South Service RoadCSAH 25 South Service RoadOttawa AvenueOttawa AvenueBeltline B o ul e v ar d Beltline B o ul e v ar d EXHIBIT 14OPENING YEAR (2024) SCENARIO 2 BUILD CONDITIONSDEVELOPMENT TRIP ASSIGNMENT - NEW EXTERNAL TRIPS125 (85)95 (55) 50 (40) 40 (25)35 (40)50 (40)85 (60)40 (25)95 (55)50 (35)35 (40)10 (10)20 (20)65 (35)55 (30)25 (15)55 (30) 10 (5) 85 (50)25 (10)65 (40)90 (50)LEGENDStudy IntersectionProposed Site AccessAM (PM) Peak Hour Site TrafficXX (XX)Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decisionPage 180 Monterey AvenueMonterey AvenueNOT TO SCALEN25COUNTYPark Glen RoadPark Glen RoadLynn AvenueLynn AvenueCSAH 25 South Service RoadCSAH 25 South Service RoadOttawa AvenueOttawa AvenueBeltline B o ul e v ar d Beltline B o ul e v ar d EXHIBIT 15OPENING YEAR (2024) SCENARIO 2 BUILD CONDITIONSDEVELOPMENT TRIP ASSIGNMENT - PASS-BY TRIPS(25)(10)(10)(-25)(25)(10) (-10)(20)(15)(-15)(-5)(5)(20) (10)(-15)(10)(-5)LEGENDStudy IntersectionProposed Site AccessPM Peak Hour Pass-By Trips*(XX)* Note: There are no pass-by trips for the proposeddevelopment during the AM peak hour.Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decisionPage 181 Monterey AvenueMonterey AvenueNOT TO SCALEN25COUNTYPark Glen RoadPark Glen RoadLynn AvenueLynn AvenueCSAH 25 South Service RoadCSAH 25 South Service RoadOttawa AvenueOttawa AvenueBeltline B o ul e v ar d Beltline B o ul e v ar d EXHIBIT 16OPENING YEAR (2024) SCENARIO 2 BUILD CONDITIONSTOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES210 (345)50 (105)1,180 (690)15 (25)890 (965)450 (530)10 (15)120 (190)115 (50)285 (350) 175 (415) 180 (320)LEGENDStudy IntersectionProposed Site AccessAM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX)20 (35)10 (25)750 (1,050)30 (15)10 (10) 620 (1,050)45 (45)10 (35)0 (10)165 (110)0 (0)15 (45)45 (15)465 (870) 120 (95) 30 (10)450 (840)50 (70)55 (35)1,065 (1,290)1,315 (955)15 (15)90 (105)20 (30)630 (980)525 (925) 100 (60)105 (135)130 (95)1,405 (1,060)1,025 (1,245)55 (55)55 (60)Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decisionPage 182 Beltline Station Development Traffic Technical Memorandum June 2021 Attachment C. Opening Year Queueing Results Opening Year (2024) No-Build Conditions Queuing Results Intersection Control Type Approach Movement Storage Length (feet) 95th Percentile Queue (feet) AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR CSAH 25 & Beltline Boulevard/ Ottawa Ave S Signal EB Left 300 20 50 Through 1,550 60 250 Right 350 0 0 WB Left 500 95 220 Through 1,125 175 120 Right 350 0 0 NB Left 150 75 110 Through 150 75 180 Right 150 90 205 SB Left 75 10 20 Through 75 80 120 Right 75 10 0 Beltline Blvd & CSAH 25 Service Rd Side Street Stop EB Left 625 5 60 Right 250 5 55 NB Left 275 10 145 Through 275 0 90 SB Through 150 0 5 Right 150 0 10 Beltline Boulevard & Park Glen Rd Side Street Stop EB Left 1,150 5 190 Through 1,150 5 190 Right 1,150 5 190 WB Left 1,550 5 330 Through 1,550 5 330 Right 1,550 15 255 NB Left 175 0 0 Through 800 0 210 Right 800 0 175 SB Left 175 5 35 Through 850 0 0 Right 150 0 0 Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 183 Beltline Station Development Traffic Technical Memorandum June 2021 Opening Year (2024) No-Build Conditions Queuing Results (cont.) Intersection Control Type Approach Movement Storage Length (feet) 95th Percentile Queue (feet) AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR CSAH 25 & Lynn Ave Signal EB Through 1,125 15 35 Right 200 0 0 WB Left 300 10 5 Through 550 5 10 NB Left 500 10 40 Right 500 10 45 Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 184 Beltline Station Development Traffic Technical Memorandum June 2021 Opening Year (2024) Build Scenario 1 Conditions Queuing Results Intersection Control Type Approach Movement Storage Length (feet) 95th Percentile Queue (feet) AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR CSAH 25 & Beltline Boulevard/ Ottawa Ave S Signal EB Left 300 25 55 Through 1,550 75 560 Right 350 0 100 WB Left 500 130 325 Through 1,125 185 140 Right 350 0 0 NB Left 150 70 105 Through 150 85 185 Right 150 100 210 SB Left 75 20 30 Through 75 75 150 Right 75 15 0 Beltline Blvd & CSAH 25 Service Rd Side Street Stop EB Left 625 5 65 Right 250 0 65 NB Left 275 15 165 Through 275 5 105 SB Through 150 0 15 Right 150 0 30 Beltline Boulevard & Park Glen Rd Side Street Stop EB Left 1,150 5 250 Through 1,150 5 250 Right 1,150 5 250 WB Left 1,550 5 655 Through 1,550 5 655 Right 1,550 15 480 NB Left 175 0 0 Through 800 0 440 Right 800 0 395 SB Left 175 5 100 Through 850 0 5 Right 150 0 0 Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 185 Beltline Station Development Traffic Technical Memorandum June 2021 Opening Year (2024) Build Scenario 1 Conditions Queuing Results (cont.) Intersection Control Type Approach Movement Storage Length (feet) 95th Percentile Queue (feet) AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR CSAH 25 & Lynn Ave Signal EB Through 1,125 45 80 Right 200 0 0 WB Left 300 25 25 Through 550 20 20 NB Left 500 70 115 Right 500 75 120 Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 186 Beltline Station Development Traffic Technical Memorandum June 2021 Opening Year (2024) Build Scenario 2 Conditions Queuing Results Intersection Control Type Approach Movement Storage Length (feet) 95th Percentile Queue (feet) AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR CSAH 25 & Beltline Blvd/ Ottawa Ave S Signal EB Left 300 20 70 Through 1,550 115 530 Right 350 0 5 WB Left 500 145 265 Through 1,125 210 105 Right 350 0 0 NB Left 150 115 155 Through 150 95 190 Right 150 120 215 SB Left 75 10 15 Through 75 70 175 Right 75 10 5 Beltline Blvd & CSAH 25 Service Rd Side Street Stop EB Left 625 10 145 Right 250 5 140 NB Left 225 35 125 Through 225 20 70 SB Through 150 0 10 Right 150 0 15 Beltline Blvd & Park Glen Rd Side Street Stop EB Left 1,150 - 300 Through 1,150 5 300 Right 1,150 5 300 WB Left 1,550 5 595 Through 1,550 10 595 Right 1,550 10 600 NB Left 175 20 0 Through 800 0 425 Right 800 0 375 SB Left 175 0 30 Through 850 5 0 Right 150 0 0 Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 187 Beltline Station Development Traffic Technical Memorandum June 2021 Opening Year (2024) Build Scenario 2 Conditions Queuing Results (cont.) Intersection Control Type Approach Movement Storage Length (feet) 95th Percentile Queue (feet) AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR CSAH 25 & Lynn Ave Signal EB Through 425 30 40 Right 225 0 0 WB Left 300 20 10 Through 550 10 10 NB Left 500 25 30 Right 500 25 35 CSAH 25 & Monterey Ave/ Site Driveway Side Street Stop EB Through 625 0 0 Right 325 0 0 WB Through 425 5 0 NB Right 450 5 5 Beltline Blvd & Site Driveway Side Street Stop WB Right 650 5 85 NB Through 575 0 70 Right 575 10 95 SB Left 225 5 15 Through 250 5 40 Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Title: Beltline Station Dev environmental assessment worksheet findings of fact and record of decision Page 188 Meeting: Special city council Meeting date: August 23, 2021 Consent agenda item: 2b Executive summary Title: Second reading of ordinance pertaining to building readiness Recommended action: Motion to approve second reading and adopt Ordinance amending chapters 6, 8, and 14 pertaining to building readiness for broadband, parking area safety, and public safety radio communications amplification and approve summary ordinance for publication. Policy consideration: Does the council wish to amend the ordinance pertaining to building readiness for broadband, parking area safety, and public safety radio communications amplification? Summary: City staff proposes to amend the regulations pertaining to building readiness in the following manner: •Require conduit between subject buildings and the public right-of-way for future high- speed broadband providers. •Ensure network cabling within buildings to all dwelling and working units, capable of minimum 1 gigabit symmetrical speeds. •Establish minimum lighting levels in new enclosed or multi-level parking garages. •In these same garages, require surveillance cameras, video recording, signage, and emergency call stations. •Provide the opportunity for law enforcement to request access to video recordings when warranted by an incident or investigation. •Require equipment to provide adequate public safety radio coverage in buildings that present a challenge due to structural features such as building material, basements, or other obstacles. Background: In May of 2015, council began consideration of broadband readiness for new developments and significant redevelopments in St. Louis Park. That was part of a council exercise in developing its 2015 – 2025 goals and priorities. While concepts for broadband readiness were being developed, the scope of the effort grew to include general building readiness by adding components on parking area safety, 800 MHz radio amplification, solid waste, and electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. The last two items have been separately codified in recent years, while the other three items remain. The most recent report to council on this was August 16, 2021. At that meeting, council approved first reading of the ordinance. Financial or budget considerations: None. Strategic priority consideration: Multiple. Supporting documents: Ordinance Summary ordinance Prepared by: Clint Pires, chief information officer Reviewed by: Mike Harcey, police chief; Steve Koering, fire chief; Brian Hoffman, director of building and energy; Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2b) Page 2 Title: Second reading of ordinance pertaining to building readiness Ordinance No. ____-21 City of St. Louis Park Hennepin County, Minnesota Ordinance amending St. Louis Park City Code Chapters 6, 8 and 14 related to building readiness The City of St. Louis Park does ordain: Section 1. Section 6-1 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended by adding underlined language. Conduit means a conduit (e.g., HDPE) system capable of housing and protecting fiber optic cable between a handhole and telecommunications point of presence. Conduit can be installed via open trench, plowing, or directional drilling. Commercial unit means any individually owned or rented tenant space in a building, or portion of a building, subject to the requirements of the building and fire codes approved for an occupancy use other than residential occupancy. Future high-speed broadband service means offering a minimum one gigabit connection capable service, in addition to any service provided by the incumbent and dominant (largest market share in St. Louis Park, Minnesota) cable television and wireline telephone providers. Gigabit connection means a connection using a transmission technology based on the Ethernet frame format and protocol used in local area networks (LANs), and which provides a symmetrical (download and upload) data rate of 1 billion bits per second. Handhole means a shallow form of manhole giving access to a top row of ducts in an underground telecommunications system. Innerduct is smaller conduit (or tube) used to subdivide large ducts for the placement of optical fiber cables in the underground conduit system. Telecommunications point of presence (POP) means the point at which two or more different networks or communication devices build a connection with each other. POP mainly refers to an access point, location or facility that connects to and helps other devices establish a connection with the public telephone system, cable television system, and/or Internet. Wiring closet means a wiring rack that connects outside lines with internal lines. It is used to connect public or private lines coming into the building to internal networks and to dwelling units and commercial units. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2b) Page 3 Title: Second reading of ordinance pertaining to building readiness Section 2. Chapter 6 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended by adding Article IX. Article IX. Broadband Readiness Sec. 6-240 – Purpose. The purpose of this section is to implement the City Council goal of making St. Louis Park a technology connected community and increase competition and consumer choice for broadband services. This section requires new construction and substantially expanded buildings to prepare for communication technology by requiring minimum improvements to accommodate the technology as it becomes available. Sec. 6-241 – Applicable Buildings. (a)New buildings. (b)Existing buildings which expand the gross square footage of the building by more than 50 percent. Sec. 6-242 – Exempt Buildings. (a)Accessory buildings. (b)Single-family dwellings. (c)Two-family dwellings. Sec. 6-243 – General Requirements. (a)New buildings shall complete items 1 - 3 below. (1)Applicable buildings shall have dedicated copper twisted pair wire, fiber optic, coaxial cable, or other wired installations capable of supporting at least gigabit connections to each dwelling and commercial unit from each building’s telecommunications point of presence to each internal wiring closet that may exist. (2)Each dwelling and commercial unit shall have a minimum of two (2) dedicated copper twisted pair wire, fiber optic, coaxial cable, or other wired connections from the unit to the telecommunications point of presence (often through a wiring closet), each capable of supporting a minimum of one gigabit connection. (3)For each building required to serve dwelling and commercial units as described in this section, one 4-inch (or larger) conduit, suitable and used exclusively to accommodate one or more future high-speed broadband services, shall be installed underground starting in a 2-foot by 3-foot (or larger) handhole at a Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2b) Page 4 Title: Second reading of ordinance pertaining to building readiness point on the building property abutting public right-of-way, to a point in the building’s telecommunications point of presence. Said 4-inch (or larger) conduit shall be capped on both ends so as to protect it until used to support a future high-speed broadband service. Each cable installed in this conduit shall be enclosed in innerduct. Sec. 6-244 – Testing and Certification Requirements. In copper twisted pair wire, fiber optic, coaxial cable, or other wired installations, certification is achieved through a thorough series of cabling tests in accordance with Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) or International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards. A copy of said industry standard cabling tests and certifications that meets the requirements of Section 6-243 is to be paid for and provided by the building permit holder to the City of St. Louis Park before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Sec. 6-245 – Effective Date. All provisions of this Article shall be required for applicable buildings permitted for construction on or after January 1, 2022. Section 3. Section 8-1 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended by adding underlined language. Video Surveillance System means a continuous video surveillance system including cameras, cabling, and digital video recording from all cameras. Section 4. Section 8-399 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amending by adding Sec. 8-399. Inspections. (a)Enclosed parking facilities. The vehicle parking facility licensee must provide access to enclosed parking facilities throughout the year as requested by the city to perform air quality and ventilation equipment inspections, and to verify other requirements of this section. (b)Multilevel parking facilities. Multilevel parking facilities must be inspected annually by a qualified civil or structural engineer who is registered and licensed by the state. The engineer must provide evidence of experience in the field of structural or civil engineering. The licensee must provide access to the facility as requested by the city to verify compliance with the requirements of this section. (c)Exception. Multilevel parking facilities less than five years old are exempt from the engineer inspection and reporting requirements set forth in this section. (Ord. No. 2181-00, § 4(16-312D.), 11-6-2000) Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2b) Page 5 Title: Second reading of ordinance pertaining to building readiness Section 5. Section 8-403 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amending by adding underlined language. Sec. 8-403. Security requirements. All enclosed parking facilities and multi-level parking facilities permitted for construction on or after January 1, 2022 shall meet the following requirements to enhance public safety and deter crimes before issuance of a license. (a)Lighting. 1.Fully enclosed parking garages shall have lighting fixtures provided and maintained that provide a minimum average of 5.0 footcandles of illumination measured at 48” above the floor throughout the entire parking area, stairways, and exits to avoid dark or hidden areas and for the Video Surveillance System to effectively function at all times. 2.Multi-level parking structures shall have lighting fixtures provided and maintained that comply with zoning code section 36-361(l)(8). (b)Video surveillance system. 1.Cameras shall be located to provide complete coverage of the entire parking facility. Including entrances to stairs and elevators. 2.Cameras shall have sufficient resolution to capture license plates of vehicles entering and exiting the facility. 3.Cameras shall be equipped to automatically compensate for changing light conditions to maintain required resolution. 4.Images from the Video Surveillance System shall be recorded and retained for a minimum of 72 hours. The Police Department may either request copies of the recordings or obtain a search warrant or an administrative search warrant in order to collect the recordings. (c)Emergency Call Station. All licensed parking facilities shall have a minimum of one Emergency Call Station installed in a visible location on every level of parking. The Emergency Call Station must initiate a light and sound alarm and provide communication to a 24-hour monitored location. (d)Signage. All multilevel and enclosed parking facilities shall have clearly visible signage near all structure entrances and exits stating that the facility is under video surveillance. Secs. 8-404--8-420. Reserved. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2b) Page 6 Title: Second reading of ordinance pertaining to building readiness Section 6. Chapter 14 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amending by adding Article VII, Sections 14-200, 14-201, 14-202, 14-203, and 14-204 ARTICLE VII - PUBLIC SAFETY 800 MHZ RADIO BUILDING COVERAGE Sec. 14-200. - Adequate radio coverage. Except as provided in section 14-201, no person shall construct any building, construct an addition to any building that increases the gross floor area of the building by more than 20 percent, change the occupancy classification of more than 50 percent of the floor area of any building or cause the same to be done to a building, if such building fails to support adequate radio coverage for the Minnesota Regional Radio Communications System, including but not limited to firefighters and police officers. For the purposes of this article, parking garages, parking ramps, stair shafts, elevators and stairwells are included in the definition of the term "building." For purposes of this article, adequate radio coverage shall be an average received field strength of no less than 93 dBm, or one percent BER, measured at 30 to 36 inches above the floor over 90 percent of the area of each floor including the basement in the building and other critical areas determined by the fire chief or the fire chief's designee such as fire command centers, stairwells, elevators, high hazard areas, basements and parking garages and ramps. Without an in-building radio system, only the received signal level standard must be achieved, as the talk-out path is equivalent to the talk-in path in this regional radio system. Sec. 14-201. - Exempt buildings. The requirements of section 14-200 shall not apply to: (1)Any single-family or duplex dwelling unit or accessory building. (2)Any building of less than 25,000 square feet in gross floor area. (3)Any building constructed of wood frame; provided that such building does not contain any metal construction or any below grade levels or below grade parking areas. Sec. 14-202. - Amplification systems allowed. Buildings required by section 14-200 to support adequate radio coverage which cannot support the required level of radio coverage required by section 14-200 shall be equipped with approved bi-directional 800 MHz signal enhancement systems as needed. If amplification is used in the system, all required FCC authorizations must be obtained by the building owner prior to the use of the system. If any part of the installed system or systems contains an electrically powered component, the system shall be capable of operating on an independent battery and/or generator system for a continuous period of at least 12 hours without external power input. The battery system shall automatically charge in the presence of an external power input. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2b) Page 7 Title: Second reading of ordinance pertaining to building readiness Sec. 14-203. - Testing procedures. The following testing procedures shall apply to each building or structure required by section 14-200 to support adequate radio coverage: (a)Acceptance test procedure. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the owner of the building shall arrange for testing conducted by individuals acceptable to the fire chief to ensure the building conforms with the requirements of section 14-200. Testing procedures shall conform to practices adopted and on-file with the building official. (b)Annual tests. When an in-building radio system is required to support the required level of radio coverage, the owner of the building shall arrange for testing conducted by individuals acceptable to the fire chief of all active components of the system, including but not limited to amplifiers, power supplies and backup batteries, a minimum of once every 12 months. Amplifiers shall be tested to ensure that the gain is the same as it was upon initial installation and acceptance. Backup batteries and power supplies shall be tested under load for a period of one hour to verify that they will properly operate during an actual power outage. If within the one-hour test period, in the opinion of the testing technician, the battery exhibits symptoms of failure, the test shall be extended for additional one-hour periods until the testing technician confirms the integrity of the battery. All other active components shall be checked to determine that they are operating within the manufacturer's specifications for the intended purpose. All deficiencies found shall be corrected and testing repeated. All test results shall be submitted to the fire chief within 30 days of the test date. (c)Five-year tests. When an in-building radio system is required to support the required level of radio coverage in addition to the annual test, the building owner shall arrange for testing conducted by individuals acceptable to the fire chief to perform a radio coverage test a minimum of once every five years to ensure that the radio system continues to meet the requirements of the original acceptance test. A radio test shall also be performed whenever there is a change in or to the building that may have an impact on coverage. Examples of the types of changes that may change radio coverage are interior remodeling that adds and/or changes partitions, removal of windows, and the addition of metalized treatment to window surfaces. The procedure described by practices adopted by the city shall be used for these tests. All test results shall be submitted to the fire chief within 30 days of the test date. (d)Field testing. Fire and police personnel, after providing reasonable notice to the owner or the owner's representative, shall have the right to enter onto the property to conduct testing to be certain that the required level of radio coverage is present. Sec. 14-204. – Effective Date. All provisions of this Article shall be required for applicable buildings permitted for construction on or after January 1, 2022 to enhance public safety. Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2b) Page 8 Title: Second reading of ordinance pertaining to building readiness Section 7. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2022. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council August 23, 2021 Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney First Reading August 16, 2021 Second Reading August 23, 2021 Date of Publication September 9, 2021 Date Ordinance takes effect January 1, 2022 Special city council meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2b) Page 9 Title: Second reading of ordinance pertaining to building readiness Summary ordinance Ordinance No. ____-21 An ordinance amending the St. Louis Park ordinance pertaining to building readiness This ordinance amends Chapters 6, 8, and 14 pertaining to building readiness for broadband, parking area safety, and public safety radio communications amplification. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2022. Adopted by the City Council August 23, 2021 Jake Spano /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: September 9, 2021 1Meeting: Study session Meeting date: August 23, 2021 Discussion item: 1 Executive summary Title: Neighborhood-focused commercial activity in public parks Recommended action: None at this time. The purpose of this report is to provide information pertaining to allowing commercial activities in public parks. Policy consideration: Does city council want staff to research and explore allowing these types of uses in public parks? What policy questions or concerns do city council members have that staff ought to consider? Summary: On June 18, 2021, staff met with Council Member Rog and residents to discuss the idea of allowing a small coffee shop use in Nelson Park. The residents indicated the coffee shop would serve the neighborhood and users of the park and Cedar Lake Trail. At this meeting, the residents presented their idea, and council member Rog and staff reviewed the topics below in a very general manner. Council Member Rog ended the meeting by stating she would present the idea to the council to see if they are interested in the city looking into this further. At the meeting, staff presented the following questions and comments that would need to be researched, if the council wishes to pursue this topic further: •Should the city construct a brick and mortar building to be leased by a company? For a specified time range, similar to how Minneapolis leases its building at Lake Bde Maka Ska, or should the city simply lease a space for a food truck or cart? •This service will require a review of existing policies and laws surrounding private use of public land, such as: o Would the city need to issue a request for proposals and how frequently? o Will existing policies need to be amended to allow private use of public land? o Would city ordinances need to be amended? •At which city parks and facilities would commercial uses be allowed? Next Step: If the council wishes to pursue this topic, staff recommends referring the matter to the park and recreation advisory commission and/or planning commission. Staff would prepare research and seek recommendations from one or both commissions. Financial or budget considerations: To be determined. Physical improvements to public land may be required. Staff will need to review and possibly prepare amendments to policies and ordinances. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Study session topic proposal form Prepared by: Gary Morrison, zoning administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning manager Karen Barton, community development director Cindy Walsh, operations and recreation director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Study session meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Neighborhood-focused commercial activity in public parks Meeting: Study session Meeting date: August 23, 2021 Discussion item: 2 Executive summary Title: 2022 budget: info on CIP, debt, long range financial planning and preliminary levy request Recommended action: No formal action required. This report is to assist with preparation for setting the 2022 preliminary property tax levy on September 20, 2021. Policy consideration: •Is the council supportive of setting the 2022 preliminary tax levy at the historical range of 6%-6.5%? •Is the council supportive of setting the 2022 preliminary HRA levy at the maximum amount of 0.0185% of market value? •Is the council supportive of establishing an EDA and setting a 2022 preliminary EDA levy in the amount of $500,000? •What target future levy increases should staff work toward while developing programs and policies? •As staff recommend future years’ usage of ARPA monies, is there interest in using dollars to buy down the levy or invest in other established City priorities? Summary: At the study session on July 12, council discussed a target preliminary levy range of 4.5% over 2021. Once adopted on September 20, 2021, the preliminary property tax levy can be decreased but cannot be increased. Even if the goal is a 4.5% final increase, a preliminary levy increase of 6% to 6.5% is recommended. Historically, we have set a higher preliminary levy and passed a lower final levy. This approach provides flexibility through the budget process and long- term financial management plan. It also allows the consideration of items council may want to include in the 2022 budget and/or help address unforeseen items that may arise. This study session is to provide time for discussion and check in prior to setting the preliminary levy. Financial or budget considerations: Report provides details regarding budget considerations. Strategic priority consideration: All areas of the adopted strategic priorities are impacted by the city’s budget. •St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all. •St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. •St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood- oriented development. •St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. •St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Discussion Prepared by: Melanie Schmitt, chief financial officer Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Study session meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Title: 2022 budget: info on CIP, debt, long range financial planning and preliminary levy request Discussion Background: On July 12, 2021 a discussion with council targeted a preliminary tax levy range of 4.50%. As staff continues to review and refine the 2022 budget, maintaining current services will require a levy increase around 5.7%. This does not include new investments in key priority areas. Options to reduce the levy increase include using fund balance and/or our American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) monies or cutting back on programs being offered. To the right is a chart showing the dollars associated with each percentage of levy increase. It is recommended even if the goal of council is a 4.5% final increase, a preliminary levy increase of 6% to 6.5% is passed initially. This provides the council and staff flexibility as we work through the budget process and long-term financial management plan. It also allows the consideration of items council may want to include in the 2022 budget and/or help address unforeseen items that may arise between now and December. Budget challenges: Our biggest upcoming budget challenge is the level of debt service levy increase from the Dakota Bridge and Louisiana Bridge project. We will see another large debt levy in 2023 with the bulk of the Louisiana bridge project needing repayment to start, which makes our 2023 estimated increase around 7.5%. Additionally, many of our capital and operation items have experienced larger than normal increases due to market conditions which contributes to the challenge in holding the levy increase to 4.5%. Maintaining Current Service Level 2021 City Final Levy and 2022 City Preliminary Levy A synopsis of prior year levy information and the 2022 Proposed Preliminary Levy Range is shown below: •The 2021 Preliminary levy was $36,895,000, which was 6.11% more than 2020. •The 2021 Final levy was $36,335,325, which was 4.5% more than 2020. 5.7% Levy increase needed to maintain current service level 2021 2022 $ Change % Change Final Levy Proposed 2021 to 2022 2021 to 2022 TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY General Fund 29,601,811 30,587,541 985,730 3.3% Park Improvement Fund 860,000 860,000 - 0.0% Capital Replacement Fund 1,312,700 1,575,240 262,540 20.0% Debt Service 4,410,814 5,248,040 837,226 19.0% Employee Benefits Fund 150,000 150,000 - 0.0% TOTAL TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVIES 36,335,325 38,420,821 2,085,496 5.7% Study session meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2) Page 3 Title: 2022 budget: info on CIP, debt, long range financial planning and preliminary levy request Included in 5.7% increase • Expense increases o 3% Cost of Living wage increase o Increases to Temporary Salaries ($400,000) (includes part-time wages, election worker wages, interns) o Increased Work comp costs ($250,000) • Use of balance from General and Debt Service Funds o Levy buydown: Use fund balance for portion of 2014A and 2019B debt levies (debt service funds, up to $300,000) o Reduce impact of work comp and temp salaries increases with use of fund balance (reduce impact by $250,000) Option t o Bring Down Levy Increase to 4.7% Utilization of general fund balance and American Recovery Plan Act (ARPA) dollars are ways to drive down the proposed levy increase to 4.7% while maintaining current service level across the City and expanding services in key, priority-driven, areas. Additionally, reducing the scope of future capital expenditures would free up general fund balance and/or ARPA dollars for other expenses or further “buydown” of future levy increases. If this is of interest, staff can assess this approach further. Levy Buydown Examples: One way to keep our tax increases lower over the next several years is to “buy down” our levy with a combination of our fund balance overage and our ARPA funds. The example below shows $375,000 of fund balance to buy-down the 2022 levy to 4.7%. In this example, all ARPA funds ($5 million) are used to continue buying down our levy for years 2023- 2026. This would also use $1.3 million of fund balance. *example above depletes ARPA funds City of SLP Property Tax levy History/Projection 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 TOTAL GENERAL LEVIES 31,924,511 33,172,781 35,107,206 36,980,525 38,659,911 40,363,513 42,194,717 GF Levy buydown (375,000) (925,000) ARPA funds (75,000) (1,750,000) (1,800,000) (1,400,000) TOTAL DEBT LEVY 4,410,814 4,873,040 5,254,288 5,833,916 6,790,238 7,820,171 9,062,500 TOTAL LEVY 36,335,325 38,045,821 40,361,494 42,814,441 45,450,150 48,183,684 51,257,217 Increase in Net Levy 4.500%4.708%6.087%6.077%6.156%6.014%6.379% Study session meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2) Page 4 Title: 2022 budget: info on CIP, debt, long range financial planning and preliminary levy request Another buydown option is to leave the 2022 levy increase at 5.7%, continue with MSA projects as planned and buy down the 2023-2026 levy with Fund balance ($1.3 million) and ARPA funds ($3.6 million). *example above leaves around $1.5 million of ARPA funds for qualified items As shown in the chart below, capital expenses are a major driver of levy increases. An additional future option to lower the levy is to modify our municipal state aid road projects. The 2023 CLR TH169 to Nevada ($8.6 million) and 2024 Louisiana to CLR ($9.5 million) both have new infrastructure components which are costly. Staff is gathering data on the cost of a mill and overlay project to show the financial difference. Planned Service Expansions and Fund Balance Recommendations Separate from the 2022 preliminary levy, there are planned service expansions. Staff have tailored these to only items that do not affect the General Fund levy. Use of General Fund Balance, EDA Levy and ARPA dollars • Increase for Hennepin county social worker (Police dept) – ARPA funds ($65,000) • Increase for LPN hours-wellness checks (Fire) – ARPA funds ($60,000) • EDA levy for climate and development expense ($500,000) • Climate Investment Fund ($500,000) – Fund balance City of SLP Property Tax levy History/Projection 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 TOTAL GENERAL LEVIES 31,924,511 33,172,781 35,107,206 36,980,525 38,659,911 40,363,513 42,194,717 GF Levy buydown (500,000) (800,000) ARPA funds (100,000) (600,000) (1,500,000) (1,200,000) (200,000) TOTAL DEBT LEVY 4,410,814 5,248,040 5,654,288 6,183,916 7,090,238 8,020,171 8,862,500 TOTAL LEVY 36,335,325 38,420,821 40,761,494 43,164,441 45,750,150 48,383,684 51,057,217 Increase in Net Levy 4.500%5.740%6.092%5.895%5.990%5.756%5.526% $0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 $8,000,000 $9,000,000 $10,000,000 2022 2023 2024 2025 Expense increase year over year Connect the Park/Community Sidewalks Personnel Expense Increases Municipal State Aid Capital Projects Study session meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2) Page 5 Title: 2022 budget: info on CIP, debt, long range financial planning and preliminary levy request Detailed Fund Balance Recommendations: Saint Louis Park has a policy to reserve 45% of general operating expenses as a fund balance. As of 12-31-2020, the City’s fund balance was $26,824,101 equating to 63%. In reviewing needs and council priorities, staff are recommending utilizing the excess fund balance in the following ways. • *Note: Climate Investment Fund: We are requesting creation of the climate investment fund in 2021 and allocating $500,000 from 2020 excess general fund balance to get the fund started. In 2020, staff ran a pilot program with $250,000 from the development fund. To date we have 38 total applications (33 residential and 5 commercial and have spent $103,000. We are anticipating an additional $10,000 of our $250,000 budget will be spent in 2021.) If council supportive of the updated fund balance allocations, staff will bring a resolution this fall to assign balance and transfer monies. Assigned Fund Balance Permit/COVID revenue loss 550,000 potential revenue loss DWI enforcement 164,854 Tax court petitions 500,000 tax court cases Community Survey 25,000 Race data survey 25,000 in process-ongoing Levy buydown 2022 250,000 included in current 2022 budget Fund Balance Transfers Insurance reserve Fund 250,000 Increase in Insurance claims Capital replacement fund 500,000 Solar Panels MSC Pavement Management Fund 1,500,000 Cover fund deficit from prior years Employee development fund 250,000 Retirements and leave payouts Sidewalk & Trail Fund 1,450,000 2022 sidewalk/bikeway projects Climate Investment Fund 500,000 * Study session meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2) Page 6 Title: 2022 budget: info on CIP, debt, long range financial planning and preliminary levy request Additional Levies and Utilities Rates HRA property tax levy: The HRA levy is recommended to be set at the maximum allowed .0185% of estimated market value, which is consistent with previous years. The amount for 2022 is estimated at $1,517,799 million. Of this $400,626 will be used for salaries and the balance of $1,117,173 will be transferred to the affordable housing trust fund. EDA property tax levy: An EDA levy in the amount of $500,000 is being proposed for 2022. This levy would be used to fund commercial climate programs and as a salary supplement. Over the years, creating an EDA levy for the development fund has been discussed but not acted upon. The development fund has no sustainable funding source, and the fund balance is being depleted as time goes on. Dedicating a piece of the EDA levy to the development fund would help pay for fixed costs and give it a stable funding source. Utility Rates-Water, Sewer, Storm Water, and Solid Waste Funds: Ehlers is in the process of updating the utility rate study with our newest data. The utility rate study allows us to make recommendations for utility rate increases to ensure fund balances are adequate to cover appropriate operating expenses and capital improvement projects related to utility funds. Ehlers will be presenting to the council on Oct. 4. Contextual Information Median value home: The median value residential homestead property increased in value from $306,400 to $330,500. This represents an increase of $24,100 in value. The property tax change for the median value home would be estimated to increase ($124.51) in 2022 or ($10.38) per month with a 5.7% preliminary levy. Other Tax Impacts: In March the assessing office released the estimated market changes for various property classes in St. Louis Park. The report referenced the following market changes. Condominiums avg increase 1.6% Townhomes avg increase 5.2% Commercial avg increase 2.6% Industrial avg increase 3.6% Apartments -Class A ($261,000 and above) avg increase 5.1% -Class B ($167,000-$219,000) avg increase 7.6% -Class C ($110,000) near flat, no increase 2021 2022 HRA Tax Rate 1.58%1.62% Yearly Median Home Impact 46.96$ 52.17$ Study session meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2) Page 7 Title: 2022 budget: info on CIP, debt, long range financial planning and preliminary levy request Long Term Financial Management Plan: In looking at our Long-Term Financial Plan, we will have some large levy increase requests over the next two years. The biggest driver to our levy is the two MSA projects in 2023 and 2024. Below is the long-term projection if we continue with our planned projects and do not buy down the levy. If the council is comfortable with the level of increase seen, we will move forward. To show how the MSA projects are impacting this, below is what our projection looks like with those projects removed. *Note these are projections but are close to what we will see with our current project plans. Comparisons with Other Cities: A few finance departments did surveys of potential 2022 preliminary tax levies. These are early estimates, and every city has several things happening which is why levies change each year, but this provides an idea of ranges with other cities’ preliminary levies. Source: City Finance Departments City of SLP Property Tax levy History/Projection 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 GENERAL LEVIES Final Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected TOTAL GENERAL LEVIES 31,924,511 33,172,781 35,107,206 36,980,525 38,659,911 40,363,513 42,194,717 TOTAL DEBT LEVY 4,410,814 5,248,040 6,254,288 7,583,916 8,590,238 9,220,171 9,062,500 TOTAL LEVY 36,335,325 38,420,821 41,361,494 44,564,441 47,250,150 49,583,684 51,257,217 Increase in Net Levy 4.500%5.740%7.654%7.744%6.027%4.939%3.375% City of SLP Property Tax levy History/Projection 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 GENERAL LEVIES Final Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected TOTAL GENERAL LEVIES 31,924,511 33,172,781 35,107,206 36,980,525 38,659,911 40,363,513 42,194,717 TOTAL DEBT LEVY 4,410,814 5,248,040 6,254,288 6,575,916 6,852,540 7,485,281 7,321,429 TOTAL LEVY 36,335,325 38,420,821 41,361,494 43,556,441 45,512,452 47,848,794 49,516,146 Increase in Net Levy 4.500%5.740%7.654%5.307%4.491%5.133%3.485% 2.90% 3.90% 4.40% 4.50% 4.50% 5.00% 5.60% 5.70% 5.70% 6.30% 7.30% 8.00% 0.00%1.00%2.00%3.00%4.00%5.00%6.00%7.00%8.00%9.00% Maple Grove Eagan Apple Valley Blaine Eden Prairie Brooklyn Park Minnetonka St. Louis Park Burnsville Woodbury Plymouth Edina Study session meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 2) Page 8 Title: 2022 budget: info on CIP, debt, long range financial planning and preliminary levy request Fiscal Disparities: The city’s proposed 2022 fiscal disparities contribution of tax capacity to the State will be $12,849,214, a 10.12% increase from 2021. The proposed 2022 fiscal disparities distribution back to the city has not been released yet. We should have more information at the Sept. 13 work session on fiscal disparities. Next steps Below is a summary of upcoming discussions. September 13 (if necessary) High level 2022 budget, CIP, and City/HRA/EDA levy September 20 Council establishes 2022 preliminary property tax levies. (Levies can be reduced, but not increased for final property tax levies.) October 4 Utility rate study presentation and discussion October 11 Review and discussion of 2022 budget, CIP, utility rates, and LRFMP. Directors or their designees in attendance as needed. October 18 Public hearing – 1st reading of ordinance setting fees, and adoption of 2022 utility rates. Resolution creating climate investment fund. Resolution assigning fund balance and authorizing fund balance transfers. November 22 (if necessary) Final budget or CIP discussion prior to truth in taxation public hearing and budget presentation. Second reading of ordinance setting fees. December 6 Truth in Taxation Public Hearing and budget presentation December 13 (if necessary) Continuation of public hearing and any budget discussion. December 20 Council adopts 2022 budgets, final tax levies (City, HRA, EDA), and 2022 - 2031 CIP. Meeting: Study session Meeting date: August 23, 2021 Discussion item: 3 Executive summary Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization Recommended action: The city council and city manager to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled study session on Sept. 13, 2021. Policy consideration: Not applicable. Summary: This report summarizes the proposed agenda for the regularly scheduled study session on Sept. 13, 2021. Also attached to this report is: - Study session discussion topics and timeline - Proposed topics for future study session discussion Topic Proposed by Councilmembers Declaring a climate emergency Larry Kraft and Margaret Rog Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Tentative agenda – Sept. 13, 2021 Study session discussion topics and timeline Proposed topics for future study session discussion Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, administrative services office assistant Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Study session meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization Aug. 30, 2021. No meeting – 5th Monday Sept. 6-8, 2021. City council meeting canceled – Labor Day/Rosh Hashanah Sept. 13, 2021. 6:30 p.m. Study Session – council chambers Tentative discussion items 1.Charter commission – proposed amendments – administrative services (60 minutes) Discuss potential Charter amendments. 2.2022 preliminary levy – administrative services (60 minutes) Discussion of the final preliminary levy. 3.STEP update: Food access and insecurity since March 2020 – administrative services (30 minutes) Derek Reise from STEP will give an update the state of food insecurity in St. Louis Park since the food access and insecurity study which happened in March 2020. He will also discuss food shelf usage during the pandemic and what he has seen impact food insecurity the most. 4.Future study session agenda planning – administrative services (5 minutes) 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. Written reports 5.Just Deeds update 6.P5 Community and neighborhood sidewalk designations Study session meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 3) Page 3 Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization Study session discussion topics and timeline Future council items Priority Discussion topic Comments Timeline for discussion 1 Council meetings – agenda and video presentation; proclamation policy TBD 3 Public process expectations and outcomes Staff is working on the approach for undertaking this discussion. Sept. 5 Community and neighborhood sidewalk designations To be combined w/ Connect the Park discussion. Written report 9/13/21 6 Transportation commission On hold 7 Easy access to nature, across city, starting w/ low-income neighborhoods/ WHNC Access Fund *On hold pending direction from school district.*On hold 9 Public forums at council mtgs 9/23/19 SS. Staff is researching options. On hold 11 STEP discussion: facilities STEP has entered into purchase agreement for two adjacent properties. On hold + Vehicle idling Written report 6/28/21; ESC to provide a recommendation. 10/11/21 + Land acknowledgements TBD + Neighborhood-focused commercial activity in public parks 8/23/21 Council items in progress Priority Discussion topic Comments Next Steps - Policing discussion Discussed 7/27/20, 9/29/20 & 2/22/21. TBD 4 Creating pathways to home ownership for BIPOC individuals and families Discussed at 2/8/21 council meeting. 6/28/21 study session discussion Staff moving forward with developing final program details 10 Boards and commissions general review Discussed 1/25/21. Revisit after the annual workplan process. On hold + Race, equity and inclusion requirements for developers/ developments requesting TIF Discussed 8/16/21 Staff pulling together more info for further discussion - Conversion therapy ban Report on 2/22/21. Resolution adopted 3/15/21. Governor has issued an Executive Order banning conversion therapy in MN. HRC to review and make recommendations on ordinance. TBD Study session meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 3) Page 4 Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization Meeting: Study session Meeting date: August 23, 2021 Written report: 4 Executive summary Title: July 2021 monthly financial report Recommended action: No action is required. Policy consideration: Monthly financial reporting is part of our financial management policies. Summary: The monthly financial report provides an overview of general fund revenues and departmental expenditures comparing them to budget throughout the year. Financial or budget considerations: Expenditures should generally be at about 58% of the annual budget at the end of July. General fund expenditures are under budget through July by approximately 3.5%. Revenues are harder to measure in the same way due to the timing of when they are received, examples of which include property taxes, grants and State aid payments. A summary is attached and a few comments are provided below. Revenues Property tax revenue is at 51% of budget after the first half settlement. The second half settlement will be received from Hennepin County on December 1. License and permit revenues combined are at 64% of budget because nearly all of the license revenue was received early in the year. Permit revenue is at 57% of budget through July. Pool revenue is exceeding budget by 30% through July due to the warm weather. Expenditures Most departments continue to be at or under budget for expenditures. The rec center has a small variance of about 1% which is a normal seasonal variance during the pool season due to temporary staffing costs. Engineering has an overage due to the portion of staff time that has been charged to other funds for projects year to date. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Summary of revenues and departmental expenditures – general fund Prepared by: Darla Monson, accountant Reviewed by: Melanie Schmitt, chief financial officer Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Summary of Revenues & Departmental Expenditures - General Fund As of July 31, 2021 2021 2021 2019 2019 2020 2020 2021 2021 Balance YTD Budget Budget Audited Budget Audited Budget YTD Jul Remaining to Actual % General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes 26,880,004$ 26,952,306$ 28,393,728$ 28,635,694$ 29,601,811$ 15,169,188$ 14,432,623$ 51.24% Licenses and Permits 4,103,424 5,264,659 4,660,811 5,294,310 4,621,829 2,972,539 1,649,290 64.32% Fines & Forfeits 279,700 274,340 280,000 126,192 231,000 91,579 139,421 39.64% Intergovernmental 1,760,900 1,761,763 1,760,082 2,061,267 1,661,549 767,353 894,196 46.18% Charges for Services 2,187,319 2,160,345 2,273,824 1,600,806 2,013,834 1,309,649 704,185 65.03% Rents & Other Miscellaneous 1,367,012 1,500,867 1,456,102 1,201,119 1,499,091 863,047 636,044 57.57% Transfers In 1,999,877 2,012,706 2,038,338 2,049,976 2,055,017 1,185,343 869,674 57.68% Investment Earnings 180,000 523,124 210,000 486,468 200,000 66,637 133,363 33.32% Other Income 31,300 57,274 621,280 3,442,900 593,300 413,139 180,161 69.63% Use of Fund Balance 298,156 230,026 25,000 25,000 0.00% Total General Fund Revenues 39,087,692$ 40,737,411$ 41,694,165$ 44,898,732$ 42,502,431$ 22,838,474$ 19,663,957$ 53.73% General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration 1,837,620$ 1,673,619$ 1,868,599$ 1,472,421$ 1,617,882$ 743,560$ 874,322$ 45.96% Finance 1,034,199 1,078,291 1,124,045 1,194,828 1,129,591 650,532 479,059 57.59% Assessing 772,746 751,737 808,171 792,277 798,244 458,017 340,227 57.38% Human Resources 805,620 756,767 823,209 796,088 837,736 444,190 393,546 53.02% Community Development 1,502,521 1,515,672 1,571,894 1,536,657 1,576,323 862,188 714,135 54.70% Facilities Maintenance 1,170,211 1,209,474 1,265,337 1,246,439 1,349,365 729,887 619,478 54.09% Information Resources 1,674,937 1,474,604 1,709,255 1,596,487 1,683,216 984,365 698,851 58.48% Communications & Marketing 805,674 786,448 828,004 710,334 970,934 485,590 485,344 50.01% Total General Government 9,603,528$ 9,246,612$ 9,998,514$ 9,345,531$ 9,963,291$ 5,358,329$ 4,604,962$ 53.78% Public Safety: Police 10,335,497$ 10,452,038$ 10,853,821$ 10,611,141$ 11,307,863$ 6,547,513$ 4,760,350$ 57.90% Fire Protection 4,813,078 4,754,524 5,040,703 4,764,337 4,998,636 2,878,306 2,120,330 57.58% Building 2,555,335 2,430,473 2,696,585 2,321,664 2,571,968 1,387,495 1,184,473 53.95% Total Public Safety 17,703,910$ 17,637,035$ 18,591,109$ 17,697,142$ 18,878,467$ 10,813,314$ 8,065,153$ 57.28% Operations: Public Works Administration 290,753$ 214,436$ 273,318$ 216,899$ 249,256$ 123,721$ 125,535$ 49.64% Public Works Operations 3,111,481 3,099,493 3,331,966 3,168,538 3,285,820 1,654,476 1,631,344 50.35% Vehicle Maintenance 1,242,236 1,268,700 1,278,827 1,207,998 1,303,159 702,963 600,196 53.94% Engineering 570,377 609,567 551,285 531,801 523,547 367,848 155,699 70.26% Total Operations 5,214,847$ 5,192,196$ 5,435,396$ 5,125,236$ 5,361,782$ 2,849,008$ 2,512,774$ 53.14% Parks and Recreation: Organized Recreation 1,579,569 1,498,462 1,637,002 1,369,309 1,639,358 955,433 683,925 58.28% Recreation Center 1,949,657 2,041,386 2,061,394 1,864,459 2,082,697 1,235,904 846,793 59.34% Park Maintenance 1,833,297 1,820,455 1,906,363 1,802,534 1,916,643 1,034,002 882,641 53.95% Westwood Nature Center 643,750 612,266 748,683 606,378 736,515 361,645 374,870 49.10% Natural Resources 484,784 429,409 504,143 433,362 496,497 223,976 272,521 45.11% Total Parks and Recreation 6,491,057$ 6,401,977$ 6,857,585$ 6,076,042$ 6,871,710$ 3,810,960$ 3,060,750$ 55.46% Other Depts and Non-Departmental: Racial Equity and Inclusion -$ 4,592$ 314,077$ 272,994$ 341,293$ 142,628$ 198,665$ 41.79% Sustainability 26,283 497,484 244,655 432,043 165,508 266,535 38.31% Transfers Out 300,000 428,845 0.00% Contingency and Other 74,350 121,245 144,860 225,000 0.00% Total Other Depts and Non-Departmental 74,350$ 452,119$ 811,561$ 662,509$ 1,427,181$ 308,136$ 465,200$ 21.59% Total General Fund Expenditures 39,087,692$ 38,929,940$ 41,694,165$ 38,906,460$ 42,502,431$ 23,139,747$ 18,708,839$ 54.44% Study session meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 4) Title: July 2021 monthly financial report Page 2 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: August 23, 2021 Written report: 5 Executive summary Title: Business terms for redevelopment contract with Opus Development Company, LLC – Beltline Residences Recommended action: Review of proposed business terms for the redevelopment contract with Opus Development Company, LLC related to its proposed Beltline Residences development scheduled for formal consideration at the Sept. 20, 2021 EDA meeting. Policy consideration: Are the proposed business terms for the provision of tax increment financing assistance to the Beltline Residences development consistent with the EDA’s expectations and are they acceptable? Summary: Opus Development Company, LLC (“Redeveloper”) has a purchase agreement to acquire 3440 Beltline Boulevard. The Redeveloper plans to remove the structurally substandard, 58,000 square foot, office/industrial building on the property and construct a five story, 250-unit mixed-use building with 7,450 square feet of commercial space and six live/work units on the ground floor fronting Beltline Boulevard. Due to high ground water and floodplain, parking will be provided in a three-story, above ground, 320-stall ramp and 32 surface parking stalls. The proposed $78 million project includes a mix of studios, one-, two-and three-bedroom units. Beltline Residences would be a mixed income housing development with 25 (10 percent) of the units affordable to households at 50% of area median income (AMI), meeting the city’s inclusionary housing policy requirements. Three three-bedroom units would also be included in the building’s unit mix to further the city’s goals for family-sized housing. Financial or budget considerations: As outlined in previous staff reports, there are considerable extraordinary costs associated with the redevelopment property (including high ground water, floodplain and building demolition) and other requirement costs which prevent the proposed development from achieving a market rate of return sufficient to attract private financing. Consequently, the Developer applied to the EDA for tax increment financing (TIF) assistance. The EDA/city council received a staff report detailing the Redeveloper’s TIF Application at the July 26, 2021 study session. As indicated in the report, the EDA’s financial consultant determined that up to $5.2 million in TIF assistance is warranted to advance the development. Such assistance would be provided via a pay-as-you-go TIF Note. Given current estimates of market value, it is projected that the development’s TIF Note would be paid off in approximately eight years (on a net present value basis). Such assistance would derive from the establishment of a new redevelopment TIF district. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Discussion Prepared by: Greg Hunt, economic development manager Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director, EDA executive director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Study session meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 5) Page 2 Title: Business terms for redevelopment contract with Opus Development Company, LLC – Beltline Residences Discussion Background: Opus Development Company, LLC (“Redeveloper”) has a purchase agreement to acquire 3440 Beltline Boulevard. The Redeveloper plans to demolish the structurally substandard, 58,000 square foot office/industrial building on the property and construct a five story, 250-unit mixed-use building with approximately 7,445 square feet of commercial space and six live/work units on the ground floor fronting Beltline Boulevard. Due to the property’s high ground water and floodplain, parking will be provided in a three-story, above ground, 320- stall ramp and 32 surface parking stalls. The proposed $78 million development includes a mix of studios, one-, two-and three-bedroom units, including six live/work units located on the ground floor fronting Beltline Boulevard. The development’s proposed mix of unit types is as follows: Unit Type Summary Building Studio 1-bed 2-bed 3-bed Live/work TOTALS Market rate 62 126 31 1 5 225 Affordable 5 14 3 2 1 25 Total 67 140 34 3 6 250 Inclusionary housing policy: The Redeveloper proposes 25 (10 percent) of the apartment units within the development be affordable to households at 50 percent area median income (AMI), which met the city’s inclusionary housing policy requirements in effect at the time of its planning applications. The Developer also plans to include three three-bedroom units in the building’s unit mix, the majority of which would be affordable, to further the city’s goals for family-sized housing. Green building policy: The Redeveloper proposes a photovoltaic array on the building’s roof and would install electric vehicle charging stations. The Developer is exploring LEED and B3 options for its sustainability program, which may include the following: LED lighting, low VOC materials, construction waste recycling, higher efficiency HVAC systems, low flow fixtures, and recycled content materials. Final design will meet our Green Building Policy. Additionally, the development would offer bicycle storage and close proximity to mass transit at the adjacent Southwest Light Rail Beltline Boulevard Station. Together, these sustainability features would exceed the city’s current green building policy requirements. Study session meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 5) Page 3 Title: Business terms for redevelopment contract with Opus Development Company, LLC – Beltline Residences Proposed Beltline Residences concept site plan Proposed Beltline Residences building rendering Pending approval of its financing, Opus Development Company plans to commence construction on Beltline Residences by Feb. 1, 2022 and substantially complete it by Feb. 1, 2024. Opus would own and manage the development up to its stabilization and then sell it to their investors for the long term. The final plat and Second Reading of the Ordinance creating the PUD to allow construction of the proposed development were approved by the city council on July 6, 2021. Redeveloper’s request for tax increment financing assistance: The Redeveloper previously indicated that Beltline Residences’ financial proforma exhibited a gap preventing it from achieving a market rate of return sufficient to attract financing. To offset this gap, the Redeveloper applied to the EDA for tax increment financing (TIF) assistance. The EDA/city council received a staff report detailing the Redeveloper’s TIF Application at the July 26, 2021 study session along with a recommendation for the appropriate level of assistance. Study session meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 5) Page 4 Title: Business terms for redevelopment contract with Opus Development Company, LLC – Beltline Residences Level and type of financial assistance: In summary, the Redeveloper’s sources and uses statements, cash flow projections, and investor rate of return (ROR) related to the proposed mixed use, mixed income development was reviewed by staff and Ehlers (the EDA’s financial consultant). Based upon its analysis of the Redeveloper’s financial proforma, Ehlers determined that the development would not be reasonably expected to occur on the site in the foreseeable future but/for the provision of up to $5.2 million in tax increment assistance. The TIF assistance would be committed to reimburse the Redeveloper for a portion of its Public Redevelopment Costs (which includes the costs of building demolition, soil remediation and correction as well as structured parking). Upon completion of the building and verification of the Redeveloper’s qualified Public Redevelopment Costs, tax increment generated from the increased value of the property would be provided to the Redeveloper on a "pay-as-you-go" basis, which is the preferred financing method under the city's TIF Policy. It is projected that the TIF Note would be paid off in approximately 8 years with increment generated by the development consistent with other redevelopments the EDA has previously facilitated. Proposed business terms: The following is a summary of the proposed key business terms between the EDA and the Redeveloper, which are consistent with EDA Policy, past practices and previous discussions with the EDA/city council. The Redevelopment Property consists of the property highlighted in the aerial photo below. “Redevelopment Property” for proposed Beltline Residences development 1.The Redeveloper agrees to construct a multifamily housing development on the Redevelopment Property consisting of a 250-unit apartment building with approximately 7,445 square feet of ground floor commercial space along with a three- story, above ground, 320-stall ramp and 32 surface parking stalls. (the “Development”). The Development shall include a mix of studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three- bedroom units, including six live/work units located on the ground floor fronting Beltline Boulevard (the “Minimum Improvements”). Study session meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 5) Page 5 Title: Business terms for redevelopment contract with Opus Development Company, LLC – Beltline Residences 2.The EDA agrees to reimburse the Redeveloper for a portion of its Public Redevelopment Costs (defined as the costs of building demolition, soil remediation and correction, and construction of the structured parking) incurred during construction of the Development through tax increment financing (TIF) up to $5,200,000. 3.The EDA agrees to issue a tax increment revenue note (“TIF Note”) to the Redeveloper in the maximum principal amount of $5,200,000 payable from available tax increment, generated by the Development on a “pay-as-you-go” basis, over a period of approximately eight years. The TIF Note will bear interest at the lesser of 4.25% or Redeveloper’s actual financing interest rate. 4.In order to provide the tax increment to the Redeveloper, the EDA agrees to establish a new redevelopment TIF district consisting of a single parcel: 3440 Beltline Boulevard. 5.The EDA will issue the TIF Note to the Redeveloper upon completion of the Minimum Improvements and Redeveloper providing the EDA with a statement specifying the Public Redevelopment Costs incurred by the Redeveloper related to the Development along with evidence that each identified Public Redevelopment Cost has been paid or incurred by the Redeveloper. 6.The TIF assistance will be subject to a "look back" analysis to be performed by Ehlers, the EDA’s financial consultant. The look back provision ensures that if the Development’s total Public Redevelopment Costs are lower or if the project performs financially better upon stabilization than the Redeveloper’s estimates, the EDA shares economically in the success of the project by reducing the amount of TIF assistance provided. 7.Construction of the Development will commence by Feb. 1, 2022 and will be substantially completed by Feb. 1, 2024. 8.Redeveloper will comply with the city’s Inclusionary Housing Policy in effect at the time of its planning applications. Specifically, Redeveloper agrees to a 25-year covenant designating at least 25 (10 percent) of the total rental housing units will be reserved for households at or below 50 percent of area median income (AMI) and distribute the affordable units as follows (or as mutually agreed by the parties): five studio units, 14 one-bedroom units, three two-bedroom units, two three-bedroom units, and one live- work unit. 9.Redeveloper will use reasonable efforts to meet the following business enterprise and workforce participation goals for women and black, indigenous and people of color (BIPOC) in conjunction with construction of the Development: Participation Goals Women BIPOC Business Enterprises 6% 13% Workforce 20% 32% Participation goals would be applied to the Redeveloper’s project as a whole and pertain to the total amount of construction and related contracts. Redeveloper would provide and use reasonable efforts to cause its contractors/subcontractors to provide certain Study session meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 5) Page 6 Title: Business terms for redevelopment contract with Opus Development Company, LLC – Beltline Residences information and resources to prospective contractors/subcontractors before bidding; to implement procedures designed to notify women and people of color about contracting opportunities; to document steps taken to comply with participation goals and the results of actions taken; and to provide compliance report(s), all as more particularly set forth in the Contract. 10.Redeveloper will comply with the city’s Green Building Policy (in effect at the time of submission of its planning applications) and design the Development to LEED or B3 criteria in its construction and operation. In meeting our Green Building Policy, sustainability features may include: •rooftop solar array installation. •one public and 30 private Level 1 electric vehicle charging stations. •four public and two private 3.8KW Level 2 electric vehicle charging stations. •LED Lighting. •Low VOC paints and adhesives. •construction waste recycling. •higher efficiency Magic-Pak units at residences. •bike storage count: o 16 exterior o 270 interior •low flow toilet fixtures. •recycled content materials. •low water-use landscaping. •public outdoor green space. 11.Redeveloper will install the following items, at a minimum, in conformity with the city’s Planning Development Contract: •Level 1 and 2 electric vehicle charging stations and conduit for additional future Level 2 electric vehicle charging stations as provided above; •bicycle parking stalls as provided above; •landscaping and public art on the Redevelopment Property; •all items required under the city’s Building Readiness Ordinances. 12.Redeveloper and EDA mutually agree to enter into a Minimum Market Value Assessment Agreement setting a minimum property tax value for the Development. 13.Redeveloper agrees to pay reasonable administrative costs incurred by the EDA, including consultant and attorney fees, in connection with the Development. 14.If Redeveloper defaults under the Contract, the EDA may (among other things) terminate the TIF Note and the Contract. 15.The Contract and TIF Note will terminate upon the earliest of the final payment of principal and interest on the TIF Note, the required decertification of the TIF District, or an uncured Event of Default under the Contract. Study session meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 5) Page 7 Title: Business terms for redevelopment contract with Opus Development Company, LLC – Beltline Residences The above terms will serve as the basis for, and will be incorporated into, a redevelopment contract with the Redeveloper. Such terms are subject to further definition, revision and/or refinement by the EDA’s legal counsel. A copy of the draft redevelopment contract will be available for review in the community development department. Next steps: Staff will work with the EDA’s legal counsel and Opus Development Company to finalize the formal redevelopment contract based on the proposed business terms and any input received by the EDA. Formal consideration of the proposed redevelopment contract is scheduled for the Sept. 20, 2021 EDA meeting. Meeting: Study session Meeting date: August 23, 2021 Written report: 6 Executive summary Title: Climate Investment Fund proposed 2022 budget and policy Recommended action: No action required. This topic has been placed on the agenda to inform council of the proposed policy and budget for use of the forthcoming Climate Investment Fund (CIF). Policy consideration: Does the city council support the proposed budget and policy for the Climate Investment Fund for climate action programs? Summary: The city has increased its investment for implementation of the CAP since adoption in 2018. During development of the 2021 budget, council began discussing whether increased investment into implementing the CAP is needed to reach its goals. The council discussions during the January 11 and March 22 meetings on funding sustainability programs resulted in the concept of a new Climate Investment Fund, which will enable cost sharing programs to be managed without the limitations of calendar year budgeting. The Climate Investment Fund will provide a funding mechanism for an expanding menu of ongoing programs available for residents and businesses, helping to leverage private investment dollars when owners are ready to make improvements that reduce carbon emissions and lower energy costs. This new fund will be used by departments across the city to fund existing and future cost sharing programs tied to the goals and strategies within the Climate Action Plan. Financial or budget considerations: The CIF 2022 budget is $400,000, which will be directed to existing and new programs. The fund will absorb approximately $150,000 in program costs that are now budgeted in the sustainability division operating budget and the housing rehabilitation fund budget. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. Supporting documents: Discussion March 22, 2021 study session agenda Attachment A: Climate Investment Fund policy Attachment B: Climate Investment Fund 2022 budget Prepared by: Emily Ziring, sustainability manager Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, director of building and energy Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Study session meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 6) Page 2 Title: Climate Investment Fund proposed 2022 budget and policy Discussion Background: In February 2018 the city council formally adopted the city’s CAP. The goals of the plan are some of the most robust of any city in Minnesota. The biggest bowl outcome of the plan is for the community to achieve community-wide carbon neutrality by 2040, with seven important midterm goals set for 2030. During the March 22 study session continuing council discussion on long-term funding for Climate Action Plan programs, council voiced their support for the establishment of a new Climate Investment Fund (CIF), specifically for funding programs designed to leverage private investments that contribute to reaching CAP goals. The idea is to add enough of an incentive on top of private investment (owner contributions, utility rebates, and grants) to spur action around energy efficiency, renewables, fuel switching, waste reduction, and other Climate Action Plan goals. Present considerations: The policy proposed for the Climate Investment Fund would be to pay for on-going cost share programs that are likely to fluctuate in cost and target audience from year to year. The fund balance would roll over from year to year, making it suitable for funding projects that may be approved in one calendar year but completed in the following year. Once the cost sharing incentive programs (such as Climate Champions for business and Climate Champions for residents) are set up, the funds could target both the residential and commercial sectors simultaneously. Given the broad guidelines for use of the funds, the Climate Investment Fund has the potential to make transformative changes within the community, bringing us closer to meeting our climate action goals. Planned program expenditures will be approved by council during the budget process. Staff recommends that the Solar Sundown and Climate Champions for business programs continue into 2022, while additional programs may be designed and launched (depending on the adopted budget and staffing resources). A list of those programs may be found in Attachment B: Climate Investment Fund 2022 budget. New program launches are dependent on having enough staff to design, administer and communicate them. Fully implementing envisioned programming and meeting program goals is dependent on staffing resources. This has been recognized in previous years but, due to COVID budget restrictions, additional staffing has not been allocated. The draft 2022 budget envisions an additional FTE to support this work. In future years, more cost share programs may be added as Climate Investment Fund budget and staffing levels allow. Staff recommends, for example, that an electric vehicle charger cost sharing program launch in 2023 in preparation for Clean Cars rule to go into effect in January 2024. Because the climate crisis requires an enterprise-wide response, the Climate Investment Fund will be shared by multiple departments. The sustainability division may use the fund for programs such as Climate Champions and Solar Sundown, while the natural resources division (for example) may use the fund for a carbon banking/tree planting program, and the solid waste division may use it for a deconstruction program. Study session meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 6) Page 3 Title: Climate Investment Fund proposed 2022 budget and policy As council discussed in January and March, many of these city expenditures can be offset directly and indirectly by the benefits the city, businesses and residents will receive including utility cost savings, carbon reduction, increased resilience to extreme weather events, improved aesthetics, reduced maintenance costs and improved indoor and outdoor environmental quality. While integration of our Climate Action Plan goals into the regular operation of the city is occurring and proposed to continue, the Climate Investment Fund is not a funding mechanism for city operating or capital expenditures. Financial considerations: The Climate Investment Fund is recommended to be established with available dollars from the unrestricted fund balance from the 2020 operating budget. The proposed CIF 2022 budget is $400,000, which will be directed to existing and new programs. The fund will absorb approximately $150,000 in program costs that are now in budgeted in the sustainability division operating budget and the housing rehabilitation fund budget. The first year budget of the Climate Investment Fund is just the beginning of what staff believes will be a long-term funding mechanism; it is intended to build momentum for climate action in the community. The amount that will be required to leverage private investment in future years will be dependent on the level of community participation at that time. With successful cost share programs and consistent community engagement encouraging the public to take advantage of them, additional revenue sources should be planned for to maintain a sufficient Climate Investment Fund balance. Next steps: If council is supportive of establishing this funding mechanism and provides direction on continued funding, staff will make the required adjustments during the budget process. 1 City of St. Louis Park Climate Investment Fund Policy I.PURPOSE The City of St. Louis Park established a Climate Investment Fund to provide a source of funds for cost sharing incentive programs that aim to accelerate progress towards reaching the city’s Climate Action Plan goals. Because in most cases the city cannot compel residents and business owners to take action that requires a financial investment, the best way to reach community- wide climate goals is to provide cost sharing funds to encourage and leverage private investment (owner contributions, utility rebates, and grants) over the long term and to pair those funds with increased outreach and education. The Climate Investment Fund is intended to be a permanent endowment and continually renewable source of funds for these cost sharing programs. This policy is intended to set forth the general requirements and guidelines regarding the use of the Climate Investment Fund. The city council may modify the terms at any time. II.FUNDING THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT FUND Cost sharing programs are likely to fluctuate in cost and target audience from year to year, and as a result funding levels may also fluctuate. The fund balance will roll over from year to year, making it suitable for funding projects that may be approved in one calendar year but completed in the following year. City staff will provide recommendations to council to capitalize and maintain the fund balance in the Climate Investment Fund; staff will evaluate and forecast participation levels annually and determine how best to adjust to meet the needs of the community and the goals of the Climate Action Plan. Page 4 Study session meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 6) Title: Climate Investment Fund proposed 2022 budget and policy 2 III.USE OF THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT FUND The Climate Investment Fund is intended to fund cost sharing programs developed to encourage private investment required to meet Climate Action Plan goals. The following general guidelines will be followed in connection with the use of funds from the Climate Investment Fund: 1.Cost sharing programs may include, but are not limited to the following: (i) building energy efficiency improvements; (ii) fuel switching such as replacing natural gas appliances with electric appliances; (iii) building water efficiency improvements; (iv) renewable energy installations; (v) electric vehicles and/or electric vehicle chargers; (vi) carbon banking, which may include tree planting and new green infrastructure; and (vii) solid waste reduction such as deconstruction and salvage. 2.Whenever possible, cost sharing programs will include considerations of equity, including but not limited to the following: (i) inclusive involvement and engagement; (ii) policy and program design; (iii) populations and people who are more likely to benefit or be burdened; and (iv) communications. 3.Cost sharing programs will be designed to prioritize projects that provide the greatest carbon savings per dollar invested. 4.Consideration of Climate Investment Fund cost sharing program eligibility and rules will be established by the city at the time of approval of a specific project or program. IV.PROCESS In establishing projects and programs to be funded using the Climate Investment Fund, the city will to the extent possible: 1.Establish eligibility and rules for each project or program unless the project or program already exists. 2.Establish a timeframe for completing the project or program, if applicable. 3.Establish a process for providing evidence that the project or program was completed according to the rules set forth. Page 5 Study session meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 6) Title: Climate Investment Fund proposed 2022 budget and policy Climate Investment Fund FY2022 budget Program Description Budget Solar Sundown v2.0 Continuation of Solar Sundown program, which reimburses property owners 4% or 6% for the cost of installing rooftop solar. Rooftop solar reduces electricity bills by generating power on-site and can increase property values.125,000$ Solar for Vouchers - Multifamily Offers larger cost share for property owners who install solar and agree to provide a certain number of units to low- income households through the Section 8 program for 5 years.25,000$ Climate Champions (business, multifamily and residential) Continuation of cost share program for properties that take action to improve energy efficiency, including lighting retrofits, HVAC and equipment replacement. Energy improvements will reduce utility bills and can improve aesthetics and security. Includes Home Energy Squad program and residential energy efficient rebate program.125,000$ Carbon banking Carbon biosequestration--tree planting and other green infrastructure to capture and store carbon dioxide, enhancing property values and aesthetics and reducing owners' utility costs through increased shading and reduced flooding.125,000$ TOTAL 400,000$ DRAFT 8/19/2021 Page 6 Study session meeting of August 23, 2021 (Item No. 6) Title: Climate Investment Fund proposed 2022 budget and policy